The recently discovered apocryphal monument “Song of Solomon” and A. Harnask’s attempt to involve him in the question of the origin of the 4th canonical Gospel

The recently discovered apocryphal monument "Song of Solomon" (Ώ ιδαί Σολομώντος) and A. Harnack's attempt to involve him in the question of the origin of the fourth canonical Gospel Apocryphal biblical literature in 1909 was enriched by a happy discovery. In a work of Syrian papyri, originating “from countries near the Tigris River,” the Englishman Rendel Harris found notebooks covered with clear, although crude, Nestorian writing, vocalized in the Eastern way, with the later addition of Jacobite vocalization. The last pages reproduced the well-known text - they contained the so-called. "Psalms of Solomon". But the text contained in the first notebooks could not be easily identified, especially since its title and initial pages were lost. The name of the monument was also not given at the end of the collection. Likewise, individual “songs” had neither title nor numbering. It was possible to determine the volume and end of the “songs” only due to the fact that each “song” ended with “Alleluia”. The age of the found manuscript is approximately 300 - 400 years, i.e. it is believed to have been written around 1550. The foresight of the brilliant Cambridge scientist helped him to recognize in the newly discovered monument the Songs of Solomon, noted in some ancient catalogs and stichometries. One quotation from the said monument is preserved by Lactantius, and a curious Gnostic work, in the Coptic language, known as the Pistis Sophia (3rd century), has preserved from it still more important fragments, which have proved very useful in comparing them with the surviving Syriac text. “Songs of Solomon” differs from similar works in its freshness of inspiration and exceptional religious warmth. Harris's discovery, made in 1906 and published by him in 1909 in Cambridge ("The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, now first published from the Syriac version") in an edition containing the Syriac text of the Songs and Psalms of Solomon, together with an English translation, notes and introduction 2, aroused the keenest interest of theologians and exegetes. A significant number of more or less valuable individual studies and journal articles have already been written on the issue of the origin, initial fate, content and significance of the newly discovered monument. On some of the most fundamental issues, authoritative scientists disagreed with each other quite significantly, and in relation to the present monument, it was revealed to a large extent that it was the general fundamental mutual divergence of some very famous scientists (especially A. Harnack and Th. Zahn). The indicated discrepancy in the views of scientists in this case is due to the actual different solution to the question: to which era - pre-Christian or post-Christian - does the origin of the so-called. "Song of Solomon". The solution to this question was already given special, very important significance at the very beginning - by A. Harnack’s attempt to find in the named monument traces and evidence of the existence in Judaism in the pre-Christian era of almost all the most important elements of theology contained in our fourth canonical Gospel. With this formulation, the study of the monument immediately went beyond the framework of an objective study of a separate apocryphal monument in a series of homogeneous works, and unexpectedly acquired fundamental significance - as evidence for or against - on a very important issue - about the identity and originality of the Gospel of John, and with it - in essence - all of Christianity. The moment of subjective mood and biased tendentiousness received its vivid expression in numerous experiments in various illumination of the fate and character of our monument. But the possibility of this significant discrepancy in relation to the monument is undoubtedly determined by some features of the document itself, which in some respects is a truly mysterious phenomenon. Scientists disagree not only on the question of whether the so-called “Songs of Solomon” is a Judeo-Christian work, or is it a Jewish apocrypha, interpolated by a Christian hand, or, finally, we have in the named document a Christian one-part work. Not so sharp, however, serious differences are also observed on other issues, starting with the definition of the original language of the “Songs”. Harris argued from the beginning that the original language of the Cantos was Greek. This conclusion is currently accepted by almost all critics (eg Wellhausen, Gunke1, SchuItess, Th. Zahn). On the contrary, Hubert Grimme recognized the Hebrew language as such. Grimme argued that it was only possible to explain the difficulties and obscure passages of the Songs by restoring the Hebrew text. Prior to the publication of the complete reproduction, he gave in the magazine “Theologie und Glaube” (Paderborn 1911, Januar) an example of his method in the appendix to the 19th “Song”, one of those that is considered the most corrupt. Credit must be given to the excellent knowledge of the Hebrew and Syriac languages ​​shown in the experience of translation by the said scholars; One cannot help but be surprised by the experience of strophic reconstruction, which is generally the touchstone of philological abilities and knowledge. However, all the scholarship of the philologist was not able to convince other researchers. An attempt to reproduce a Greek text recognized as original was presented by W. Frankenberg 3 . In fact, the “Semitisms” that are undoubtedly contained in the “Songs” are what Wellhausen rightly called “Biblicisms” - echoes of the Bible in the Greek translation. On the other hand, the passages of the Coptic translation suggest the original Greek language, in which even a few passages are preserved in them 4 . Likewise, neither symbolism nor stylistics appear to be specifically Semitic. Lejay's review, published in the Bulletin d'ancienne litterature et d'arcéologie chrétienne, noted purely classical metaphors in the text of the monument, and also indicated the analogy that the seven “Songs” represent in their initial stanzas with the lyrical poetry of the Greeks and Romans, then Pindar and the tragedians up to Horace. Diettrich pointed out one detail that is not without significance from a philological point of view. Truth (Song 23:5) is symbolized in the form of a virgin. But the Syriac word, which corresponds to the Greek “truth,” is masculine (schróro); the comparison can only be made if we assume the Greek original 5. This consideration is supported by the statement of borrowings made from the text of LXX (cf. esp. song 20c Exodus, 20:25). It is unlikely that the publication of Grimm's entire translation will be able to shake these conclusions 6 . The Syriac text of the “Songs” is generally poorly preserved. Experts rightly note a large number of faults in it - in the form of errors in punctuation, omission of letters, and errors of all kinds. The translation of the text is far from imperfect: the author’s idea is often simply not understood by the copyist, and sometimes, apparently, it was incorrectly conveyed by the first translator from Greek to Syriac 7 . In their structure, the “songs” tend to imitate the form of Jewish poetry, especially the canonical psalms: they consist of short sentences, clearly separated from each other grammatically, so, however, that the sentences almost always come in pairs. The reason for attributing the authorship of the “Songs” to King Solomon, the son of David, could be found in the sacred writing itself. In 1 Kings. 4 About Solomon it is said: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his song was a thousand and five.” So in Hebrew, Targum, Peshitto, Vulgate, Russian. Meanwhile, in LXX (and in Slavic) the number of songs = 5,000 (καί ήσαν φδαί αύτοϋ πεντακισχίλιαι). Probably, even in ancient times there was a collection of “Songs” attributed to Solomon. Perhaps a brief excerpt from such a collection is preserved in 1 Kings 8:53 - but only in the text of the LXX translation (as opposed to the Hebrew text, Targum, Syriac translation and Vulgate). Here, at the end of Solomon’s prayer, which he said at the consecration of the church, we read (according to the Slavic translation): Then Solomon spoke about the church, when you are ready to build it: create the sun known in heaven: The Lord said, abide in darkness: build my church, a splendid church for yourself, to abide in the news: is not this written in the books of the Song (ούκ ίδού αυγέγραπται έν βιβλίφ τής φδής ). It is clear that the question of the last phrase contains an affirmative answer. It can be assumed that the Alexandrian translators did not give their own free composition in this passage, but that they already had in the Hebrew original (at least in one Hebrew manuscript) a corresponding message, which was, perhaps, only a later gloss 8. That the artificial increase in Solomon’s writings was influenced precisely by 1 Kings, 4 and 8:53, this can be seen from the fact that our monument in the so-called. Synopsis'e Athanasii and in Nikephoros' stichometry was called φδή Σολομώντος. Singular φδή, as the name of a special monument, especially along with the plural. ch. The mystic poet (and precisely a Christian, as will be shown below) appears in the “Songs” in the role of the Old Testament King Solomon, as a divinely inspired prophet, and puts these lyrical outpourings into the mouth of this glorious son of David, especially vaticinia ex eventu. The first and hitherto only writers who cited excerpts from the “Songs of Solomon” - the author of “Pistis Sophia” and Lactantius - were convinced that it was none other than King Solomon, inspired by the Spirit of God, or even the Son of God who was incarnate, who spoke these songs through Solomon. If Solomon appears to the speaker as a typological prototype of the One who was greater than Solomon (Matt. 12:42), then the basis for this could be the fact that in Psalm 71, which was considered either to belong to Solomon as a writer, or - in any case - was recognized as relating to Solomon in its content - in the person of Solomon, the ideal King of Israel, the Messiah and His kingdom, are prophetically depicted, embracing all nations and subduing all kings. True, in our monument sometimes the difference between the personality of the poet and the Divine Redeemer, Who is called “Anointed,” “Son,” “Beloved,” appears clearly. But often the reader involuntarily asks the eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia: who is the prophetic singer talking about? Is it about yourself, or about someone else? (Acts 8:34). And in many cases the answer may not be different, but the same as that given to the nobleman Philip: he is talking about Jesus Christ (v. 35). And this is what the poet does not only in those cases where he turns to Christ as his Lord, the Anointed One, the Helper, the Son of God, the highest object of his faith and his love, but sometimes also in those places where his speech takes the form of self-revelation. From this point of view, it becomes clear that the striking feature of the “Songs” becomes clear to the reader, that they do not clearly speak about sin and sinfulness. Speaking on behalf of Solomon, who typologically prefigures Christ Himself, the compiler of the “Songs” - naturally - did not have the psychological convenience to put into the mouth of a speaker in such dignity of Solomon a confession of his sin or his sinfulness 10 . The main content of the Songs is undoubtedly Christian, not Jewish. The law has no force; only the fulfillment of love is obligatory. The entire monument is imbued with the living joy of a new universal revelation. Circumcision is replaced by renewal from the Holy Spirit. Christ is not only the expected, the coming; He has already come, and the benefits He brought to the believers are completely different from what the Jews expected. He appeared to people and is known by believers inseparably with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is called Lord. Word, Son, Beloved. He was crucified, descended into hell, and rose again. The goal of religion is the closest inner unity with God. Christ is the model and means for achieving such unity. It is carried out by the gracious revelation of God and the faith of man. Nowhere in the “Songs” is it said about the remission of sins, but only about liberation from error, which is evil, since it darkens the light of knowledge. Knowledge is living water. The community of believers is affirmed by the unity of the Holy Spirit, without any external connections 11. This is, in brief, the very interesting and original content of the recently discovered apocryphal monument known as the “Songs of Solomon”, which until very recently represented a lot of controversial and unclear even regarding the most fundamental issues. However, the military significance of the study and interpretation of this monument was given, as already mentioned, by A. Harnack himself, to whom our monument opens up new horizons for explaining the features and environment of the origin of our fourth Gospel, of course, in a strictly evolutionary spirit, in the sense of the further development of what was supposedly already given in the hitherto unknown mystical direction of Judaism of the time of Christ the Savior. A. Harnack thinks to find evidence and traces of the historical existence of this particular movement in Judaism in our monument. A. Harnack suggests that the “Songs of Solomon,” like the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” are basically a Ludean monument, a book of psalms, from the era of Jesus Christ, which was accepted by the Christian community in Palestine and revised throughout its entire length 12 . Harnack calls the discovery of this monument in relation to the higher criticism of the Gospel of John epochemachend, because the “Songs” contained in it - and, moreover, precisely in its main edition, and not in just a Christian revision - supposedly already contain all the essential elements of John’s theology, along with its religious overtones. “John” actually only connected the named elements of these “psalms” with the personality of Jesus Christ, giving them even greater sublimity and expressiveness 13 . According to Harnack's figurative expression, in the original "Songs" of Solomon we have before us a quarry from which the slabs of John's theology were hewn 14. Harnack means in this case the following “complex” of concepts found in the “songs”, which we also find in the Gospel of John: χάρις, πιστεύειν, γνσις, άλήθεια, φώς, ϋδωρ ζών, άγάπη, ζωή. The writer of the fourth Gospel, however, did not somehow “mechanically” rework the system of these concepts - no: all of his writing is imbued with a single, holistic concept. “He united the synoptic, i.e. – according to Harnack – the historical Christ with this religion of light, love, life, and this latter was based on Christ.” But - at the same time - we can now consider it quite certain that this religion was not speculative Hellenistic, but that it grew on Jewish soil, albeit under alien influences 15. In one - especially - point, the mystical religiosity of the indicated Jewish “Songs” according to Harnack is certainly lower than Christianity: it knows nothing about sin, repentance and forgiveness of sins. Here the enormous distance between the theology of the “Songs” is revealed not only from the teachings of the Ap. Paul, but even from the teachings of John the Baptist and Christ Himself. Therefore, at its core, this mysticism is not Christian (and also not truly Jewish). Since the theology of the “Songs” lacks the indicated concepts, the concepts of “goodness”, “grace” and “mercy” often used here receive a different – ​​compared to the Christian – meaning: they relate to people as helpless, persecuted and mortal creatures. A whole significant area of ​​guilt and grace falls away 16. Likewise, the worldview of the “Songs” is very far from anything messianic 17. The compiler of the "Songs" does not recognize the need for messianic deliverance, for he feels himself already redeemed from God 18. Everything in between - the ceremonies of the cult, the entire ritual apparatus - is completely neglected by him (sind unter seinem Fusse). Nowadays the author of the “Songs” would be recognized as a pious person of the liberal type; he is imbued with the spirit of love, but without the seriousness and depth of Christian knowledge of sin. He does not mention the people of God, so the history of God’s chosen people is beyond his horizons. The writer of the fourth Gospel, before becoming a Christian, was already a Jewish mystic, like the compiler of our “Songs” 19. The Songs of Solomon were subsequently significantly changed in the spirit of Christian views, mainly through interpolations 20. Harnack believes that these later insertions can be isolated and - in this way - the original text of the Songs can be restored. Only with this assumption does Harnack seem possible to explain those inconsistencies and cases of violation of the planned flow of speech that he finds in the present text. In some places, sections with undeniably Christian content appear as if ex abrupto, sounding dissonant with what precedes and follows 21. Two “Songs” (4th and 6th) are probably entirely Jewish, because both of them talk about the church, and the 4th “Song” defends the advantage of the “more ancient” church over the “newer”. The scientist believes that these “Odes” were written earlier than 70 BC. But, on the other hand, two “Songs” (19 and 26) are probably of Christian origin, for they talk about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as the cross. The interpolator type of Christology is closely related to the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. Apparently he knew the last 22. Harnack suggests that the Jewish Songs were composed by one prophet who belonged to the circle of mystical Jews in the period between 50 BC and 67 AD. Christian revision did not take place until the end of the first century. The work of the interpolator was carried out according to Harnack around the hundredth year 23. A. Harnack’s opinion that the original edition of the “Songs” belonged to a Jewish author, but subsequently the original text was interpolated by the hand of a Christian, was also accepted by Spitta 24, Dietrich 25, M. Goguel 26, H. Grimme 27, W. Staerk 28, T. K. Cheyne 29 and others. However, the most basic thesis of A. Harnack cannot claim to be indisputable, since the possibility of a different understanding of “Songs” 4 and 6 is not eliminated, in which the scientist thinks to find the teaching about the eternity and irreplaceability of the Old Testament church. For example, Gunkel 30 opposes this thesis, not without reason. In “Song” 4, which begins with the words: “No one will move (or change) Your sanctuary, my God, no one will change it and put it in another place”..., A. Harnack sees the work as purely Jewish, since by “sanctuary” here one can mean, as he believes, only the temple of Jerusalem, which cannot be replaced by any other church, for example, the church in Leontopolis. But Gunkel considers it possible to interpret the entire “Song” in a purely Christian sense. The Lord gave the believers his heart; they, like archangels, bear his seal. What the Lord promised He will not take back, “for it was established before Him from the beginning.” In this connection, by “sanctuary” we should understand, more naturally, not the temple of Jerusalem, but precisely the heavenly sanctuary, paradise, the true land of promise, about which other “Songs” also speak (for example, 11:14-21) - in expressions that are, admittedly, more clear, but in any case similar. According to Wellhausen, the sanctuary of the 4th "Song" is the predestined society of believers in God of all times 31. According to Th. Zahn'a, God's thought about the spiritual church, which preceded the creation of the world, is realized in the society of believers to whom God has given His heart - in which He - through His constant activity - bears fruit 32. The image of a temple to express the idea of ​​universal spiritual service to God is quite understandable and completely natural in the concept of the author of the Songs, who wished to speak on behalf of Solomon, the creator of the temple to the true God, who prayed that the pagans would not be deprived of the benefits of communion with God in this temple and that all the peoples of the earth would be brought to the knowledge of the true God (1 Kings 8:41-43). But, in any case, the image of the church symbolized a spiritual and mystical concept. Otherwise, we would have a single exception in the passage under discussion, which would contradict the entire character of the “Songs”. Thus, sometimes the poet calls himself a priest of the Lord and speaks of his priestly service, which, naturally, gives an idea of ​​the church (20:1 next). But the sacrifices that he makes in this sanctuary are not offerings of animals and plants, not even prayers, but these sacrificial gifts are characterized primarily as divine thoughts, which are in no way similar to the thoughts of the world and the flesh, as well as the thoughts of those who work in a carnal way (i.e., perform sensual worship); further, as divine justice, purity of heart and lips, abstinence from violence, merciful love for a stranger and a poor neighbor, in the image of the unenvious goodness and mercy of God. This is what it means to enter heaven (3–9). In the poet's view, any cult that consists in the offering of material sacrificial gifts is excluded - as λατρεύειν κατά σάρκα. The compiler of the 20th “Song” stands here on the same point of view as expressed, for example, in Romans 12; Philipp. 3:3; 1 Peter 2:5; John 4:21–24 33 . From the "Song" VI is attracted by A. Harnack's trace. place. “A stream flowed out, and it became a great and wide stream; he flooded and destroyed everything and brought it to the church, and the obstacles erected by people could not stop him. Gunkel believes that this “song” rather describes the triumph of Christianity even over Judaism, under the guise of depicting the beneficial effects of living water (8–9). Its flow did not bring it to the church, but, as Gunkel translates, it took with it the church, which, like everything else, could not stand before it (“und hat den Tempel mit fortgenommen”) 34. Even if we do not defend the correctness of Gunkel’s translation, which is alone 35 and diverges from other translations made so far, Gunkel’s understanding of the 6th “Song” can still be considered generally correct. The bringing of all those who joined the Lord to the temple in Zion was the subject of a prophetic foreshadowing even by the prophet Isaiah (57:6–7), but, as a symbol, it could naturally be preserved and used in a metaphorical sense in depicting the universality and all-conquering power of Christianity. Already the historical Solomon, at the consecration of the church he built, confessed that not only this church does not contain God, but that “heaven and the heaven of heavens” do not contain, that no place on earth, and even the whole earth, cannot be called in the proper sense His dwelling place. On the other hand, the revealed St. The apostles thought that God has His true dwelling in the community of the redeemed by Christ (2 Cor. 6:16; Apoc. 11:3), which is His true church (cf. 1 Cor. 4 seq., 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-6; Apoc. 3;12. Wed also Matthew, 21; John 2:19; Ezek. 37:27. If the place of visible stay in Israel, not only during the journey through the desert, but also in the promised land, moved for a long time from one place to another; and if the church built in Zion, which seemed to last forever, was in fact more than once subjected to destruction to the ground, then only the church built by human hands, the community of true believers in the Lord, remained unshakable. For God founded his kingdom on the rock (“Song” 22:11, seq.), - which designation is only another name for the community. It is precisely called allegorically “church” and “dwelling place of God” 36. So - contrary to the statement of A. Harnack - “Songs” 4 and 6 are not necessarily considered Jewish in terms of their content and, therefore, in origin. How strong is now the second thesis of the famous scientist about the two-part nature of some “Songs” and about the possibility of highlighting both of their constituent elements? The 3rd “Song” is missing the beginning. The surviving text reads: ... I put on His members (according to another reading: “my members”) are with Him (cf. Eph. 4th), I cleave to Him, and He loves me. For I would not have been able to love the Lord if He had not loved me first (cf. John 14:21; 1 John 4:19). Who is able to talk about love, except the one who loves. I love the Beloved, and my soul loves Him, and where His rest (i.e., place of peace) is, there I am also; I am not a stranger, for there is no envy of the Lord, the Most High and the Most Merciful. I united (with Him; actually mingled (with Him), for the one who loves has found the Beloved. Since I love Him, the Son, I (and myself) will become a son (cf. John 14:21). For he who cleaves to one who is immortal, in turn, becomes immortal. And whoever has favor with “Life” (or - with “Living”, “He who has Life”) will live (cf. John 6:57).” – The department beginning with the word “son” seems to Harnack “like an unexpected shot from a revolver” and destroying all connection, i.e., he concludes, interpolated 37. However, the flow of thoughts in this “Song” seems understandable, even if interpolation is not assumed. The closest union with the Lord is a thought quite clearly and definitely expressed in Christianity from the very beginning, but later it was revealed in detail and with persistence by Christian mystics, especially by teachers. Macarius of Egypt. Harnack himself points out the analogies of this thought in 1 Cor., 6( ό κολλώμενος τφ κυίφ έν πνεύμά έστιν) And 2 Peter., 1( κοινωνοί θείας φύσεως ). But from a Christian point of view, the closest unity with God is achieved only through union with Christ, as was later expressed, for example, by the teacher. Macarius of Egypt. With this understanding of this passage, the speech about the “son” does not in the least disrupt the consistent and coherent flow of thoughts, and therefore there is no obstacle to considering the III “Song” not as an originally Jewish work, but as a Christian poetic and mystical prayer outpouring. 3 tbsp. The 36th “Song” is also recognized by Harnack as an interpolation, and, moreover, done as if in a very unskillful manner 38 . The text reads: “I rest on the Spirit of the Lord, and He raised me up on high and set me on my feet on the height of the Lord before His perfection and His greatness, and I praised Him with the harmony of my songs. He (the Spirit, feminine) gave birth to me before the face of the Lord and, although I am a man, I was called light, the son of God; But I praised Him with those who praised Him, and I was great among the mighty. For according to the greatness of the Most High He created me and according to His renewal He renewed me and anointed me according to His perfection. And I became one of those close to Him,” etc. According to Harnack, verse 3 must be recognized as an interpolation, for it unexpectedly places the Son as the subject of the song, speaking about himself in the first person, in the place of the singer. But if we put the entire “Song” into the mouth of Jesus of the “Ophites” or some other similar early Christian heresy, then the “Song” will be understandable without the assumption of interpolation. At first only a simple man, this Jesus, who was born of a Virgin and was wiser, purer and more righteous than all other people, only gradually becomes the light and Son of God. But, perhaps, not Jesus at all, but the singer himself remains invariably the subject in the entire “Song” from beginning to end, while verse 3 speaks only of his rebirth and elevation to sonship with God in the sense of Art. 8. and gave. analyzed "Song". Both understandings of the present place are in any case possible. But then Song 26 may be purely Christian. And the 28th “Song” can be recognized as an integral work if its features are attributed to its Gnostic character, although with a different coloring compared to the previous one. Here the subject, also speaking about himself in the first person, depicting his unity with the Spirit of God, continues: “those who saw me were surprised, for I was persecuted, and they thought that I would be swallowed up (properly swallowed), so that I seemed to them already lost. However, my oppression served me to save and I served to reject them (cf. Luke 2:34; Matthew 21:44), although (in the text “because”; the text in this place is considered faulty) there was no envy in me. Because I did good to everyone (cf. Acts 10:38), they hated me. And they surrounded me like mad dogs (cf. Ps. 22:17), those who in their folly went against their own Lord. For their mind is corrupted and their meaning is perverted. But I held the water in my right hand, and their bitterness was borne by my sweetness. And I did not die, because I was not their brother, for my origin was not the same with them (properly with “their origin”). And they sought my death, but did not achieve it, for I was older than their memory. And they threatened me in vain.” Harnack makes the following note to this place: “from here you can see that Christ cannot be understood here.” Of course, it is in no way possible to understand the Christ confessed by the Church here, but nothing prevents us from understanding the docetic idea of ​​Christ - just as, for example, in the “Acts of John” (p. 101) we read: “I (in reality) did not suffer anything from what is said about me; but I want even the suffering that I showed you and others in the round dance to be able to call a mystery.” – If we put the entire “Song” into the mouth of Christ “Docetes” or even “Ophites”, then it will be completely understandable - in any case, much more understandable than in the mouth of a Jewish mystic 39 . “Song” 33 depicts how God opened a new period of grace on earth... “And He drew to Himself all who listened to Him and He did not appear (was not recognized) as evil. But the immaculate Virgin rose (rose), who preached, called and said: you, sons of men, turn, and you, daughters, come; leave the ways of this corruption and draw near to me, and I will enter your midst and lead you out of destruction; and I will instruct you to walk in the paths of truth. You must not become corrupted and come to ruin. Listen to me and let me save you, for I proclaim the grace of God among you, and by my hands you will be saved and blessed. I am your judge and those who have put on me must not allow any untruth, but they must own a new, enduring world. My chosen ones, walk in me, and I will proclaim my ways to those who seek me, and I will awaken in them hope in my name.” Harnak is perplexed: “Immaculate Virgin”? Who is this? The wisdom of God (Prov. 8)? In any case, this cannot apply to the Virgin Mary... Of course, perhaps the Spirit of the Holy Virgin speaks in messianic terms... And this “Song” gives the impression of a compilation work” 40. “It is highly characteristic,” says Harnack in another place, “that the singer puts the only sermon that can be called messianic into the mouth of the immaculate Virgin. The scientist draws the conclusion from this that the singer is far from both vulgar Jewish messianism and faith in Christ.” But all this argumentation crumbles to dust if we take into account Dölger's information about the meaning of the expression: παρθένος άγνή 41. Παρθένος άγνή already in Ap. Paul means Church (2 Cor. 11:2). The word is especially found in this meaning among writers of the second century: in the so-called. “The Sibylline Books”, in the Gnostic Mark, in Egesippus, in Hermas, in the letter to the Lyon Church, in Methodius of Patara (or “Olympus”), in the inscription of Averky. It is quite natural, in this monument, to identify the “Immaculate Virgin” specifically with the Church, just as our “Songs” in general resemble the circle of thoughts found in the literature of that era. So. arr., there are enough reasons to agree with the conclusion of P. Batiffol that “the dualistic hypothesis, which is perfectly justified for such compositions as “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in this case does not stand up to serious testing” 42. So, a check of some (the most characteristic) cases of interpretation by A. Harnack shows that much of what seems mysterious to the defender of later interpolations based on the original purely Jewish - in its content and origin - monument - becomes understandable if we consider the “Odes” to be a work that reflected the Gnostic worldview of the early era of Christianity. True, some features of this gnosis are not yet fully covered by already known descriptions of gnosis. Perhaps we are observing here gnosis in its earliest, primary form, while among church writers gnosis is characterized already in its later ramifications and further forms of development. A rare mixture of deeply Christian, beautiful thoughts and sincere poetic outpourings of the heart with quaint, refined and incomprehensible passages, constant talk of redemption and glorification without any trace of a deep sense of sin, repentance and forgiveness 43 - all this is more favorable to the assumption just expressed than to the hypothesis of Harnack. The Songs reflect the influence not only of Johannine theology, but also of the thoughts and terminology of St. Ap. Paul and other New Testament writings 44 . Much that is undeniably Christian, much that - at least - can be understood in a Christian sense - clearly permeates most of these "Songs". Particular features of the worldview of the “Jewish hymnist,” as A. Harnack portrays them, do not agree with each other. The “Church” for the compiler of the original Jewish basis of the “Songs” is very valuable and sacred, since once he connects even true knowledge with it 45, but the entire church cult is left aside from him 46. The mysticism and individualism of the “compiler” are difficult to reconcile with his teaching about the exclusive significance of the church. According to Harnack, the worldview of the “Jewish hymnist” does not contain “any messianic features” and does not take into account messianism at all 47. Meanwhile, the fourth Gospel sets its main task to depict Christ, precisely as the Messiah and Son of God (20:31). And Christ Himself with all decisiveness in the fourth Gospel proclaims Himself to be the true Messiah (4:25-26). The very concepts, general Ap. John and the monument being examined, are actually Old Testament-biblical in nature and source. But the way they are used undoubtedly shows the originality of the Gospel of John in comparison with the Songs. In the last monument the same concepts are revealed in more artificial and refined expressions and images. For example, “the dwelling place of the word is man, and his (i.e. the word’s) truth is love” (12:11). “His love has nourished my heart, and his fruits flow from my lips” (16:3). And here is an image of the properties of living water: “Draw water from the living fountain of the Lord, for it is open to you, and come, all you who are thirsty, drink and be refreshed at the fountain of the Lord, for it is beautiful and pure and strengthens souls. Its water is more pleasant than honey and the honeycombs of bees cannot be compared with it (in terms of sweetness). From the mouth of the Lord she flowed, and from the heart of the Lord her name arises,” etc. (38:1–2). However, A. Harnack himself agrees that in the “Songs” only individual elements of “Johnn” theology were given in advance and prepared. “The original genius with which “John” reworked the complex of concepts that had already existed before him, melted it down and purified it, still remains very great, because significant progress is observed in important points” 48. But, as we have seen, the very existence of pre-Christian mysticism in Judaism in the form as it is portrayed by A. Harnack, is not confirmed by anything, because the “Songs” of Solomon do not at all serve as evidence in favor of Harnack’s hypothesis about the anticipation of the essential content of the fourth Gospel in the named monument, and the “complex” of concepts common to both has its root and basis in the Old Testament sacred books itself 49. This also fully explains the fact that the monument under examination was attested by writers only of the Christian era - the Ophite monument “Πίστις Σοφία”, which interprets the “Songs of Solomon” as the canonical psalms of the New Testament, then by Lactantius, who also cites our monument as a canonical part of the New Testament; finally, in two catalogs of the writings of the New Testament from the sixth and seventh centuries 50. W. Frankenberg even finds that the intended monument contains the same thoughts that he encountered at every step when reading church writers of the first four centuries. The understanding of passages that seem to contradict the Christian origin of the “Songs” or break the connection of the text rests only on a misunderstanding. The tedious monotony of the "Songs" decisively prevents, in his opinion, from agreeing with Harnack's hypothesis about the Christian reworking and dissemination of the Jewish basic text. Hence, he does not consider it possible to extract anything positive from the “Songs” to clarify issues related to history, tradition about the life of the Lord, in particular, with the emergence of the fourth Gospel. He finds absolutely nothing original in the thoughts of this monument; the range of his concepts is very closely adjacent to the exegesis of the Alexandrian school (Clement Alex. - Origen). If you read Origen’s commentary on the psalms and then take the text itself, for example, Psalm 71, and study the latter using a mystical key, you can get the same thoughts and images. Likewise, the form of these thoughts is not original, but is a complete and complete imitation of the Old Testament psalms. Combined with the literary lack of independence of our “Songs” is their insignificant aesthetic value 51 . – Willy Stölten 52 also recognizes the “Songs” as a Gnostic monument, meaning by “gnosticism” an attempt by syncretism, primarily mystery religions, to use Christianity for its own purposes 53 . True, individual expressions (such as 3:4; 11:11; 18:4) represent almost a polemic against Gnostic views, and dualism in places in the “Songs” is almost not noticeable. But in this case, we must not forget that Gnosticism did not represent anything homogeneous, but on the contrary, it gave room to the most diverse views 54 . A particularly strong relationship is observed in the content of our monument with the mystery religions, and then with Mandaean ideas. The relationship with the apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles” is also striking. And the latter reflect precisely the popular gnosis, which, based on Christianity, did not hesitate to accept a number of alien elements. In such circles, according to Stölten, “Songs” could have arisen. Perhaps they were compiled in one of the secret societies that often met at that time. It is impossible to come to any completely accurate and definite conclusion regarding the time of origin of the document. But - in any case - the “Songs” could not have appeared before the beginning of the second century. On the other hand, their origin can hardly be assumed later than the middle of the second century, since everything in them points to the earliest form of Gnosticism 55. I.T. Marshall concluded that the author of the Songs was a "prophet and mystic" - one of those who sought the satisfaction of their religious aspirations in various sources. A Jew by birth, he was intimately familiar with the psalms and prophecies; Having converted to Christianity, he did not, however, belong to the “Judeo-Christians” in the sense in which this term is understood in the history of the Church. He was a Jew like Philo. An intensely religious man, he sought to combine the elements of religion, piety, mysticism drawn from Christianity, Gnosticism and Philonism, paying little attention to the history, doctrine and external form of each of his sources 56 . Marshall himself notes in his article 57 the points of contact between the “Songs” and Philo. F.S. Conybeare 58 and S.A. Fries 59 recognize our monument as a product of the Montanist environment. – Th. Zahn suggests that the "Songs" were intended to be recited in public worship. This is evidenced, in his opinion, by the consistently repeated “Alleluia” at the conclusion of individual “Songs.” Sometimes - with previous doxology, generally suitable for the content of the “Songs” themselves. In the “Songs,” it is not the community that speaks, but the individual singer, sometimes on his own behalf, sometimes in the name of God or in the name of Christ, once even in the name of the Church, although this is not always indicated in advance with the desired clarity by introductory formulas. Either he speaks as a member of the community, prayerfully turning to God, or as an inspired prophesying preacher, exhorting and encouraging the community. The community responds to everything: “Alleluia.” It is characteristic that the compiler of the “Songs” never speaks on behalf of the community, always being a soloist. This feature takes us back to ancient times and confirms what we already know from other sources on this subject. An individual member of the community, poetically gifted, brought his psalm to the liturgical meeting and pronounced it before the community. The community, for its part, reacted only with exclamations of “Amen” or “Hallelucha.” St. encourages Christians not to common singing, but to mutual inspiration with “psalms” and “songs.” Ap. Paul (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). The hymns in the various apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles” 60, colored Gnostically, also belong to the type of psalms commonly used in worship in the 2nd century. Whoever seeks the origin of these “Songs” in the Judeo-Christian community must admit the existence of a type of Judeo-Christianity that cannot be proven historically. Equally, the assertion that they are, in their basis and essential content, not a Christian work, but a Jewish one, also implies an assumption of a historically unprovable and, moreover, unlikely from a psychological point of view direction in Judaism 61 . In the present case, we have limited ourselves to indicating only some of the most characteristic opinions of scientists regarding the recently discovered apocryphal monument called “Songs of Solomon” 62. But even from what has been said, it is already quite clear what a difficult task Harris has asked with his discovery to the learned world of philologists and theologians, and how many unresolved questions remain here to this day, the clarification of which is a matter of the future, perhaps not even close. But one thing can be stated with confidence even now: the recently discovered monument has no direct relation to the question of the origin of the fourth Gospel, and Ad. It was completely in vain for Harnack to involve him in clarifying this issue in the stated formulation, needlessly confusing, probably, a considerable number of “these little ones.” Representing the already known size of the “Psalms of Solomon”, eighteen in number, were placed - as already mentioned - at the end of the manuscript found by Harris and occupied numbers 43-60. The preceding 42 psalms (Nos. 1–42), which in the found collection formed one inseparable whole with the “Psalms of Solomon,” had hitherto remained unknown to science. Harris soon wondered whether he had attacked the text of the Songs of Solomon, that monument which in ancient Christian literature was sometimes placed next to the Psalms of Solomon. Detailed testing confirmed this initial assumption. In the “Epitome” to Lactan’s “Divinae Institutiones” the following passage is preserved: Apud Solomonem ita scriptum est: Infirmatus est uterus virginis et accepit filium, et gravata est et facta est in multa miseratione mater virgo (Epitome 39. Ed. Brandt, S. 715). The text “Institutiones” is conveyed in the given place in fact very accurately. Here (Divin. Inst. IV, 12, 3, S. 310) it says: Solomon in ode undevicesima ita dicit: Infirmatus est uterus virginis et accepit filium, et gravata est et facta est in multa miseratione mater virgo. This quotation of the text, attributed to Solomon (presuming their Latin translation), intrigued the first publishers, and was explained by A. Harnack in 1893 as borrowing from the Christian apocrypha, without any attempt to clarify the issue in more detail (Geschichte d. altchristl. Lit. Leipz., S. 851). Now the source of Lactantius has been revealed. 19:6–7 of the newly discovered monument reads: The Spirit was spread out over the womb of the Virgin (translation by I. Labourt; Harris translates: The Spirit opened the womb, etc. W. Frankenberg: έξελύθη ή κοιλία τής παρθένου, and she conceived and gave birth, and became a Virgin Mother (it can also be translated: and she, a virgin, became a mother) in much grace (or: with much mercy); she was with child and gave birth to a Son without illness. Solomon”, dating back to the era preceding Lactantius, we have in the so-called “Pistis Sophia”, a monument preserved, as is known, only in the Coptic language (during the 5th-6th centuries). In its original Greek text, now lost, this monument was a Gnostic work, probably of Egyptian origin, from the second half of the 3rd century. The active personality, bearing the name "Pistis Sophia", here expresses his feelings, or μετάνοιαι, at various stages of his ascent from chaos. The Lord narrates the ascent of the "Pistis Sophia" and quotes its μετάνοιαι or hymns; then He asks about their meaning, turning to those who listen to Him - the apostles and holy women, and they in response explain the words “Pistis Sophia” with the prophetic text of the psalms (i.e., canonical psalms). But among the psalms five “songs” are quoted which are attributed to Solomon and the canonical dignity of which did not raise any question for the author of the Pistis Sophia. Ryle and James argued as early as 1891 that these “songs” offered to Solomon were not first composed by the author of the Pistis Sophia, but were only quoted by him. These scholars also published a thorough translation of these “songs” (Psalms of the Pharisees commonly called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge, 1891). [These five “songs” were also previously published by the following scholars: Woide, Münter, Ideler, Uhlemann, Schwartze and Petermann. They are, moreover, still in the edition of “Pistis Sophia” by S. Schmidt, Koptisch-gnostische Sehriften, t. 1, Leipzig 1905, SS. 73, 75, 85, 901]. A. Harnack came to similar conclusions in his treatise: Ueber das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia. Leipzig 1891. – The way in which those five “songs” are quoted in the Pistis Sophia is noteworthy. The first quotation is in Salome's speech: "Tua vis olim per Solomonem dicens"... Follows our "song" 5:1-9. The second is Rev. Virgin Mary: Tua vis luminis έπροφήτευσεν de his verbis olim per Solomonem in ejus decima nona ode et dixit...” There follows a “song” that does not coincide with our “song” 19. The third is St. Ap. Peter: “Tua vis luminis έπροφήτευσεν olim per Solomonem in ejus ψδαίς...” Follows our “song” 6:7-17. Fourth – An. Thomas: “Tua vis έπροφήτευσεν olim per Solomonem filium David in ejus ψδαίς...” Follows our “song” 25:1-11. The fifth, finally, is Ap. Matthew: “Tua vis luminis έπροφήτευσεν olim ...in ψδή Solomonis... Our “song” follows 22:1-12. The introductory formula when quoting the canonical psalms is monotonous: Tua vis luminis έπροφήτευσεν olim per David...” Follows Psalm 19:1-3, etc. The mention of “song” 19, the content of which has no correspondence in the surviving Songs of Solomon, led Harris to this idea. The Songs of Solomon in the collection of the author of the Pistis Sophia were added to the Songs of Solomon, the number of which is eighteen. “Song” 19 of the named collection corresponded, that is, to our 1st song, which - without a doubt - was placed on pages lost at the beginning of Harris's Syriac manuscript. Harnack fully agreed with the English publisher's guess. The third case of mention of the “Songs of Solomon” we find in the Synopsis'e sanctae Scripturae of pseudo-Athanasius (VI century), where both collections - both the Psalms of Solomon and the Songs of Solomon - are given together, as if they were united into one whole: Ψαλμοί καί ψδή (and not ψδαί ) Σολομώντος . The same indication, only in a more complete form, was noted in the stichometry of Nikophorus at the beginning of the 9th century: Ψαλμοί καί ψδαί Σολομώντος στιχ. βρ, i.e. 2100 verses. Harris calculated that the eighteen "Psalms of Solomon" consist of 950 verses; the “Songs” remains, i.e., 1150 verses, a quantity that fully corresponds to the newly discovered “Songs of Solomon”. P. Batiffol, in the book he compiled together with J. Labourt: Les Odes de Salomon. Traduction française et introduction historique. Paris, 1911, p. 39–44. The second edition of the book, revised and enlarged with a facsimile, has recently been published.” Das Verständnis der Oden Solomos. Giessen, 1911, SS. 6–36. In total, in all five “odes” up to 30 Greek words are left without translation. Prof. prot. A.V. Smirnov, Psalms of Solomon with an appendix of the odes of Solomon. Third edition of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Kazan, 1896, p. 110. However, this argument, we note, cannot be of decisive importance, as in view of the uncertainty in Sirsk. language what we call “gender” in grammar, and because to denote the concept “truth”, less often, however, another word is used (and in the Peshitto) qúschto (John 1:14) - a feminine noun. R. Harris, however, subsequently agreed that Greek was not the original language of the Song of Solomon, although it may have been the ancestor of the Syriac and Coptic translations (The Thirty-eight Ode of Solomon in The Expositor 1911, July, p. 32). The said scientist is now inclined to consider Aramaic to be the original language (pp. 31–32), relying on the fact that with such an assumption both himself and Professor Torrey now seem to be able to establish the dark meaning of some passages of the “Songs” (in “Songs” 38 and 6). See art. Pr. Bacon'a, The Odes of the Lord''s Rest, in. "The Expositor" 1911, March, p. 199–200. Labourt. Lib. cit., p. 1–3 and Batiffol, p. 39–44. Th. Zahn, Die Oden Salomos, XXI (1910), IX, SS. 667–668. Wellhausen in P. Batiffol' i, Lib, cit., p. 49. Ein jüdisch – christliches Psalmbuch aus dem ersten Jahrhundert, aus dem Syrischen übersetzt von Iohannes Flemming, bearbeitet nnd herausgegeben von A. Harnack. Leipzig. 1910, S. 1. A. Harnack, Lib. cit., S. 110. S. 112. Prof. Strachan, having fully accepted A. Harnack's idea about the significance of the "Songs" for the Fourth Gospel, made an experiment in a detailed comparison of the thoughts and phrases of the "Songs", on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other (The newly discovered Odes of Solomon, and their bearing on the problem of the Fourth Gospel. "Expository Times". 1910, October, p. 7-14). Preuschen promised to show that some of the “Songs” are identical with the “Psalms”, which were used by the Gnostic Valentinus (“Zeitschrift”. 1910, October). Dean Bernard (in the article: “The Odes of Solomon”) argues that we have in the newly discovered monument a collection of secret hymns intended for the use of newly baptized Christians, for baptism is mysteriously depicted in almost every “Song” - especially in the 11th (Journal of Theological Studies. 1910. October, pp. 1-31). Bernard's thought is supported and sought to be substantiated from a new side - by indicating parallels between some places in the "Song", on the one hand, and the treatise of Moses - Bar-Kepha: "Explanation of the mysterious actions of baptisms", on the other - R. A. Aytoun, who in his article: "The Mysteries of Baptism by Moses Bar Kepha compared with the Odes of Solomon" in the magazine: "The Expositor". 1911, October, p. 338–358 - not only tries to establish parallels in the indicated sense, but also provides a translation from Syriac into English. and the treatise itself (pp. 345–358). A.I. Wensinck found further reasons to support Bernard's thesis that the Songs of Solomon allegedly had a baptismal purpose and character. In the hymns of Rev. Ephraim the Syrian on the Epiphany (fifteen in number), which he recognizes as baptismal, Wensinck observes many expressions and thoughts that present a very close resemblance to the expressions and thoughts of the Song of Solomon. There are two possible assumptions: either the teacher. Ephraim, just like the compiler of the Songs, used common baptismal language, or St. my father even directly quoted the Songs. But perhaps both sides of the dilemma are true (Ephrem's Hymns on Epiphany and the Odes of Solomon. “The Expositor.” 1912, February, p. 108, 111–112). R. Harris, who first discovered and published our monument, in a special article placed immediately after Wensinck's message, entitled: Ephrem's Use of the Odes Solomon (p. 113–119), finds that Wensinck's considerations are of the highest value and, for his part, gives several examples of a deeper - in comparison with Wensick's - explanation of the “internal meaning of the observed parallels” of the two named monuments. Zum Verständnis der Odem Salomos in "Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft". 1910, 3. SS. 193–203, 4. SS. 289–290. Die Oden Salomos. Berlin, 1911. Les Odes de Salomon. "Rev. chret". 58, 1911. 1, 152–160; 330–340. Kritische Bemerkungen zu dem Odem Solomos. "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie". LIII, SS. 289–306. The Hibbert Journal, 1910, Octobre. "Die Oden Salomos" in "Zeitschrift für die neut. Wissensch." 1910, SS. 291–328. Th. Zahn, Die Oden Salomos in zh. "Noue Kirchliehe Zeitschrift" XXI, (1910), 10 Heft, S. 753. J Th. Zahn, Die Oden Salomos in zh. "Neue Kirchliehe Zeitschrift", XXI, (1910), X, SS. 751–752. S. 296. – Prof. prot. A.V. Smirnov translates this passage (according to a quotation in “Pistis Sophia” - from the Latin text in Harnack’s edition), i.e.: “it (the river) embraced everyone and headed over the church” (super templum). Quote book, p. 112. The meaning of this passage is commented on by scientists as follows. rev.: here “it speaks of an outflow (άπόρροια, emanatio) from God, which spread like a great river throughout the entire earth and rose even above the church” (p. 108). Flemming translates: “Er hat alles... zum Tempel gebracht.” Harris translated from the Syriac: ... "and it brought to the Church." Schmidt translates the corresponding passage of the Coptic text Πίστις Σοφία: "...und wandte sich gegen den Tempel." Labourt and Batiffol agree in this case with Flemming. Th. Zahn, op. Art., SS. 757–758. P. Batiffol, on the basis of a detailed study of the relevant monuments, comes to the conclusion that between the Christology and soteriology of our “Songs” and the Christology of the heretics, against whom St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, - there is a noticeable analogy. I. Labourt et P. Batiffol, Les Odes de Salomon, Paris, 1911, pp. 98, 115, 121. Ιχθυς. Das Fischsymbol in fruhchristlicher Zeit. 1 Band. Rom. 1910, S. 97 ff. Lib. cit., p. 116. Wed. prot. A.V. Smirnov, Testaments of the twelve patriarchs, son of Jacob. Introduction and Russian translation. Kazan, 1911, pp. 56–57: “More or less justified it must be recognized that the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs in the general form in which it has survived to our time cannot in any case be attributed to one compiler. The predominant part of the Testaments is purely Jewish in its content and general point of view; but at the same time, there are places here that can only belong to the hand of a Christian. Therefore, the Testaments in their main part should be recognized as a Jewish work, but subsequently interpolated by a Christian... It is not easy to indicate exactly all the places in the Testaments introduced by Christian interpolators.” There is, for example, a place reminiscent of Matthew 11:28: “come, you who are tormented (or: tormented), and receive joy and receive your souls as an inheritance through His grace and receive immortal life” Cant. (21:6). - With messages from Ap. Paul's consonance is observed not in the dogmatic teaching itself, but in the mystical and moral content. According to the observation of Th. Zahn, the writer of the Songs, was closely acquainted with our Gospels of Matthew and John, as well as with the Epistles of St. Paul and the Apocalypse. "Die Oden Salomos", SS. 764–765. S. 101. See, for example, 20:l: “I am the priest of the Lord and perform priestly service for Him, I offer Him the sacrifice of my thought.” Wed. A. Headlam, The Odes of Solomon in Church Quarterly Review, 1911, p. 290: “we have (in the Songs) many cases reminiscent of the language (of some New Testament writings), but we do not find any quotations - and this should especially be said about the writings of John. Now this has been used as evidence in favor of the existence of Johannine Christianity before the Apostle. John and even (as in Harnack) in favor of the existence of the Ioannian movement in Judaism. All these theories are exaggerated and unnecessary. There is no doubt that the writer of the fourth Gospel did not invent all of his phraseology, but he adopted some of what already existed... The writer of the Song of Solomon knew St. Joanna, as he knew the psalms, and was influenced by both monuments. There are no quotations here, but there are many consonances with the Gospel of John in the corresponding content, and similarly, many words with a certain religious content were extracted from the writings of St. John. John." A. Harnack, S.S. 2–9. Wed. Krebs'a, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert. Freib. im Breisgau. 1910, S. 59 ff. Frankenberg, Das Verständnis der Oden Salomos. Geissen, 1911, S. ff. See article: Gnostische Parallelen zu den Oden Salomos in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissensehaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums". 1912, Heft 1, SS. 29–58. The Odes and Philo, in The Expositor magazine. 1911, May, p. 388. Decree magazine, 1911, May, p. 385–398, and June, 519–536. The Odes of Solomon Montanist in “Zeitschrift für die neutest. Wissenshe." 12, 1911, SS. 70–75. Conybeare – in contrast to A. Harnack – recognizes “Songs” as a one-part work. In “Songs” 33 and 4, he tries to show that the monument reflected Montanist ideas. The scientist hopes that the study of Tertullian from this side still promises some results; there is no need, along with Harnack or Harris, to accept that the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time. It is impossible to indicate what is specifically Jewish or Palestinian in the Songs. "Biblische Zeitschrift", 1911, III, S. 333. Die Oden Salomos, montanische Lieder aus dem 2 Jahrhundert, in zhur. “Zeitschrift für die nentest. Wissenseh." 1911, SS. 108–125. Th. Zahn, Die Oden Salomos, S.S. 775–777. For an abundant indication of literature related to the monument we are reviewing, see also in the additions to Art. prof. prot. A.V. Smirnova, Apocryphal-Apocalyptic Jewish Books in the Theological Encyclopedia, ed. successors prof. A.P. Lopukhin, - belonging to the editor of [Encyclopedia of Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky [t. XI (St. Petersburg 1910), stb. 393–394, etc. XII (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 918]. You might be interested in: