Self-defense, strengthening the accusation: (Regarding the article: Berdnikov I.S. Response to a critical note by Prof. Zaozersky)

It is not uncommon for the accused, taking advantage of the right to have the last word, to say so much about himself that he weakens all the work of the defense and from the mouth of the prosecutor, who conscientiously treats his duty, evokes the following words: “the defendant exaggerated his guilt; I insist on charging him with a crime under Art. 000, and not article 0000, under which he puts himself" A similar misfortune befell Prof. Berdnikov on the pages of the Orthodox Interlocutor, where he decided to express his last word in defense of himself from the (relatively unimportant) accusation brought against him by me. The point is this: in his article On the question of the meaning and significance of the so-called. XIII is right. Council of Laodicea (Theologian. Bulletin. November, 1908), I pointed out to Mr. Berdnikov that in his attempts to determine the meaning and mutual relationship of the Greek words ὄχλος and λαός and the corresponding Russian “crowd” and “people”, he overlooked the monument of law that was always at hand - the Apostolic Constitutions - in which the occupants his words are found in such combinations that, better than any dictionary, they clarify their meaning and use in canonical sources. Thus, Mr. Berdnikov’s entire guilt consisted of an omission committed unconsciously or without malicious intent. It would seem that all he had to do was come to terms with this situation and, observing silence, seek consolation in the thought that his “enemy had misled him” - led him into the sin of oblivion, or that “sin and misfortune do not live on anyone!” etc. And everyone would willingly believe this and forgive Mr. Berdnikov. But he did not cultivate in himself the habit of admitting his weaknesses, but, on the contrary, he became accustomed to persisting in errors, once they were pointed out to him, and at all costs to prove that he was not guilty of anything. And this proof, at all costs, is reflected in his writings in the most unfavorable way for him: he only slanders himself, adds sins to sins. This happened with his last article. For the most part it is boring, as it contains a dry retelling of my article, and at the end it is sad, like the suffering of an unrepentant sinner. The sinner is tormented by his unrighteousness, but tries “at all costs” to justify himself, invents words of deceit, negotiates to the nec plus ultra and accuses others of the most absurd faults. On the merits of the issue that was the subject of the previous controversy, it is absolutely of no interest. All her interest is exhausted by the comic attempts of “not thinking about sins.” Here are some of these attempts. 1) To our accusation of omission, Mr. Berdnikov responds: “What was the need for us to turn to the Apostolic Decrees when in them we do not find anything new in comparison with other monuments of church history and antiquities?” (pp. 104–105). According to this explanation, it turns out that Mr. Berdnikov overlooked Apost. The decisions were not unconscious and unintentional - as we thought - but quite consciously and intentionally: since they - in his opinion - did not bring him anything new. That's an excuse! After all, if, indeed, there is nothing new in them, then they undoubtedly contain confirmation of the evidence borrowed by Mr. Berdnikov from historical monuments and antiquities, and in this case the Apostle. The resolutions, as a monument of law, should have been especially valuable for Mr. Berdnikov. This is what sound logic says and catches him, a sinner, in the net of his own words. 2) But Mr. Berdnikov’s assurance that Ap. The resolutions do not provide new data to understand the meaning of the words ὄχλος and λαός - this is an obvious untruth. In our article, passages from them were cited in three texts that outright destroyed the entire philology of Mr. Berdnikov. It was this circumstance that prompted him to take up his pen again and justify himself at all costs. In this justification, he kept silent about them, with the exception of one place, which he is now trying to interpret in his favor. Here is another new sin - silence. 3) But the most important sin lies ahead - namely, the now mentioned interpretation by Mr. Berdnikov of one passage from the Apostolic Constitutions, in which the words ὄχλος and λαός are found in a rather interesting combination, which we have indicated. “In this place,” Gov. Mr. Berdnikov, - we find the words λαός and ὄχλος standing side by side in the same chapter and in the same meaning - the Christian people present at the celebration of the Liturgy of the faithful.” Then, enriched by this find, Mr. Berdnikov arms himself against us with the following philippic: “Won’t this such clear evidence convince Mr. Zaozersky of the one-sidedness of his understanding of the word ὄχλος? One must think that it will not convince. After all, what is especially curious is that Mr. Zaozersky himself cited this passage among the excerpts from the Apostolic Decrees, and then deliberately (one cannot think otherwise) pushed it out of his memory and did not take it into account at all in his conclusions, probably on the assumption that perhaps this “scientific method” of his would not be noticed and he would happily get away with it. That’s how an honest servant of science is” (p. 105). What can I say about this philippic? First of all, Mr. Berdnikov should be congratulated on his discovery: ὄχλος means the same as λαός, that is, the Christian people present during the celebration of the liturgy. But we refrain from doing this, not out of envy of the happy inventor, but out of sympathy for his misfortune. For this discovery was given to him by a gross violation of an elementary grammatical rule, which requires, when translating nouns from one language to another, to observe not only their meaning, but also their numbers - singular and plural. G. Berdnikov, carried away by the finished, not quite correct Russian translation, broke this rule and was enriched by a discovery: the word ὄχλος is in the plural in this place, and λαός is in the singular. Therefore, adhering to the grammatical rule and recognizing that ὄχλος and λαός are identical in meaning, as Mr. Berdnikov assures, we will receive the following translation of this passage: “Let others (deacons) oversee the nations and establish silence in them. Let the deacon standing next to the bishop say to the people: “No one against anyone.” Something seems amiss, but the translation is syntactically correct. What's the matter? Obviously, it is lexically incorrect, namely: the word ὄχλος cannot be translated by the word “peoples”. But how is it necessary? Obviously, it is necessary to translate the word “in crowds,” as the Kazan translator Ap actually translated this word in other places. Regulations, e.g. “crowds of tax collectors”, “crowds of wicked people”, a crowd, not a people 2. Accordingly, here too the correct lexical and syntactic translation will read as follows: “Let others (deacons) oversee the crowds [of people] and establish silence in them. Let the deacon standing next to the bishop say to the people: “No one against anyone.” Thus, the correct translation of the passage in question shows that the word ὄχλος is not at all unambiguous with the word λαός, but refers to the latter as a particular to a general concept. Hence it is quite natural to say “crowds” of people or “groups” of people; but it is completely unnatural to say “peoples” of a crowd or “peoples” of a group; meanwhile, according to Mr. Berdnikov’s philology, it turns out that one can express oneself in such a strange way: for the crowd and the people are one and the same thing. Its context also fully agrees with our proposed translation of the passage in question. To see exactly what groups the people or laity (λαός) were who gathered to participate in the liturgy, one need only turn to the previous page of the monument in question, where we read: “Let gatekeepers (πυλοϱοί) stand at the entrances of men, guarding them (i.e., entrances), and let deaconesses stand at the entrances of women, like sailors receiving swimmers onto a ship: both in the Tabernacle of Meeting and in the Church of God the same order and order was observed. If anyone finds himself sitting in the wrong place, then let him be rebuked by the deacon, as if by a navigator, and brought to his proper place. After all, the Church is like not only a ship, but also a sheepfold. Just as shepherds place each dumb thing, I mean goats and sheep, according to gender and age, and just as from them each like runs to like, so in the Church: let the young sit separately if there is room, and if not, then let them stand upright; those who have reached (venerable) age, let them sit in order, and let their fathers and mothers take the babies standing; and let the young (maidens) stay separately, if there is room, and if not, then let them stand behind the women, and let those who are already married and having children be placed separately, and let the virgins, widows, and old women stand or sit in front of everyone. Let the deacon ensure that each person entering takes his own place and that no one sits at the entrance 3 . [In the same way, let the deacon supervise the people (τόυ λαόυ), so that no one makes noise, dozes, laughs or anoints]… These were the groups (ὄχλοι) that constituted the class of laity or people (λαός), over which the deacons were to supervise. So, Mr. Berdnikov’s discovery should be ranked among the unfortunate discoveries generated by inattention to the text and context of the monument to which he was pointed out. For a professor of canon law, this is a very serious sin and, by revealing it, we think that we not only served the cause of clarifying the truth, but also gave sufficient punishment and edification to Mr. Berdnikov, among other things, for his personal sin against us. We allow ourselves to hope that in the future he will not so unreasonably accuse us of “consciously pushing out of memory” what we had previously written and of dishonestly serving science. For, pointing out this sin of his, we have every right to say to him: doctor, be healed! Translation of Kazan Spirits. Academy. See our article for these locations. Apostle Decree, p. 91. You might be interested in: