Annunciation of St. Apostle Paul and Hellenic philosophy

Assumptions about the dependence of the apostolic gospel on Hellenic philosophy, fundamental differences and analysis of particular analogies. – Analysis of rapprochements with Socrates, Plato and Heraclitus. Careful comparison convinced us of the decisive internal disparity between the Stoic system and the Gospel of Christ. Direct mutual dependence is unthinkable here, and then all we can talk about is only the indirect influence of mediation to other sources and benefits. In this regard, it is important that Stoic philosophy was distinguished by its eclectic character and united many elements obtained from the entire set of early intellectual and philosophical movements. Naturally, the latter had to penetrate through the Stoics, and acquaintance with these reflections served for the interested mind as both a path and an incentive to study the originals themselves. So from the stoic successors and imitators of St. The Apostle Paul goes to the philosophical luminaries and philosophical popularizers. Even if we do not exaggerate the Stoic influences and contacts, such an idea will still be far from ephemeral. Stoicism contributed to the spread of philosophical concepts, and they turned out to be the common property of the education of that time, not excluding Judaism 1 . Every cultured person necessarily assimilated them, receiving a whole complete worldview, which was supposed to attract inquisitive inquisitiveness. This was the ever-present danger that pagan concepts could invade the Christian environment through current words. And we read that the ready-made language introduced its own atmosphere 3 , and the evangelist assimilated philosophical terminology, became familiar with philosophical speculation 4 , whence it is not surprising if in the New Testament 5 clear traces of the intrusions of Greek philosophy and Roman law 6 are revealed. Other conditions also led to this. Hellenistic Judaism has long been imbued with philosophical movements, but in Philo it is purely Stoic 7 , which is why he rationalistically reinterprets all biblical content in the Platonic taste 8 and concentrates many philosophical movements 9 . Through this theosophist-compatriot, the Apostle was imbued with philonism 10 and stoicism 11, together with vocabulary 12 he again acquired Platonic views 13 and was disposed to broad research in philosophical fields. Under such circumstances - when philosophical echoes are noticed in Ecclesiastes and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon 14 - especially Heraclitean 15 - the thesis that St. Paul had no premonition about the Greek-philosophical spheres 16. On the contrary, historically it is much more likely that he adopted the ideological speculations of Hellenic coinage 17, since philosophical ideas and teachings were widespread in his era 18. This was achieved without any special study. Ethical and religious reserves, accumulated by centuries of philosophical work, became publicly available and were dispersed everywhere along with Greek speech, 19 which was purely philosophical in subjects of a higher order. Therefore, it cannot be stated in advance that the Hellenic evangelist did not use pagan-philosophical vocabulary and used it only for visual illustrations 20 . On the contrary, in him we find an extensive arsenal of various Greek metaphors of the most varied properties 21. Then, in addition to books, it was not difficult for him to autodidactically extract from under the pagan shell the philosophical truths hidden there 22, and he has (for example, in 1 Tim. 6:19: ἡ ὄντως [αἰωνία] ζωή) cultural Greek-philosophical expressions 23 with which they were inevitably transplanted Platonic-Aristotelian seeds 24. Terminological similarities with the philosophy and religion of the Greco-Roman world are allowed even by defenders of apostolic identity 25 . And these analogies are such that they make one guess about familiarity with philosophical 26 and literary monuments 27 . St. Paul, brought up in the freer Hellenic spirit of the city of Tarsus, 28 was by no means an ignoramus or a superficial dilettante. His Greek education was so solid 29 that the accessibility of Plato's works to him is allowed even by those who deny any philosophical commitments 30 . And we are told that among other philosophers 31 - the Apostle especially studied Plato 32, read historians, folk poets and orators, and, perhaps, also had Aeschylus 33 next to Demosthenes. In this connection, parallels collected in abundance for various interests 34 and often for the sake of apologetic-Christian goals 35 receive the impressiveness of a serious argument for the inner closeness of apostolic preaching with Hellenic contemplations. True, in these rapprochements there is a lot that is artificial, strained and exaggerated 36 , but still enough philosophical elements are assumed through the medium of one language 37 . Of course, they now claim that the missionary body of St. Paul was served by a living language 38, which was his own 39 from childhood 40 in the form of Κοινή 41. He was neither literary nor vulgar, 42 but rather closer to LXX. This translation, made to meet the needs of the worship of the Jewish Diaspora, 43 influenced the evangelist, 44 was his Bible 45 in spreading the Gospel and in general is the mother of the New Testament, 46 but it is also a popular book. Hence, all New Testament documents will be colloquial 47 and Paul's epistles turn out to be purely random notes 48. The last thesis contains some exaggeration 49, and the New Testament Κοινή has sufficient originality 50, and then there is no doubt that the cultural Greek speech of that time was imbued with philosophical elements. This means that, drawing them from this source, the Apostle simply was not a narrow specialist and did not adhere to school isolation, assimilating modern popular philosophical ideas 51. Alien to party antipathies and gravity, he united in himself the most important religious and philosophical results of the past and was the original culmination of all views, moods and premonitions. From this side it is proclaimed the end of that movement, the beginning of which was in Socrates 52. And if it is sometimes expressed that St. Paul was almost a complete layman regarding Platonism 53 , then others, with no less plausibility, claim the opposite, that Paul’s epistles are the writings of a Greek, not a Jew 54 and in the sense of belonging to the historical Saul are completely inauthentic 55 . It is stated with decisiveness that it is Plato who is the father of Christian theology 56, and he not only prepared Christianity, but he directly created it 57. St. Paul labored in this field, and the faith of the pagan Christian churches was only Christianized Hellenism 58, instilled into the primacy of Judeo-Christianity precisely by the Apostle of Gentiles 59. In scientific circles, the basic idea of ​​the co-creation of Greco-philosophical productivity is now readily shared, which, when combined and various combinations with biblical-Jewish concepts, formed into a new Christian doctrine and contributed to its material development 60, while the Hellenization of Christianity seems to be a kind of chemical process 61 or even a mechanical conglomerate of all kinds of cultural fragments 62. All critical reconstructions rest on these premises. In the best case scenario, this sanctions the large participation of natural factors in the very origin of the Christian religion, and hence the importance of such attempts is clear. They are radical both in intentions and in results, but the argumentation is far from consistent with this due to the instability of fundamental convergences and the petty poverty of particular analogies. Let us consider everything characteristic of both categories, somewhat arranging the random parallels indicated in the corresponding works. Philosophy always strives for a rational understanding of the world, so that all phenomena find a logical and reasonable explanation in connection with the fundamental understanding of the whole. Here, the religious element is allowed only to the extent of its suitability for a rational interpretation of the universe and receives a certain rational justification. The most important thing in these constructions is the intellectualistic coverage of the subject. With genetic collaboration with the fruits of philosophical creativity, these traits should have been noticeably imprinted on the apostolic gospel. It is considered a synthesis of Judaism with the literature and philosophy of Greece 63, saying that among the mixture of heterogeneous layers 64 it reveals the typical contours of a philosophical system 65, where Hebraistic Christianity is interpreted in the intellectual forms of the West 66 and specifically Greek 67. So St. Paul became the father of Christian theology 68. For him, faith itself serves only as an intellectual conviction in the redemptive significance of the death of Christ 69 . Absolutely everything is built on this - and the Apostle, falling into Socratic one-sidedness, affirms the intellectual ability as completely sufficient for the internal transformation of the whole world and every person 70. But - in comparison with his ancient model - he went even further, for in such a concept he simply elevated his personal experience, which was not justified by others, being individual, into a universal principle; in practice, such a theory was often accompanied by the fact that bare confession was considered sufficient and any unbridledness was allowed in life, which is why this inevitable danger forced even an enthusiastic evangelist to change the accepted sequence 71 . His Christian teaching hangs by the thin thread of an intellectualist conviction that rational logic contains within itself a regenerative salvific power. In this formulation, the whole thesis is involuntarily exciting. suspicious doubt. Is it really St. Did Paul give such effectiveness to the rational side of knowledge? Wouldn't the opposite proposition be truer? A strict analysis of the facts shows that in the Apostle γνῶσις does not at all seem to be a purely intellectual understanding of religion, or theology; this is not only a deeper rational comprehension of the Christian revelation, but, above all, a penetrating insight into its practical importance and obligation 72 . Here knowledge was only the confession of a morally determining factor, which itself produces the influence characteristic of it. Everything is determined by the real relationship between people and this objective factor, and not at all by the pure understanding of the latter. In this case, cognition states the presence of an event to the extent of its digestibility for intellectual acuity. since in the matter of the gracious salvation of the world a divine agent is assumed, then its very accessibility to human tension must be ensured in advance. The condescension of the divine calling to humanity in its limitations is necessary so that it knows the power of God. Therefore, it is further intellectually indisputable that it is not we who know God, but He who recognizes us (Gal. 4:9; cf. 1 Cor. 8:3, 13:12) and, revealing Himself in a convenient form, guarantees our knowledge of God, which provides us with a simple contemplation of what is actually happening. It is clear that rational knowledge plays a role in St. Paul's service role as a conditioned way for information regarding the ways of divine providence. For this reason, saving faith cannot be limited to the intellectual moment. The second contains one beginning of the possibility of a process, the essence of which is that the believer is mysteriously united with Christ and in Him actually acquires the rights of sonship with God, getting rid of previous slavery and endowed with all the prerogatives of free inheritance. In faith, the active element of vital fusion with the divine source, from which renewing rebirth emanates, is especially brought forward. This result is perceived through faith, and is not produced by it originally, since it is given in addition to it in the very redemption of Christ, which we assimilate. It is now obvious that in the apostolic preaching faith is not at all depicted as a purely intellectualistic energy and is not attributed to it its own salvation, which belongs to a genuine historical act and is only delivered to people through it. Further, is it permissible to insinuate that such a view of the saving power of faith in the death of Christ is a subjective theoretical fiction, but even with this tendentious interpretation one will have to agree that St. Paul is very far from philosophical-rationalist intellectualism. His premises are contrary to the latter, for he believed in the saving power not of his conviction of a fact, but precisely of the fact itself, even if it did not have such dignity. The fundamental principles in the apostolic construction of the gospel of Christ do not indicate the philosophical inclinations and influences of the Apostle. The same is true for the most important dogmatic points. However, for the idea of ​​God, they try to argue the opposite. They say that through τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 1:19 St. Paul does not note what is subject to knowledge, but what is accessible to him according to natural abilities, in contrast to what is beyond their capabilities and communicated only by special revelation. There are two sides to the deity – the knowable and the unknown 73 . The first is characterized later (Rom. 1:20) as comprehended through consideration of the world, but in the abstract all this is invisible (τὰ ἀόρατα) and then becomes a mental model for empirical reality (νοούμενα), which is realized in present phenomenality. This asserts the difference between the prototypical and the actual 74 . It turns out the antithesis of God and the cosmos, λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and λόγος προφορικός in the spirit of Philo and the Neopythagoreans. These “philosophical reminiscences” convince us that “Greek philosophy also occupies an honorable place among the sources for Christianity and its life ideals” 75. – Such a major conclusion does not correspond to genuine data and is achieved with considerable violence 76. The most important thing in this interpretation is debatable, as if νοούμενα states not a subjective act of mental-distractive comprehension of the Creator through creation, but is an appositive disclosure to τὰ ἀόρατα and serves as an objective description of the state of “invisible things” before their realistic expression. Briefly: these are supposedly the essence of the still “invisible thoughts of God”, later embodied in the universe and contemplated in it. But such a relationship between νοούμενα and τὰ ἀόρατα is grammatically impossible due to the very arrangement of words in the sentence (τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα ἀυτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος ἀυτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης), for which an unnatural interweaving of combinations is designed, where νοούμενα jumps to a distant one from the nearest καθορᾶται, and this seems to chase after it, but is logically completely disconnected. Is such a strange confusion possible for a literary experienced author and is it legal to impose it when there is no need for it? It would hardly be reasonable to answer in the affirmative. For this, we would have to admit a new stretch, contrary to the original, as if there were “mental plans” of God for created phenomenality. meanwhile, the text directly names the properties of the Almighty in his eternal power and divinity... However, even with the rejected interpretation, it actually turns out nothing more than that the ideas of created existence were in the mind of God even before the creation of the world. In this position, undoubted for everyone, there is nothing specifically philosophical, and it in no way justifies the Platonic-philonic understanding of the very essence of God. There are not sufficient elements for this in the original, which rather excludes such speculation. There it was categorically assumed that the deity is absolutely inaccessible to limitation: it is inexpressible neither in word nor in deed and therefore in its essential truth is not revealed at all and in any form - ordinary phenomenality or special imagery. Here the very possibility of adequate reflection is denied, as Philo actually witnessed by relegating biblical revelation to the level of a ghostly shadowing of secondary divine qualities. The Apostle, distinguishing what is naturally comprehended from what is openly communicated, clearly certifies that the second exactly reproduces the unknown features of the essentiality of God, which itself is entirely revealed in the incarnation of the Son of God. The apostolic point of view is diametrically opposed to the Platonic-Philonian one. It is inevitable that this fundamental dissimilarity is reflected in the worldview. Here they usually try to find in the Apostle of Languages the dualistic views that entered the Hellenistic-Jewish consciousness 77 through the indirect influence of pure Hellenism 78 , from which the convictions in the adversariness of God and man, God and the world, the spirit of God and human flesh 79 , spirit and matter 80 , as well as the necessity of sin according to human nature itself 81 were received. . We are energetically indoctrinated that the doctrine of the impurity of the sensory world reproduces the concepts of the Orphics and Neopythagoreans 82 , matter as a living force is characterized in the spirit of ancient philosophical views 83 , and the dualistic isolation of spirituality and physicality is transferred to Christian ethics from paganism 84 . In such an image, everything breathes with pagan-philosophical elements, but the fidelity of the picture itself is extremely suspicious. An insurmountable obstacle and living denunciation of such hypotheses is the greatest fact of the Incarnation, which irresistibly demonstrates the compatibility of the divine with the created with the possibility of sanctification of the entire human composition, as solidary in all its parts. This directly eliminates the theological-cosmic and anthropological-psychic dualism, since the Apostle’s flesh is not at all a sin in itself 85, and regarding their relationship he does not agree with Palestinian Judaism, exceeds the Old Testament 86, is independent of Philo 87 and is generally deeply original 88. Naturally, the arrows of skepticism are directed at this cardinal point of Christian dogma. Nowadays it is even exegetically substantiated that the doctrine of the incarnation was not original in Christianity, but was invented later and arbitrarily introduced into the New Testament, which is why it stands out without difficulty. of which 89. But at the same time, subjective exegetical stretches are allowed, without which it will be unshakable that in the era of the origin of the New Testament writings this truth already had dogmatically-compulsory clarity, and then it is much more likely that it comes from the Apostles themselves, since a radical change in a short period is historically very doubtful. In any case, the ground for decisive denial is certainly shaky, and one cannot rely on it in such controversial issues. Further interpretations are possible, and there is no shortage of them. Sometimes they claim that the idea of ​​virgin birth, which was undoubted for the New Testament, 90 taken by Christianity from Judaism, penetrated into the latter from the Greeks and Egyptians, where there were completely identical thoughts 91. It is added to this that the Redeemer himself did not speak about His pre-worldly pre-existence, and here the Apostle Paul simply gives “Christomythologie” (Cristusmythologie) 92, when, according to Greek ideas, the Savior is depicted as the realization of the archetypal person 93 and the historical personality in Him is neglected, for all the importance is in the fixed ideal 94. This is considered all the more likely since the apostolic gospel has long been a direct reflection of 95 Philon’s doctrine of ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ 96 . Everything covered here is tendentious and false. First of all, it is necessary to agree that true God-humanity was unknown to paganism. The latter was entirely confined to the sphere of the human, the difference between which and the divine had not yet become clear 97 . Therefore, the more directly the divine came into contact with the human, the more it appeared only as another form of this human; divinity dissolved in humanity and disappeared, which is why there was no support for the incarnation of God 98 - and this is the impassable gap between Platonism and Christianity 99. With such disparity, neither dependence nor borrowing is possible, as long as there are no suitable materials and hostile elements dominate. Apparently, the concept of “Son of God” does not come from paganism, and its roots were not in Athens 100. References to pagan theophanies are especially unfortunate and expose the futility of critical interpretations 101. There, one’s own incarnation was not proclaimed at all, and when tilted in this direction, one simply got deified humanity. With a more energetic highlighting of the moment of individualistic incarnation, a completely impersonal ideality of divinity was put forward, which only with this discovery receives personal certainty. It again turns out to be a personally active deity, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to admit that the recognition in the Son of God of an organ in the creation of peace (1 Cor. 8:6) arose under Greco-philosophical influences 102. There is no doubt that there is a radical difference here, for even in pre-mundane existence the Lord possesses personal activity. Naturally, as a divine personality, He could not be a simple archetypal form 103 remaining in ideal isolation from the historical Christ. When two personalities are taken, either mutual independence in existence or complete fusion is conceivable for them. since the Apostle of Languages ​​establishes the closest relationship between the heavenly and the earthly, we must accept that he does not allow separation between the archetypal and the empirical, but confesses absolute identity through the unity of the subject 104, which appears in two forms, being always unchanged. Philosophical-Platonic premises are rejected in principle, once the coincidence of the ideal with the real, which they deny, is affirmed. From all sides it is unshakable that Christ is depicted in St. Paul is not at all pagan 105 if the Apostle considers Him to be divinely pre-existent 106 according to the Lord’s testimony of His absoluteness 107 . The truth of the Incarnation eliminates cosmological dualism, but it also shakes anthropological dualism. Since God assimilates everything human, then a weaker opposition of the physical to the spiritual is impossible in the latter; Where there is no absolute contrast, there is also relative incredible. This undermines in advance the opposite judgments, as if the evangelist, professing Hellenistic anthropology 108, taught about the sinfulness and mortality of the flesh in such a way that Greek influences are tangible 109, for he has the first “evil principle” with anti-divine energy 110 and is dualistically hostile to spirituality 111. In this case, the analogies go further. The Apostle allegedly distinguishes ψυχή and πνεῦμα as the principles of the higher and lower, and in σῶμα he sees only a material form 112. The mental is differentiated. spiritual and carnal 113. From this it is easy to guess that the apostolic doctrine comes close to the Platonic trichotomy 114. But as for the latter, its presence in St. is still completely controversial. Paul 115, where an allusion of this kind occurs accidentally (1 Thess. 5:23) and has no philosophical acuteness. In Platonism, soulfulness was a necessary link for the dualistically irreconcilable spirituality and materiality, while the apostolic text states their harmonious and integral combination with equal suitability and ability to perceive divine sanctification. All these features are alien to trichotomous platonism 116. Density is not at all considered actively hostile and naturally sinful 117 . By its nature it is passive and acquires sinful vitality through spiritual relaxation, when the spirit is immersed in the carnal sphere and turns instinctive carnal functions into sinful lusts. Here the connection is only empirical 118, but in it there is no sense of dualistic adversativity 119, which the Apostle did not profess 120, why there is no dependence on Hellenism 121. The sinful fleshiness of the evangelist is a purely ethical value, and in this area the Hellenic influences of naturalistic amartology are incredible 122. Due to the strength of this, both the normal spiritual state and deviations should have been depicted differently, and then in vain the similarity in the concepts of conscience 123 and innate moral law (Rom. 2:14 ff.) with the opposition of the flesh to the spiritual (Rom. 7:25) is noted, where even the later Stoic concepts do not coincide with Christian ones 124. The apostolic view in amartology is purely biblical. Any other interpretation leads to many oddities. They testify that the evangelist held the views of rabbinism here and in many other points 125, for example, the vanity of creation with man (Rom. 8:20 ff.) 126, or about the flesh in the sense of jetzer hara 127. The origin of evil in the world is also commented on rabbinically, 128 but it turns out that on this subject the Apostle notes (in Rom. 5:12ff.) two irreconcilable explanations 129, with the last source of sinfulness being posited in the human will; in this case, original sin will not be Paul’s creation 130 and the Augustinian-church idea does not come from here 131, just as it does not exist in Christ the Savior 132. The result is a strange chaos of contradictory and ununited opinions, hardly conceivable together in one healthy head. In fact, the actual predominance of sin in the world is erected by St. Paul to the fall of Adam, in which all people sinned, taking into themselves the hereditary infection 133, but individual imputation occurs with the personal complicity of everyone. In this sense, genetic researchers also admit it. that the Hellenic evangelist taught on this issue more mystically than naturalistically 134, which is why even during rebirth he puts forward a mysterious act of mystical combination with the Lord the Deliverer 135. The Apostle has a rather undeniable connection with the everyday narrative 136, and - according to the latter - he, admitting the possibility of death in human nature 137, considers it a generational punishment for ancestral sin 138, which was precisely the original 139 and is depicted (in Rom. 7:12 ff.) not just actual, but directly hereditary 140. Here the evangelist is completely original 141 and reveals his radical difference from Judaism, where only the original evil desire (jetzer hara) 142 was accepted and original sinfulness was denied 143, and legalistic self-justification was allowed for individual sins 144, since they are completely erased by repentance 145, the suffering of the righteous 146, etc. This means that St. Paul does not have a purely rabbinic theology, from which it is quite in vain that apocalyptic eschatology 147 with its crude realism 148 and with the chiliastic doctrine of intermediate messianic dominion 149 is imposed on him, for it is proclaimed (and in 1 Cor. 15:22 ff.) the resurrection not only of “Christ’s” 150, and all 151. Equally, echoes of Hellenism are not seen, since everywhere we find a combination of freedom and necessity. At the same time, everyone has scope for their own activity in the matter of religious and moral growth. Naturally, the messianic kingdom of God is not understood (exclusively) eschatologically, as if it were realized solely by external divine power only at the end of time. Writers who are far from ordinary church traditions state the predominance of eschatological concepts in the New Testament 152 and in Jesus Christ 153, however, it is recognized that both the Savior 154 and all New Testament sources 155 speak of preparing the future triumph of glory already in the current conditions of earthly existence. In particular, the Apostle Paul accepted both aspects here - eschatological and moral, seeing the gradual revelation of the kingdom of God in humanity through the church of Christ 156. On this side, eschatological tension, so strong in early Christianity, is not a purely theoretical speculation and was not at all an external borrowing or a passing historical phenomenon 157, but served as an expression of dogmatic faith in the supreme dominion of a just God and in the triumph of the moral world order, which is why, in this capacity, it remains dogmatically obligatory for Christianity forever 158. The properties of a person determine his future, and anthropology, of necessity, is in solidarity with the eschatological doctrine. Hellenization of the first inevitably requires corresponding changes in the second. It is not surprising if it is said that earlier St. Paul, like a Pharisaic, believed in the resurrection of bodies, 159 using the ready-made rabbinical analogy with sown grain, 160, or he allowed for a direct posthumous union with Christ 161 when endowed with a special internal corporeality, which was sometimes preached in Judaism, 162, in the spirit of which the New Testament is given an optional immortality 163, for - along with the thought of a general uprising 164 - the Jewish authorities taught about the complete destruction of sinners 165 and guaranteed future revival only for the righteous 166, depriving them even of their am-haarez 167. But in fact, the evangelist has neither the ontological destruction of the wicked nor the physical optionality 168, and in eschatology he is most original and has made such significant changes that external similarities and foreign borrowings are equally excluded here. He also does not have immediate posthumous endowment 170. Therefore, they think that only then St. Paul accepted Hellenic speculation 171 and developed Hellenistic eschatology 172 where liberation from the body of death is understood in a dualistic-physical way 173 . Here posthumous incorporeal nudity is proclaimed 174 and the posthumous fate is illuminated (in 2 Cor. 5:1 ff.) according to Plato 175, which, undoubtedly. interpreted immortality higher and more perfectly than all the pre-Christian sages 176. The original realistic messianic expectations, thanks to Hellenic participation, gave way to spiritualistic aspirations, which ensured messianic benefits for the deceased 177. However, Christianity is much more realistic. It is not just a school professing a known system, since the Founder is not a simple herald and bearer of a new doctrine. Christ was God in the flesh, and the second served here as a necessary means of approaching people. Then the latter will not be faced with the abolition of their carnality, but the most complete transformation according to the type of the body of Christ. For St. Paul, Christian life was one and integral or spiritual-bodily 178, which is why bodily death - with spiritual immortality - necessarily referred to resurrection by the power of the Lord. Then the idea of ​​parousia is obligatory and natural, proclaimed by the evangelist with determination, although he was not guided solely by it in his missionary activity 179, as if living entirely in eschatology 180 and striving to convert the world before the coming of the Lord 181, for - according to Christ - he never said that the latter would certainly happen in an immediate speed 182. The Apostle did not recognize justification without renewal and vice versa, 183 and therefore his parousian aspirations did not weaken the activity of his Christian work, as is accepted even by the authors 184 who see in Paul’s ethics an enthusiastic anarchy, because of which this moral teaching was rejected by both Catholics and Protestants 185 . On the contrary, the direct result of the apostolic views is that the future life must be new, heavenly. In this regard, Pavlov’s independence from Hellenism in the image of 2 Cor. 5:1 ff. it is all the more indisputable 186 that nowhere are the trends of Hellenic dualism with the dominance of hostility and contempt for the flesh 187 felt. Posthumous nudity, of course, is more ethical and from this side refers to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bretribution, and in order to complete the history of the earthly kingdom of God, the coming of Christ and judgment are obligatory 188. In this hope, everything is focused on a whole life of moral preparation, so that later our humble body becomes capable of becoming conformed to the glorious body of Christ (Phil. 3:21). The Christian eschatological ideal does not lie in the naturalistic immortality of eternal psychic continuation, but in the ethical-religious assimilation to the God-man. This process begins with our spiritual adoption by grace, continues with our complete assimilation into spiritual-physical individuality, and culminates with its spiritualization in the uprising of spiritual physicality. The constant and everywhere presence of this somatic element convinces us that - like psychology - St. Even in eschatology, Paul only formally comes into contact with Hellenism 189, but at all points of convergence he differs from it ideologically 190. This protects the dignity of all apostolic theology, for in it it was the eschatiological concepts that were important 191. In the latter, sufficient stability is noticed, and variations in the depiction of eschatological points are explained by personal experience, and not by outside influences or borrowings 192. Therefore, internal consistency 193 prevails in Paul's eschatology, highlighting especially clearly the falsity of the tendentious thought about the gradual dogmatic development of the evangelist 194. In the Old Testament there was no complete and complete teaching about the posthumous state of people 195. Here the Apostle of Tongues is original, and the harmony of his eschatological system should convince of its objective strength, as evidenced by close agreement with Christ 196. If this general observation is correct, particular analogies cannot give a different result. All parallels are too petty and random. Thus, consonances are noted (in 1 Tim. 2:11, 12) with Philemon (361–263) 197 and (in 1 Cor. 6:7) Menander (342–291) 198 and from here they guess about the apostolic love for the poets of the new comedy, finding even other coincidences with the first (1 Tim. 2: 9–12. Heb.4:12. Col.3:25 and 1 Tim.3:3, 8; Titus 2:3) and with the second (in 1 Cor.15:33) 199. – The very need for external aids has not been proven here, since the thoughts developed were generally accepted, sometimes, due to their simplicity, they were easily acquired by everyone and in some shades are depicted in a new light. The subordination of a woman to a man was considered an axiom, and that she should be adorned more with modesty than with jewelry, and that drunkenness is a vice, especially indecent for selected persons - all these were commonplaces, self-evident to everyone. On the contrary, it is shameful for Christians to judge pagans (1 Cor. 6:7) and the inevitability of retribution for the offender (Col. 3:25) are justified from Christian principles that believers are holy and they have one judge - the Lord, who is impartial and knows all human secrets (Heb. 4:12-13). In all other examples, the impressiveness is no higher. When the evangelist commands to avoid foolish arguments (Titus 3:9), when he says that even death is desirable for him (Phil. 1:21), when he testifies to the sincerity of his preaching (2 Cor. 2:17), or doubts the suitability of a bad steward for church positions (1 Tim. 3:5) 200 - in all these cases, the assistance of Aeschylus is hardly needed (525-456 gg.) for such tactile truths. If, for the apostolic sayings, Odyssey and Pythagoras (for 2 Thess. 3:10) 201, Homer and Hesiod (for 1 Tim.) 202, Ovid, Horace and Euripides (for Rom. 7:15) 203 are cited at once, then why not recognize here the general current maxims, which are allowed even without such justifications (in Gal.5:15 ) 204 ? For the equation of the Church with the bodily organism (1 Cor. 12:12, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, Rom. 12:5) is it necessary to read Livy (Histor. II, 23) 205, since the parable of Menenius Agrippa was on everyone’s lips in ancient times 206, the same idea was contained in the spiritual inventory of the Roman monarchy 207 and was used in a theological sense by the rabbis 208? Reproachful allusions to philosophy 209 are possible, but is it necessary to accept direct literary acquaintance with Epicureanism 210, since it was quite widespread and known in Palestine 211? There is no more dependence on philosophical luminaries, starting with Socrates 212. That human knowledge is far from imperfect (1 Cor. 8:2) has always been confessed besides Socrates (c. 469–399) 213, whose school in vain adopted the Christian concept of nationalityless citizenship 214, and universalism turns out to be a product of the Hellenic genius 215. But Christianity is created on religious soil and is not bound by naturalistic conventions, and therefore - contrary to the idealism of lofty Hellenism - it does not deny or distort existing limitations, reigning over them in them 216. Christians have always triumphed in their faith in another world, meanwhile Socrates has a cold and reserved attitude towards immortality, although he recognized the gods and allowed religious veneration according to paternal customs 217. There are more numerous parallels with Plato (427–347), however, they are also of an extremely general nature, although Jewish authors stubbornly insist that St. Paul, having learned dualistic anthropology from this philosopher 218 , precisely through the influence of Platonism 219 strengthened the antinomianism inherited from the Jewish diaspora 220 , brought it to the point of violent intolerance 221 and began to preach the exclusivity of faith 222 . That the Apostle foresaw his death (2 Tim. 4:6), felt the obligation for himself to preach (1 Cor. 9:6) and the purity of his evangelistic behavior (2 Cor. 7:2) - this is only confirmed by personal experience. That present knowledge is not enough (1 Cor. 13:12), that one should not repay evil to anyone (1 Thes. 5:15), that all people are servile (Acts 14:15), are almost axioms. On the contrary, when death reveals the acquisition ( Phil. 1:21 ) of the best in coexistence with Christ ( Phil. 1:23 ) and when it is suggested to test the strength of one’s faith ( 2 Cor. 13:5 ) 223 – here in the very phrases purely Christian tones are heard, which are heard no less loudly in the commandment about “warming up” (ἀναζωπυρεῖν) the gift of God (2 Tim. 1:6) 224, for which the natural analogy with life-giving warmth is used, as without the “Apology of Socrates” it is undoubtedly for everyone that God works for the good of his chosen ones (Rom. 8:28) 225. The close connection between knowledge and virtue (Col.2:2, Eph.4:18) is understood by the Apostle not in a Platonic way 226, for the rational element does not have such authority for him at all 227; freedom by virtue of an unwritten internal law, in contrast to the deadly letter (Rom. 2:15), is not at all Platonic 228, since for the evangelist it is not a natural property of nature, the voice of which creates only universal responsibility, and this is a religious property received along with the achievement of divine sonship 229. The vanity of creation (Rom. 8:20 ff.) 230 is of course not in the spirit of Plato, since the latter was alien to the biblical and apostolic idea that all this happened through the fault of man and will disappear with his glorification. There is no doubt that for St. For Paul, the kingdom of God was the “highest good,” from which the similarity with Plato’s contemplation is argued 231, but here in vain τὸ καλόν (in Rom. 7:18, etc.) is identified 232 with the deity, which in Christianity is not thought of abstractly 233, but with all personality. The Truly Existing was not a simple ideality for the Apostle, which is why the picture of the reflection of the glory of the Lord and our transformation during contemplation (2 Cor. 3:18–4:4) cannot be a copy of Plato’s (in Phaedr. 209 D-253 C) 234. All coincidences are completely uncharacteristic and do not indicate literary dependence. For example, the equation of an angry crowd with a wild beast (1 Cor. 15:32 [and 2 Cor. 1:8-9 ]; cf. Acts 19:28 ff.), far from indisputable in the apostolic writings, of course, did not require scientific reference in the works of Plato 235, as long as it was clear to everyone, at least from observations of circus competitions and in speech it was often used 236. It is rightly emphasized that St. Paul, having a negative attitude towards Greek wisdom 237, did not feel any special impulses towards Hellenic philosophy 238, did not particularly care about reconciliation with Hellenism and did not have the need to refer to it in his work. For this reason, we must consider all apostolic consonances to be accidental, while they would undoubtedly convince of the closest literary contact for the 4th century, when they were carried away by Platonism 239 . We must not forget that the Apostle was a Jew, but one cannot exaggerate the Greek-philosophical influences on the Jewish diaspora even in Alexandria 240 . Aristotle (384–322) is not forgotten among the advisers of the Apostle of Languages. The most surprising thing is that his moral teaching is especially put forward, so disparate from Christian 241. The very concept of ἀρετή (in Phil.4:8) is traced back to Hellenic sources 242, and the inspired characterization of virtues (in 1 Cor.13) is assimilated to the influence of the “Nicomachean Ethics” 243, according to which meekness is praised (Phil.4:5) 244. In the Aristotelian spirit, the virtuous rises above the law (Gal.5:23) 245 and in nature itself the highest moral regulator is revealed (Rom.2:14, 15) 246 - with the same assessment of the dignity of conscience 247. Despite the external similarity, the deeper the internal disparity 248. Aristotle's description of the virtues is very precise and in its main principles does not raise any doubts 249. For this philosopher, virtue was actually the middle between two extremes, 250 but the Apostle saw in it complete devotion to one principle with the rejection of the other. To find the intermediate edge, you need to know the entire field to the peripheries and have the determination of free will to stay at the middle and central point. Everything here is conditioned by freely rational self-judgment, the development of which was the final goal of human existence (ὁ νοῦς - τῆς φύσεως τέλος) 251 - and for Aristotle, man was an autonomous creator of virtues 252. St. Paul found perfection only in God, which is why all human valor could only be based on the reflection of divine properties in believers, as the fruit of the Spirit of God itself 253. With such a fundamental difference, identity is absolutely unthinkable in a particular characteristic, which was the evangelist's (in 1 Cor. 13) complete outpouring of Christian enthusiasm 254. With moral human autonomism, all moral resources are drawn from natural reserves, where nature is the natural legislator, and its guardian is conscience. In both respects, the Apostle deviates from Aristotelian formulas: with him the latter is rather a passive indicator of moral fluctuations, and its far from impeccable sensitivity is capable of becoming completely dulled 255; natural law does not have absolute imperativeness and itself receives clarity in the interpretation of the positive law (of God), which is decisively opposed by Aristotle 256. Hence, the internal discord of human duality and struggle is similar in the apostolic depiction (Rom. VII) except in appearance 257 and disparate in essence: it grows and intensifies from moral awakening and spiritual enlightenment, being resolved by complete human helplessness, while the philosopher motivated these difficult spiritual collisions with the relaxation of ignorance and saw all salvation in spiritual vigilance. It is clear that Aristotle relied exclusively on the power of knowledge, which contributes to the acquisition of solid moral skills 258. Without this, true virtue is incredible, and the philosopher inevitably realized that the very moral dignity of people is not at all the same 259. With this insight, any analogy between the apostolic citizenship of heaven (Heb. 12:22, 23) and the Platonic-Aristotelian polity disappears; True, the Apostle uses family traits for his concept (Eph. 3:15, 4:16, 5:23. Col. 1:18, 2:19) 260, but he himself elevates it to heavenly prototypes, when philosophy was confined to this sphere and in practice sanctioned narrow nationalism where Christianity erected and established a grace-filled universality. Aristotle had only a presentiment of Christian ideals, and due to the formal-logical similarity we should not lose sight of the fact that foreknowledge does not at all testify that what he expected was precisely its implementation or a copy of it 261 . Rational sophistication did not reach Christian brightness and postulates religious insight. Heraclitus (about 470-475 BC) advocated for it quite a bit, who in the era of pre-Christian darkness gained special love and widespread popularity almost even for his famous “darkness” (σκοτεινός). Didn't this passion also affect the Apostle 262? Guesses of this kind are natural in the relation of the evangelist to Philo, Stoic in his views 263, and through him or directly in connection with Stoicism, related to Heraclitean theosophy 264, which lay at its basis 265 and was the foundation of Stoic physics 266. Stoicism was in many ways a return to Heraclitus 267. Thus, the (pantheistic) logology widespread by the Stoics was adopted from here 268, as well as the doctrine of divine fire 269 of the unreality of human perception due to the fluidity of the world 270. And already at the beginning of the 17th century. close approximations were noted 271 with a sufficient number of factual illustrations (for 1 Cor. 15:32. 2 Cor. 7:2. Phil.3:20) 272, but the latter were borrowed from forged Heraclitian letters of later origin 273, and therefore the opposite dependence is acceptable - on the apostolic writings 274. Otherwise, you will have to deny the authenticity of the latter in advance, and this will be tendentious preoccupation 275. But besides this, a closeness to Heraclitus is revealed even in the main parts of the Epistle to the Romans 276. At the same time, this document is also questioned in the relevant sections (chap. XII-XVI) 277, especially the Epistle to the Ephesians 278, which is downgraded to the extent of almost a compilation of Heraclitean philosophemes, although its biblical originality is defended 279. This opinion seemed all the more legitimate since the authors 280 who do not think about the Apostle’s direct acquaintance with the opinions of Plato and Aristotle 281 allow philosophical assistance for the Epistle to the Ephesians. Zeal in this direction goes so far as to suggest to us that “the parallel in Heraclitus to the well-known Christological passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (Phil. 2:6-11) is so close and striking that it is barely possible. whether it is random and makes a guess about a genetic connection probable.” The similarities are as follows. “In the style of his mystical-theosophical speculation, Heraclitus imagined that the absolute could reveal its highest state, descending into the lower spheres of existence, submitting to suffering and even death, and when its virtue was thereby attested, it returned to its original position” 282. – The consonance here is purely verbal. The Apostle speaks only of a change in the form of being, always identical to itself, but not in being itself, which is why death itself is for this new image the greatest revelation of humiliatingly embodied obedience; it is clear that exaltation was neither the goal nor the reward for the deity and is characterized from this side solely in the sense of a blessed fate for our Christ-imitation, for which the fact of the crown of the Lord serves as an ideal of aspirations. On the contrary, with Heraclitus, who raised all being to the (first) fire 283, it turns out that the divine principle itself transforms, turning out to be accessible to passivity in an essential way, and already in the form of a gift it acquires the former, as lost and did not belong. This view is completely unapostolic and - at the best assessment - is depicted as purely pantheistic or absolutely alien to St. Pavel. Naturally, his contacts with the Ephesian philosopher cannot extend to theological centers and must be limited to the peripheries. The most analogies were selected in this direction. The evangelist describes the redemptive deliverance of Christ more than once (Col.1:20, Eph.2:11–22 and cf. Eph4:3) in the dignity of reconciliation (είρήνη) in comparison with former hostility (ἔχθρα), and πόλεμος - είρήνη in Heraclitus they were considered the basic terms of existence, where everything comes from discord 284 and where all harmony is determined by the existence of opposites 285. Accordingly, the latter (ἁρμονίη) is exalted as the supreme law of cosmic well-being - and in the Apostle we find (in Eph. 4:16) the unusual term συναρμολογούμενον 286. The whole task of ordering cosmic struggles will be to achieve a measure of harmonious balance among them - and for St. Paul is precisely recommended and commanded (Eph.4:7, 13, 16 and cf. Rom.12:3, 2 Cor.10:13) μέτρον in the sense of the boundaries of human moral and religious efforts 287. Everything in the world fluctuates with instability, but the path of elevation is the same as the path of descent (cosmologically from fire to earth through water), although the direction is the opposite; hence the Heraclitean principle ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω 288. And in the apostolic depiction (Eph.4:8-10) the descent and ascension of Christ are put forward, as if to contrast the pagan model 289, which was only ἡ μεθοδεία τῆς πλάνης (Eph.4:14 cf. Eph.6:11) 290 . The contact here is all the more likely because the Heraclitian theory of ἄνω – κάτω is also reflected in some Jewish views 291 . The apostolic adaptation takes on a polemical tone, with a deliberate warning against the Ephesians' infatuation with their philosopher. The latter especially instilled the obligation to submit to the world mind and in everything affirmed the antithetical nature of φῶς (properly πῦρ, ἡμέρα, Διόνυσος) and σκότος (εὐφρόνη, Ἀΐδης), and St. Paul, in the interests of the opposition, energetically emphasizes the vanity of the pagan mind (Eph.4:17 and cf. Rom.1:21) and the darkness of the mind (Eph.4:18: [τὰ] λοιπὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, ἐσκοτισμένοι [ἐσκοτωμένοι] τῇ διανοίᾳ), who, only being enlightened by grace (Eph.1:18: πεφωτισμένους τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς τῆς διανοίας [καρδίας] [ὑμῶν]), achieves “the light in the Lord” and escapes the former darkness (Eph.5:8: ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν Κυρίῳ) 292 . In this combination for St. Paul (Eph. 4:14) the teaching of those who are called οἱ ῥέοντες for their resourceful applications of the Heraclitian doctrine of world fluidity 293 was truly “windy”, and for these people all of life, indeed, was “a game of dice (ἡ κυβεία), if for Heraclitus it was categorically proclaimed in the formula ἄνω κάτω πεττεύειν 294 From our abstract itself it should be clear that all these rapprochements are extremely strained and sometimes almost completely unnatural. Such a refined attitude towards Heraclitean concepts is incredible even in the sense of refutation. Even if we accept the identity of ἡ κυβεία with πεττεψ ύειν, it was still not a specifically Heraclitean term so that it would be permissible to characterize the original theory, where the image of “game” was used only symbolically and did not exhaust its entire essence. Moreover, the Apostle’s “wind” does not designate fluid instability, but the swift force of lies for infant heads. The contrast of light and darkness is natural and common among biblical writers, and its Heraclitian understanding could rather lead to the conviction that in Christianity Heraclitian contemplations and St. Paul authorizes them. Heraclitus revered the world mind pantheistically as a truly divine principle; for the evangelist this was only illusory, but not at all vain, since true divinity was understood. Heraclitean ἄνω – κάτω affirms the circulation of being and non-being and transformation in the latter during the transformation from top to bottom and vice versa 295; the Hellenic evangelist ascertains the integrity of a single subject, in which ascension is referred to descent, while the latter does not condition the former ontologically, for this state existed before it. Almost according to the Hegelian template, world hostility was for the Ephesian mystic an essential moment of cosmic existence, which was maintained by the presence of antitheticalities. The apostle did not consider discord a property of life itself; it was only an ethical deviation, always allowing for a return to the norm. Therefore, for him, the ideal lay not in the harmony of extremes, but in the elimination of one another, and the apostolic “measure” was not the middle of balance, but the fullness of the absoluteness of Christ. All these small differences more clearly highlight the fundamental dissimilarity of the approaching views. For Heraclitus, who fought against popular religion with its fragmented deities 296, everything is built on the foundation of pantheism with shades of dualism, when the divine principle penetrates, enlivens and enlightens fluid phenomenality, but cannot triumph over irresistible materiality 297 why the world, having no beginning, does not find the final end, but is periodically transformed by fire 298. These ideas are absolutely alien to the apostolic mind, and for him everything that came into contact with them was dogmatically unacceptable, such as, for example, Heraclitean ethics, which was based on physical pantheism 299 . Beyond these exceptions, only general consonant maxims will remain. But here we must remember that the authority of the Ephesian philosopher rose highly in the later, Hellenistic era, and his sayings circulated widely and were often encountered 300; under these conditions, such coincidences do not at all indicate direct literary use 301. Wed. and Rev. Alexander Eagar, St. Luke's Account of the Last Supper: a Critical Note on the Second Sacrament in The Expositor 1908, IV, p. 353: "Pharisees were simply Jewish Stoies." Wed. Prof. Rudolf Eucken, Geschichte der philosophischen Terminologie im Umriss (Lpzg. 1879), s. 43, 2. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 16–17. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 57. See Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 14. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 3–4. On the relationship between Phlon and the Stoics in general, see Dr. Paul Henisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die älteste christliche Exegese in Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen herausg. von Prof. Dr. J. Nikel, Heft ½ (Münster i. W. 1908), s. 29; Henri Lesetre, Art. "Philon" in Dictionnaire de la Bible par F. Vigouroux IV (Paris, 1908), col. 304; Emile Brehier, Ideas philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1908), b. 293 (that for Filov philosophy is stoicism); Louis Talmont, Philon et la pensée chrétienne primitive in “Revue Augustinienne” VII, 70 (15 January 1908), p. 13 suiv.; regarding the special proximity to Posidonius, see Mathilda Apelt, De rationitus quibusdam quae Philoni Alexandrino cum Posidonio intercedunt, (Lipsiae 1907), p. 92 sqq. Particular points of similarity: about world formation, where there is more Platonism (É t. Bréhier, op. cit., p. 78), in logology, in which Stoicism, Heraclitus and Plato are intertwined (É t. Bréhier, op. cit., p. 84, 87; R. Heinisch, op. cit., p. 138), about πνεῦμα (É t. Bréhier, op. cit., p. 133–134), in cosmology (p. 158) and in morals (p. 252 suiv.; J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, I, Paris 4 1906, p. 57). Wed. and P. Smirnov. A patristic view on the meaning of scientific and philosophical education and on the relationship of faith to knowledge in the journal “Faith and Reason” 1898, No. 11, p. 668. Prof. Carl Steinhart, Art. "Philo" in Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Wissenschaften von Pauly-Walz-Teuffel V (Stuttgart 1848), Sp. 1516. See about the independence of St. The Apostle Paul from Philo in the doctrine of God and the Holy Spirit in V. Ermoni, la teologia di san Paolo in “Rivista storico-cratica delle scinze teologiche” II, 12 (Decembre 1906), p. 899–902; III, 6 (Giugno 1907), p. 417–419. On the difference between the apostolic teaching about the Logos and Stoicism, see Prof. Dr. Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I (Lpzg 2 1908), s. 71. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 87. Rev. Prof. R. J. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles: a Study in Modern Criticism (London 1892), p. 284. In pseudo-Solomon, who supposedly significantly influenced the Apostle Paul († Eduard von Hartmann, Das Christentum des neuen Testaments, Sachs im Harz 2 1905, S. 173–174; cp. and F. Prat, La théologie de saint Paul I, Paris 1908, p. 22–23), philosophical elements are found (Prof. D. A. Bertholet. Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen in Die Litteraturen des Ostens in Einzeldarstellungen VII, 1, Lpzg 1906, S. 412–413) and in particular the Platonic-Pythagorean doctrine of the pre-existence of souls (Pfarrer Ludwig Couard, Die religiösen und sittlichen Anchauungen der alttesta-mentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, Gütersloh 1907, S. 107–108) and similar reflections in ethics (S. 188); but the former is disputed both for the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (Prof. Frank Chamberlin Porter, Pre-existence of the Soul in the Book of Wisdom and in the Rabbinic Writings in The American Journal of Theology XII, 1 [January, 1908], p. 53 sqq. 59 sqq. 63 sqq. 95) and for rabbinism (p. 95 sqq.); bodies (Rev. C. F. Burney, The Rise of a Belief in a Future Life in Israel in The Interpreter IV, 1 [October, 1907], pp. 54–56). The Bible was built here on its own idea regarding the origin of the soul (about which for the patristic period, see V.F. Davydenko, Patristic teaching on the origin of the human soul in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1907, No. 1, pp. 73–83; No. 2, pp. 209–228; No. 3, pp. 366–374; No. 4, pp. 509–524). Prof Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Uchte der Mysterienidee (Berlin 1884), S. 348. Prof. Paul Wernle, Paulus als Heidonmissionar (Freiburg i. B. Leipzig und Tübingen 1899), S. 10. Prof. C. F. G. Heinrici, Erklärung der Korintierbriefe II, S.579. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things (London 1904), p. 342. Prof C. F. G. Heinrici, Der zweite Korintherbrief y N. Aug. W. Meyer VI, S. 8 452. Rev. Arthur Carr, The Use of Pagan Ethical Terms in the New Testament in The Expositor 1899, VI, p. 444, 1. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law io the New Testament, p. 7–8; cp. and above, pp. 972 ff. 984–985. Prof. Gustav Teichmüller, Aristotelische Untersuchungen III: Beschichte des Begriffs der Parusie (Halle 1873), S. 146–147. Prof. Gustav Teichmüller, Aristotelische Untersuchungen III: Beschichte des Begriffs der Parusie (Halle 1873), S. 137. Prof. Gustav Teichmüller, Aristotelische Untersuchungen III: Beschichte des Begriffs der Parusie (Halle 1873), S. 144. Prof. S. Cheetham, The Mysteries of Pagan and Christian (London 1897), p. 16. See and Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, p. 13. †Prof Stew. D. F Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (Edinburgh 11895), p. 507. W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue (London 1907), p. 7. See Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, p. 79.425. Prof. Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa II, S. 496. † Th. Lewin, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul II, p. 5 420. † Th. Lewin, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul II, p. 5 421. D. Friedrich Koster, Ob St. Paulus seine Sprache an der des Demosthenes gebildet habe? in "Studien und Kritiken" 1854, II, S. 309–310. See D. Fr. Köster in "Studien und Kritiken" 1854, II, S. 311–314. Edmund Spiess, Logos spennaticos: Parallelstellen zum Neuen Testament aus den Schriften der alten Griechen; ein Beitrag zur christlichen Apologetik und zur vergleichenden Religionserforschung, Lpzg 1871. See, for example, Prof. R. Schneider, Christliche Klänge aus den griechischen und römischen Klassikern: eine Sammlung aus den Quellen im Anschluss an den Katechismus und die bezügliche Bibelsprüche (Gotha 1865), p. XVIII sqq. about Christianity before Christ. In ancient times, this idea was especially inspired by Clement al., who, among other things, found in the Apostle Paul an acquaintance with the Sibyls and Histasles: see Amedec Fleury, Saint Paul et Sénèque II, p. 231. See Prof. Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa II, S. 494 ff. 497, 1. See also G. B. Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 8-te Aufl. von Prof. P. W. Schmiedel § 3, 1 (S. 18), Anm. 4. Prof Dr Adolf Deissmann: The Philology of the Greek Bible in The Expositor 1908, I, p. 72; Licht vom Osten: das Neue Testament und (tie neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen 1908), S. 41. † Prof. William Wrede, Die Entstehung der Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen 1907), S. 22–23. Prof. Dr. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2 (Tübingen 1907), S. 141. Prof. Dr. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2 (Tübingen 1907), S. 128. Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte 1 (Lpzg 1907), S. 114 ff. Prof. Paul Wendland in Handbuch zum N. T. herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2, S. 109. Prof. Dr. Adolf Deissmann, Evangelium und Urchristentum (München 1907). S. 117. Prof. Ad. Deissmann in "The Expositor" 1907, XII, p. 520. Prof. Ad. Deissmann in "The Expositor" 1907, X, p. 290–291. See more about this † Prof. Franz Delitzsch, Biblischer Kommentar über die Psalmen (Lpzg 41894), S. 32 and Prof. Dr. Max Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, Heft 1/2 (Münster i. W. 1908), S. 39, 1. Prof. Ad. Deissmann, New Light on the New Testament from Records of the Graeco-Roman Period (Edinburgh 1907), p. 102 and in The Expository Times XVIII, 7 (April 1907), p. 306a. † Prof. W. Wrede, Die Entstehung der Schriften des N. T., S. 8. 20 Prof. Dr. Johannes Weiss, Die paulinische Briefe: Einleitung in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. Dr. J o h. Weiss II, 1 (Göttingen 1907), pp. 1–2. For more information on this issue, see Prof. Dr. Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, S. 157 ff. 162 ff., and George Milligan, St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians (London 1908), p. 121–130: St. Paulas a Letter-Writer. See The Expository Times XIX, 1 (October 1907), p. 47a, and cp. abstract Prof. W. Lock, Biblical Criticism and Study: the Epistles, London 1898. F. Prat accepts that Paul's epistles were something between private notes and literary works of this kind (La theologie de saint Paul I, p. 96. 101–102), why they are letters, but not private ones, addressed to one person (La theologie de saint Paul I, p. 98. 101). Even Prof. D. Paul Wernle admits (Einführung in das theologische Studium, Tübingen 1908, S. 131) that there is something original in the form of Pavlov's writings. Prof. D. S. F. Georg Heinrici, Der literarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schriften (Lpzg 1908). S. 103 ff. Prof. Dr. Adolf Jülicher, Die Religion Jesu und die Anfänge des Christentums bis zum Nicaenum in Die Kultur der Gegenwart herausg. von Paul Hinneberg I, 4 (Berlin und Leipzig 1906), pp. 74–75. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Vorlesungen über ueutestamentliche Theologie (Lpzg 1 1864), S. 11. Rev. Prof. W. F. Adeney, Weizsäcker on the Resurrection in The Expositor 1893, VIII, p. 139. Rabbiner Dr. Joseph Escheibacher. Zur Geschichte und Charakteristik der paulinischen Briefe in “Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums” 51 (N.F. 15), Heft 9/10 (September/Oktober 1907), S. 565 ff. Dr. Jos Escheibacher Zur Geschichte und Charakteristik der paulinischen Briefe in “Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums” 51 (N.F. 15), Heft 7/8 (Juli/August 1907), S. 395–428; Heft 9/10, pp. 542–568. Ernest Havel, Le Christianisme et ses origines I (Paris 2 1873), p. 212: "Plato est... le père de théologie." Ernest Havel Le Christianisme et ses origines I (Paris 2 1873), p. 2260: “Platon n’a pas seulement prepare le Christianisme; il Pa fait.” ABOUT . Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum (Berlin 1 1887), S. 305. See Latinus, The Aim of the New Catholic Movement in The Hibbert, Journal V, 3 (April 1907), p. 496. Prof. D. Otto Pfleiderer, Die Entwicklung des Christentums (München 4907), pp. 16–17. See Joseph Blötzer, S. J., Das heidnische Mysterienwesen und le Hellenisierung des Christentums in “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach” LXXII, 1 (Januar 1907). S. 37. See Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 178. See Edward Caird, St. Paul and the Idea of ​​Evolution in The Hibbert Journal II, 1 (October 1903), p. 17. Lyman Abbott, The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898). p. 259 sqq. Lyman Abbott The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898), p. IV. VII. 179. Lyman Abbott The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898), p. 4. Lyman Abbott The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898), p. 7–8. Lyman Abbott The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898), p. 7. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 423 and cp. 424 sq. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 428. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 428, 429, 434. Rev. Prof. James Denney, Art. "Knowledge" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings III (Edinburgh 1900). p. 10a R. ABOUT . Schjött, Eine religionsphilosophische Stelle bei Paulus (Röm. 1, 18–20) in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” IV (1903), 1, S. 76. R. ABOUT . Schjött, Eine religionsphilosophische Stelle bei Paulus (Röm. 1, 18–20) in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” IV (1903), 1, S. 77. R. ABOUT . Schjött, Eine religionsphilosophische Stelle bei Paulus (Röm. 1, 18–20) in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” IV (1903), 1, S. 78. See comments on this from Prof. D.A. Klöpper, Die durch natürliche Offenbarung vermittelte Gotteserkenntnis der Heiden bei Paulus Rom. 1, 18 ff. in "Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie" (N.F. XII: 1904), 2, S. 172 ff. † Prof. Carl Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus II (Berlin 1898), S. 37. † Prof. Carl Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus II (Berlin 1898), S. 45. † Prof. Carl Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus II (Berlin 1898), S. 38. See and Prof. Dr. W. Bousset. Der Brief an die Galater in Schriften des Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. Dr. Johannes Weiss II, 1 (Göttingen 1907), S. 60. C. Holsten. Das Evangelium des Paulus II, S. 39. Prof. H. J. Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie II, S. 154. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie, S. 1 144. Albrecht Rau, Die Ethik Jesu: ihr Ursprung und ihre Bedeutung vom Standpunkte des Menschentums (Giessen 1899), S. 54, 70. † Prof. Lic. theol. Justus Küberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum (München 1905), S. 213. Pfarrer Karl Stier, Paulus über die Sünde und das Judentum seiner Zeit in "Potestantische Manatshefte": neue Folge der Protestantischen Kirchenzeitung herausg. von D. Julius Websky XI (Lpzg 1907), 2, S. 61. K. Stier in "Protestantische Monatshefte" XI (1907). 3. S. 105. K. Stier in "Protestantische Monatshefte" XI (1907). 3. S. 106. K. Stier in "Protestantische Monatshefte" XI (1907). 3, S. 107. 109–110. See F. C. Conybeare, Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Gospels in The Hibbert Journal I, 1 (October 1902), p. 96 sqq. Ad. Earnack, Zu Lc I, 34, 35 in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" II (1901), 1, S. 53–57. Cp. also C. F. Conybeare on Criticism of the New Testament (London 1902) in The Hibbert Journal I, 2 (January 1903), p. 414: “I presume he (Fr. G. Kenyon) would not reckon as fundamental the dogmas of Trinity and miraculous birth of Jesus.” See about this and Rev. Arthur Carr, The Testimony of St. John to the Virgin Birth of Our Lord in "The Expositor" 1907, IV, p. 311–316. F. C. Conybeare in The Academy No. 1.206 (Juine 15, 1895), p. 508. See about W. Wrede in Prof. D. Adolf Jülicher, Paulus und Jesus in "Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher" herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele 1, 14 (Tübingen 1907), S. 23. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 414. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 411–412. Against this, see V. Ermoni, La theologia di sail Paolo in “Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche” III, 6 (Giugno 1907), p. 426. On this doctrine see also Emile Brehier, Les idees philosophiques et religienses de Philon d'Alexandrie, p. 121 suiv. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 373 (in the treatise "Das Christliche des Platonismus oder Sokrates und Christus"). Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie (in the treatise "Das Christliche des Platonismus oder Socrates und Christus"), S. 272–273. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie (in the treatise "Das Christliche des Platonismus oder Socrates und Christus"), S. 275. See Rev. Prof. R. J. Knowling in The Critical Review XII, 5 (September 1902), p. 447. Cp. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 4. So Prof. Job. Weiss, Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung des Apostels, S. 8. Here, St. Paul allows for a relationship with the myth of the divine first man, which passed into Judaism from Orientalist speculation: see and Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II (Lpzg 1907), S. 103. See and Rev. Prof. R. J. Knoicling, The Witness of the Epistles, p. 284. See Rev. George Matheson, The Historical Christ of Paul in "The Expositor" 1881, I, p. 59, 60; II, p. 127, 128, 129. Prof. D. K. Miller, Neutestamentliche Theologie: Grundriss für Vorlesungen (Erlangen 1907), S. 31. Prof. D. Erich Schaeder, Das Evangelium Jesu und das Evangelium von Jesus (nach den Synoptikern) in “Beiträge zur Förderung christlieher Theologie” herausg. von Proff. A. Schlatter and W. Lütgert X (Gütersloh 1906), 6, S. 63. See Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II. S. 133. Prof. Dr. Oscar Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig 1895), 8. 230–231. Prof. Hermann Gunkel, Zum religionsgcsehichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments in “Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments” herausg. von Proff. W. Bousset und H. Gunkel I, 1 (Göttingen 1903), S. 86. Lic. Dr. Martin Brückner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie (Strassburg 1903), 8. 131. 147. 164. 210. † C. Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus II, S. 9–10. See and Rev. Prof. T.K. Cheyne in Encyclopaedia Biblica II, col. 2013. See and Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 84. See book. I, pp. 368–370 and cp. above 1032, 384. See and Prof. Aug. Ferd. Duhne, Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, 8. 3. Cp. Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihrer Beziehungen zu einander (Göttingen 1903), S. 120 ff. 241. 255. Prof. Beruh. Weiss, Die Religion des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart und Berlin 1903), S. 98. Rev. R. D. Shan, The Pauline Epistles (Edinburgh 1903), p. 122, 1. Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus, S. 239. Lic. Alfred Jancker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus I (Halle a. S. 1904), S. 36. 42–53. Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus, S. 242. 252. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge 1903), p. 269. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 347–350. Alfred Juncker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus I, S. 81 ff. Cp. and Professor William P. Dickson, St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit (Glasgow 1883), p. 70. So at Prof. Joh. Weiss, Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung des Apostels Paulus, S. 8. See and above pp. 1038–1040. F. R. Tennant, The Sourees of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 250 sq. 272.343. F. R. Tennant, The Sourees of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 247. 271. See further below p. Against such rapprochements, see also Alfred Juncker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus I, S. 78 ff. Rev. P. Bren, The Ethics of St. Paul in International Journal of Ethics XIII, 4 (July 1903), p. 497. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 229. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 240. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 343. Eduard Grimm, Die Ethik Jesu (Hamburg 1903), S. 71. See Rev. Prof. Arthur S. Peake, A Reply to Dr. Denney in "The Expositor" 1904, I, p. 50 sqq. F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 257–267. Rev. Prof. Arthur S. Peake in "The Expositor" 1904, I, p. 60 sqq. See and Rev. A. J. Mason, A Modern Theory of the Fall in The Journal of Theological Studies V. 20 (July, 1904), p. 486. See Fr. A. V. Bugrov, Orthodox dogmatic doctrine of original sin (Kiev 1904), p. 177. O. A. V. Bugrova, Orthodox dogmatic doctrine of original sin (Kiev 1904), pp. 169 ff. O. A. V. Bugrova, Orthodox dogmatic doctrine of original sin (Kyiv 1904), p. 25. 74 ff. 83 cl O. A. V. Bugrova, Orthodox dogmatic doctrine of original sin (Kyiv 1904), pp. 31 ff. and Wed 61–63. 74 words See and † Prof. Lic. theol. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum, S. 570. Pfarrer Karl Stier, Paulus über die Sünde und das Judentum seiner Zeit in "Protestantische Monatshefte" XI (1907), 3, S. 103. See also † Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade, S. 510 If. 513–514. See above on pp. 1000, 117. See also Kaufmann Kohler, Art. "Judaism" in The Jewish Encyclopedia VII, p. 3626; † Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade, S. 515. 569–570; Rabbiner Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher in “Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums” 51 (N.F. 15), Heft 9/10: September/Oktober 1907, S. 562; Israel Levi, Le Peche originel dans ies anciennes sour ces juives, Paris 1907, as well as cp. at Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 11–12. (215-) 217. W.O. E. Oesterley and G. N. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 142–143. See K. Kohler in The Jewish Encyclopedia VII, p. 3626; f Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade, S. 597 ff.; W.O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 240; Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 75.84. 213; prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the afterlife and the final fate of people, pp. 218–219. 264–265. 265, 2. † Prof. Justus Köberle, Sunde und Gnade, S. 592. See Prof. Liс. Rudolf Knopf, Die Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele 1, 13 (Tübingen 1907), S. 11. 13. G. Kunze also argues that it is not visible and one should not think that St. had realism in depicting the resurrection and everything that followed. Paul is rudely Pharisaic and the resurrected body is depicted as completely identical to the former, earthly one: see Art. “Unsterblichkeit” in Realencyklopadie von Herzog-Hauck XX (Lpzg 3 1908), S. 287; Very Rev. J. H. Bernard, St. Paul's Doctrine of the Resurrection: a Study of Corinthians XV in The Expositor 1908, VI, p. 503. Lic. Dr. Martin Brückner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie, S. 215–216. Prof. Rudolf Knopf, Die Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums, S. 11–12. So does Rev. Prof. James Denney, Adam and Christ in St. Paul in "The Expositor" 1904. II, p. 151; Nathan Söderblom, La vie future d'apres le mazdeisme, p. 400. See and Rev. Prof. Arthur S. Peake in "The Expositor" 1904, I, p. 53. Prof. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (Tübingen und Leipzig 1903), S. 44. 46. Prof. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (Tübingen und Leipzig 1903), S. 50. Prof. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (Tübingen und Leipzig 1903), S. 51. 52. 56. Prof. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (Tübingen und Leipzig 1903), S. 7 (on the Apocalypse). 10. 14. 24 (about Ev. Matthew). 24.34 (about Ev. Luke). 40 (about St. Mark). 41 (“Logia” and other documents). Prof. Paul Wernle, Die Reichsgotteshoffnung in den ältesten christlichen Dokumenten und bei Jesus (Tübingen und Leipzig 1903), S. 2 ff. 10. 48. On this side, the judgment of E. Tobac is also exaggerated, that the “truth of God” is depicted by the Apostle Paul only eschatologically: La δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ dans saint Paul in “Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique” IX, 1 (15 January 1908), p. 5–18. See D. Paul Kolbing, Die bleibende Bedeutung der urchristlichen Eschatologie (Göttingen 1907), S. 6 ff. D. Paul Kolbing, Die bleibende Bedeutung der urchristlichen Eschatologie (Göttingen 1907), S. 9 ff. Eduard Grimm, Die Ethik Jesu, S. 403–404. She's at Sanhedr. 90b. See Dr. Aug. Wünsche, Die Vorstellungen vom Zustande nach dem Tode nach Apokryphen, Talmud und Kirchenvätern in “Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie” VI (Lpzg 1880), 2, S. 368. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 74. 99. See also book. I, pp. 617, 484. 632, 518. Prof Lic. Rudolf Knopf, Die Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Er. Michael Schiele I, 13 (Tübingen 1907), S. 42. See also prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, p. 64 approx. (166 for the Egyptians). 245 (from Saadia). See and Rev. S. D. McConnell, Immortality in The American Journal of Theology VIII, 1 (January, 1904), p. 139–143. See prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 79. 84. 237. Dr. Aug. Wünsche in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" VI (1880), 2, S. 374; 3, pp. 510–511. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the post-mortem state and the final fate of people, pp. 63–64. 85 words 88. 104–105. 108. 119. 125. 132–133. 200–202. 220. 230. 237–238. 239–240. 254–255. 259. 289. 325. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the post-mortem state and the final fate of people, p. 78. The famous Maimonides († c. 1270) allowed immortality only for thinkers who had achieved special intelligence: see Rev. J. Abelson, Maimonides on the Jewish Creed in The Jewish Quarterly Review XIX, 73 (October, 1906), p. 27. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 84, 1. Rev. H. A. A . Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 119–125. Rev. H. A. A . Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 275 sqq. 278 sqq. D. S. A. Fri es, Jesu Vorstellung von der Auferstehung der Toten in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft” I (1900), 4, S. 302–303. Dr. Martin Brückner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie, S. 59. Dr. Mart. Brückner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie, S. 211. See Prof. C. F. G. Heinrici: Erklärung der Korintierbriefe II, S. 245 ff.; Der zweite Brief an die Korinther y H. Aug. W. Meyer VI, S. 8 180. See and Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 298, 1. Prof. Yul. A. Kulakovsky, Death and immortality in the ideas of the ancient Greeks (Kiev 1899), pp. 121–122. Prof Oscar Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, S. 1244. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 113. 157. Lic. theol. Paul Fiebig, Die Offenbarung des Johannes und die jüdische Apokalyptik der römischen Kaiserzeit (Gotha 1907), S. 18. Lic. theol. Paul Fiebig, Die Offenbarung des Johannes und die jüdische Apokalyptik der römischen Kaiserzeit (Gotha 1907), S. 22. Dr. phil. Eugen Hülm, Geschichte Jesu und der ältesten Christenheit bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen 1905), S. 97. Prof. Dr. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2, S. 141. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 187–188. Lic. Alfred Juncker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, S. 131. Prof. Paul Wernle, Was haben wir heute von Paulus? (Basel 1904), S. 38. Prof. Paul Wernle, Was haben wir heute von Paulus? (Basel 1904), S. 28.. Nathan Söderblom, La vie future d'apres le mazdeisme, p. 398. Nathan Söderblom, La vie future d'apres le mazdeisme, p. 429–430. Rev. Prof. G. G. Findlay in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings III, p. 729b. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of Last Things, p. 199 sqq. † Prof. St. D. F. Sahnond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, p. 1 507–508. Prof. S. Cheetham, The Mysteries of Pagan and Christiaq, p. 16–17. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of Last Things, p. IX. 2.8 sqq. Prof Ernst von Dobschüts, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (Lpzg 1904), S. 100–101. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 24 sqq. Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 162–163. See The Expository Times XV, 9 (June 1904), p. 390 sqq. and cp. even Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 114 ff. 124. 126. 132. 133 ff. 142. 144. 145. 147. 149 words. Rev. N. A . A . Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 94–101. 167 sqq. 174–175. Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Caesaren, S. 2 60. Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Senöque II, p. 245–246. 235–236. See about them Prof. With. Christ, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur bis auf Zeit Justinians (München 3 1898), S. 316. 314 ff. Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Seneque II, p. 235–237. Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et Senüque II, p. 227, 3. Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et SenüquII, b. 230, 1 Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et Senüqu II, p. 229–230. Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et SenüquII, p. 247. Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et SenüquII, p. 246. Am. Fleury, Saint Paul et SenüquII, p. 234. Lic. Johannes Albani, Die Parabel bei Paulus in "Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie" XLVI (N. F. XI: 1903), 2, S. 167. A similar analogy is found in Seneca in Die ira II, 31:7; see Opera ed. Frid. Hasel (Lipsiae 18871, p. 44. Prof. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie II, S. 176. † A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I, p. 2 88 and according to the Russian translation about. M. P. Fiveysky I, p. 108 ) † E. Kurtius, Paulus in Athen in Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 537, and from the translation † Prof. A.P. Lopukhin in “Christ. Readings" 1894, IV, p. 19 and on reprint, p. 17. Col. 2:4, 8 was also raised to it by Clement al.: see Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Seneque II, p. 228–229. † Prof. Dr. M. Lazarus, Die Ethik des Judenthums (Frankfurt am Main 1898), S. 395 and according to the Russian translation by I. K. Brusilovsky and G. L. Polinkovsky, The Ethics of Judaism (Odessa 1903), p. 220. Prof. J. Geffcken, Socrates und das alte Christentum (Heidelberg 1908), S. 15: “Die Literatur des Urchristentums ignoriert ihn (Sokrates) völlig.” P. Corssen, Ueber Begriff und Wesen des Hellenismus in "Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft" IX (1908), 2, S. 95: "von Homer und auch von Sokrates aus führt allerdings kein Weg zum Christentum." See also Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Senfeque II, p. 233. † E. Kurtius in Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 538 and in † prof. A.P. Lopukhin in “Christ. Readings" 1894, IV, p. 20 and on reprint, p. 18. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica IV, p. 10. See Prof. O. Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele III, 1 (Halle a. Saale 1904), S. 13. Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 52. 72. Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 70. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 169. 175. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 168. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, pp. 74–75. 80 ff. For all these parallels, see Lyman Abbott, The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle, p. 20, 1. Here see Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Seneque II, p. 211, 1. Here see Ephorus Vayhinger, Neutestamentliche Parallelen zu Platons Apologie des Sokrates at Programm des Königlich Würtembergischen evangelisch-theologischen Seminars in Blaubeuren zum Schlüsse des zweijährigen Kurses 1899–1901 (Blaubeuren 1901), S. 21. † E. Kurzius in Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 537, and in † prof. A.P. Lopukhin in “Christ. Readings" 1894, IV, pp. 19–20 and on reprint, pp. 17–18. See and above pp. 1115–1116. † E. Kurzius in Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 538, and in † prof. A.P. Lopukhin in “Christ. Readings" 1894, IV, p. 20 and on reprint, p. 18. † E. Kurzius in Gesammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 538, and in † prof. A.P. Lopukhin in “Christ. Readings" 1894, IV, p. 20 and on reprint, p. 18. See even higher, p. 1124. Prof. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theologie I, pp. 201–202. See also Rev. Prof. T. K. Cheyne in Encyclopaedia Biblica IV, col. 2013. See K. Tieme, Art. "Gut, das höchste" in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck VII 3 (Lpzg 1899), S. 261. Prof. Oscar Holtzma nn, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, S. 1 230–231. So Prof. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, p. 2 230–231. Even at the very edge of the 16th century, the parallel for 1 Corinthians 15:32 was pointed to the (pseudo-) Heraclitus 1st letter; see Abrahami Sculteti Delitiae Evangelicae Pragenses: hoc est, Observationes Grammaticae, Historicae, Theologicae, in Historiam Jesu Christi nati, educati, baptizati, tentati; ejusdem Sculteti Oratio de conjungenda Philologia cum Theologia, Delitiis praemissa (Hanoviae 1520), p. 8. Prof Dr. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2 (Tübingen 1907), S. 141. D. Alfred Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in "Texte und Untersuchungen" XXVII, N. F. XII (Lpzg 1904), S. 617. See Prof. Ed. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa II, S. 497. See Prof. Dr. Paul Wendland in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament herausg. von Hans Lietzmann I, 2, S. 114. 119. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in relation to their teaching on morality (St. Petersburg, 1884), pp. 580 ff. See Rev. Prof. T . TO . Cheyne in Encyclopaedia Biblica IV, col. 2013. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks in Studia biblica et ecclesiastica II, p. 9. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 106–107. W. E. Ball, St. Paul and the Roman Law and Other Studies on the Origin of the Form of Doctrine (Edinburgh 1901), p. 142. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 104–105. 162. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 103–104 and cp. 118. Wed. and Prof. John E. McFadyen, Hellenism and Hebraism in The American Journal of Theology VIII, 1 (January, 1904), p. 37 sqq. See prof. for detailed explanations. A. A. Bronzova, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, p. 117 ff. 139 words 199 words See also † Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen II, 2, S. 3 632–633. Al Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle I, p. 4,252 sqq. †Prof. I. H. Korsunsky, The teaching of Aristotle and his school (peripatetic) about God (based on an imprint from the magazine “Faith and Reason”, Kharkov 1891), p. 53. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen II, 2, S. 3730, 6. 614–615. Cp. u † prof. I. N. Korsunsky, The teaching of Aristotle and his school (peripatetic) about God, p. 37. Prof. A. A. Bronzov, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, p. 581. 139. Cf. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen II, 2, S. 3 621. Cp. with us: The Good News of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians, pp. 126–128 and in the magazine “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 7, pp. 42–44. Against E. L. Hicks on 1 Cor. 13 see † St. D. F. Salmond in The Critical Review VII, 1 (January 1897), p. 98. See pp. 1039–1040 above. For convergences, see Rev. Ediv. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 105–106. Cp. u † prof. I. N. Korsunsky, The Teaching of Aristotle and his school (peripatetic) about God, p. 57 ff. Wed. and † prof. I. N. Korsunsky, The Teaching of Aristotle and his school (peripatetic) about God, p. 46 ff. 53 words Prof. A. A. Bronzov, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, pp. 579–580. For convergences, see Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 101–102. So does Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Human Law in the New Testament, p. 108. See William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 409: “the authority of Heraklitus, as a great master in philosophy, seems to have been revived in that late or Hellenic age, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that Paul may have been acquinted with his writings.” Prof. Max Heinze, Art. "Religionsphilosophie" in Realencyclo-pädie von Herzog-Hauck XVI (Lpzg 3 1905), S. 601. Cp. W. D. Ross, Art. "Stoics" in Encyclopaedia Biblica IV, col. 4798. P. Tannery, The first steps of ancient Greek science (St. Petersburg 1902), p. 171. Prof. William L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed (Edinburgh 1907). p. 65, 1. 87. 138–139. Prof Dr. Max Heinze, Art. "Pantheismus" in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XIV (Lpzg 31904), S. 630. Prof D. O. Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele III, 1 (Halle a. Saale 1904), S. 44. Prof C. F. G. Heinrici, Das Urchristentum, S. 135. I. A. Nevzorov, Morality of Stoicism and Christian Moral Teaching (Kazan 1892), p. 17. Prof. Dr. Julius Grill, Die persische Mysterienreligion im römischen Reich und das Christentum (Leipzig und Tübingen 1903), S. 9. Prof. Dr. Emile Brehier, Les idees philosophiques et religieuses de Phiion d'Alexandrie (Paris 1908), p. 213. We see this, for example, in Abraham Scultetus or Schultz, who was a court preacher and diplomatic-theological (ecclesiastical-political) adviser to the Elector of the Palatinate, Frederick. See Jacob Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe: ein Beitrag zur philosophischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Literatur (Berlin 1869), pp. 151–152. Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Caesaren, S. 253. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 335. Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Seneque II, p. 247, 3. See also Abrahami Sculteti Delitiae Evangelicae Pragenses, p. 8. Published by Jacob Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe, S. 7. Let us add that the 4th and 7th letters of Edm. Pfleiderer assimilates (Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 327 ff.) to the author of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (cf. above pp. 1109, 1000; Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II, Lpzg 1907, S. 133), which again justifies the dependence of the Apostle on the latter, but, even recognizing such an acquaintance (see and Prof. Oskar Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Tübingen 2 1906, S. 285; see and above pp. 1109, 1008), others still state that the evangelist was beyond the influence of this non-canonical document (S. Monteil, Essai sur Іа Christologie de saint Paul I: L'oeuvre, Paris 1906, p. 25) and on the question of paganism (see † Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade, S. 523, 1), and regarding the latter cp. and A. Lebedev, Historical process of the religious and moral development of mankind according to the Apostle Paul in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1907, No. 4, pp. 466–486; No. 5, pp. 601–621. So Amedee Fleury, Saint Paul et Seneque II, p. 248–249 not. So Bruno Bauer, Christus and die Caesaren, S. 2 53–54. Bruno Bauer, Christus and die Caesaren, S. 2 380. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer, Heraklitischen Spuren auf theologischem, insbesondere altchristlichem Boden inner- und aussei'halb der kanonischen Literatur in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (Lpzg 1887), 2, S. 202. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer, Heraklitischen Spuren auf theologischem, insbesondere altchristlichem Boden inner- und aussei'halb der kanonischen Literatur in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 217. Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 202–203. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 89. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 94. William Mackintosh, The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 409–410. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3643 ff. P. Tannery, The first steps of ancient Greek science, pp. 25 ff. in the application. Wed. above on page 1026. Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 203. See †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 655–660 ff. See the sayings of P. Tannery, The First Steps of Ancient Greek Science, pp. 61–62 in appendix. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidees, S. 84 ff. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahbiicher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 205. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer in “Jahbiicher für protestantische Theologie XIII (1887), 2, S. 203. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 (676-)679, 1 (-680). Cp. P. Tannery, The first steps of ancient Greek science, pp. 167. 168–169 and - in the appendix - 63: 69. 67–68. Prof. Theoder Gomperz, Griechische Denker: eine Geschichte der antiken Philosophie I (Lpzg 1896), S. 53. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 136. Prof. O. Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Religionsgeschichliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele III, 1 (Halle a. Saale 1904), S. 9. Prof. Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 203–204. Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 207. According to Dr. N. I. Weinstein, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Essäer (Wien 1892), S. 47 u. Amn. 1, - so in the Palestinian Tanna Pinchas ben Jair, son-in-law of Simon ben Jochai (see Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten II, Strassburg i. E. 1890, S. 495 ff.). Prof Edm. Pfleiderer in "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 204–205. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 634 ff. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus, S. 100 ff. Edm. Pfleiderer in “Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie” XIII (1887), 2, S. 205–207, and it is explained (S. 206) that πεττεύειν actually indicates the game of checkers, and then, according to an ancient misunderstanding, the game of dice is also thought of, i.e. ἡ κυβεία. On Heraclitean sayings, see also P. Tannery, The first traces of ancient Greek science, p. 179 and - in the appendix - 63: 79; cp. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S., 110 f. 115 ff. See and Prof. ABOUT . Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Fr. Michael Schiele III, 1, S. 45. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 727–732. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosopnie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 672 states in Heraclitus pantheism with the opposite of dualism (S. 746), but the latter is visible in anthropology, for the soul turns out to be bound in the body (S. 710 and cp. P. Tannery, First, steps of ancient Greek science, p. 184), where it fell from the higher spheres and from where after death or goes to hell, or turns into one of the demons (S. 713, although - according to P. Tannery First, steps of ancient Greek science, p. 185 - the Ephesian philosopher did not share generally accepted views on hell). †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen I, 2, S. 3 687 ff. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 86. Dr. Paul Wendland, Ein Wort des Heraklit im Neuen Testament after a reprint from the “Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin” XLIX (1898) with double pagination (Berlin 1898), S. 4 = 791. See and above on p. 1057. R. Wendland, Ein Wort des Heraklit im N. T., S. 6 = 793.