Часть I-ая. Введение

My children, even though I am sick, until Christ is imagined in you. §1 History of Galatia and its position in the apostolic era The Epistle to the Galatians is the most important monument of the primal church of Christ in terms of historical significance at the most decisive moments of its life and in terms of dogmatic authority for all times. It put a final limit to dangerous fluctuations in relations with Judaism and theoretically unshakably ensured the absolute, truly divine independence and eternal saving vitality of Christianity throughout the world. All this is most clearly depicted and comprehended in certain specific conditions, but in this regard we do not have complete factual clarity and there are even more scientific disputes, which have become especially aggravated in modern times. What is certain is that the message was originally intended for the Galatian Christians. The location of this country is clear, but its extent is not entirely certain, and from here arise very significant difficulties regarding the origin and even the interpretation of the letter to the Galatians. Galatia was located, as it were, in the center of Asia Minor and received its name from the alien, foreign element that settled here. These were the people of the Celtic tribe (γλῆτες, γαλάται, κέλται, κελτοί), but - specifically - in its Gallic branch. This solid historical and philological conclusion is sometimes tilted by German theologians in favor of the Teutonic geneology of the Galatians, but such a nationalistic predilection (later than others, for example, in Wieseler, Fillippi, and partly in Holsten) does not find sufficient scientific justification 1 . And if for these purposes one can use the “Gauls” of Julius Caesar, then one must not forget that he directly speaks about the latter (De bello gallico I, 1): “The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, of which one is inhabited by the Belgae, the other by the Aquitani, the third by those who in their language are called Celts, and in ours - Gauls” (qui ipsorum lingua Celtes, nostra - Galli appelantur). So it was a Celtic tribe. The note of the blessed one does not refute this conclusion. Jerome that the language of the Galatians approaches the speech of the Trevirs 2 - inhabitants of the area (in Gallia Belgica) near Trier (Augusta Trevirorum), which was their main city until the time of Diocletian, when it became a metropolitan in Gallia prima; but at the confluence of the Saar into the Moselle, the Belgian-Gallic population remained, and - according to the testimony of the Roman historian Justin (M. Justinianus Justinus or Justinus Frontinus) of the Antonine era (about 160) 3 - the Galatian Tolistovians lived earlier along the banks of the Garonne, having their capital Toulouse (Toulouse, Spanish Tolosa), why some even (in vain) is considered the original name of Tolosatobogii. In any case, the intelligent Gauls are supposed not to the north, but to the south of the Rhine and are closer to the present (especially after the “great war”) France. Gaul turned out to be too crowded for a more or less comfortable existence, and all sorts of peoples then preferred not to create the necessary living conditions for themselves, but to predatoryly seize what was ready from others. So the Gallic masses, feeling constrained, began to gradually move east, around 390 they significantly devastated Italy, even took Rome, and in the 3rd century BC. another stream of Gauls began to make their way to the Balkan Peninsula. In the year 281, with three huge armies they attacked Thrace, Paeonia and Macedonia with Illyria and completely defeated the weak troops of the young and inexperienced Macedonian king (son of Ptolemy I Sotira, † 283, from Eurydice) Ptolemy Keraunus, who fell in battle with them (in May 280). In 280 - 279 Brennus 4 and Acichorius, together with other leaders, moved into Greece proper, but mutual unrest caused confusion among the Galatians, and they suffered heavy defeats in Aetolia and at Delphi. This completely weakened the overall flow, and the small streams soon ran away and disappeared imperceptibly. A natural rebound followed. The remnants of the defeated hordes turned to the north and, uniting with their relatives who had settled there, decided to move to the Asia Minor continent, where they quite reasonably hoped to find good profit in the turmoil of the civil strife there. Some of them, under the leadership of their chief Lutarius, actually moved across the Hellespont on captured Macedonian ships. At the same time, the Bithynician king Nicome(i)d I (279–246 BC), in need of military assistance - especially to fight his younger brother Zipetus (Ζιποίτης), concluded a mercenary agreement with the 17 Gallic heads - and under the leadership of Leonnaris, new Gallic forces crossed the Bosphorus. All this happened around 279–277. BC The aliens justified themselves with abusive successes, but through them they also ensured their terrorist independence in the country of Asia Minor, where they were victors. Naturally, they took a strong position here, retaining all their militant and predatory inclinations, which they knew how to reveal very clearly on all occasions for the sake of their selfish interests. This was a cruel scourge for all of Asia Minor to the Taurus, and it turned out to be all the more formidable and terrible because the small rulers there constantly quarreled and fought among themselves, and the Galatians made good use of these feuds in their mercenary services. They learned from direct experience to think that everything here depends on them, as stewards of the destinies of Asia Minor throughout the entire space and in its entirety. Only the Syrian king Antiochus I (281–261), supposedly for this reason glorified by the title of Sotira (savior), gave them a serious rebuff, to which some (W. J. Woodhouse) attribute the news of 2 Mac. 8:20 “about the battle that took place in Babylon against the Galatians.” However, this success was not decisive. More important in its results was the energetic opposition of the Pergamon kings, of whom Attalus I (241–197), also nicknamed Sotira, between 240 and 280. several times inflicted severe blows on the Gallic newcomers and eventually forced them to confine themselves to a certain territory (in the north Bithynia and Paphlagonia, in the east Pontus, in the south Cappadocia and Lycaonia and in the west Phrygia), where they had to be content with national and civil independence, without disturbing others and without interfering in other people's affairs 5 . This eastern Gaul was called Gaul or Gallogrecia by the Greeks. So inside Asia Minor on its hills Galatia itself was formed from the former Great Phrygia, Cappadocia and even Paphlagonia. It was a strip of land more than 300 versts long from southwest to northeast and over 150 versts wide. In the east, the Galis (Ἄλυς now in Turkish Kizil-Irmak, “red river”), the greatest waterway in Asia Minor, and in the west, the long-navigable (Strabo XII, 3:7) Sangarium (now Sakariya), flowing through the valleys into the Black Sea, divided this region into almost three equal parts. This was exactly what suited the nationalist groups of Gallic foreigners. It is reported about them (in Strabo XII, 5:1; 3:1) that - like the Helvetii (Caesar's De B. G. I, 12) - each of the three Gallic branches (ἔθνη) split into four tetrarchies with a special tetrarch, who had a judge and a military leader under him. Connections between everyone were maintained by a meeting of 300 people in Drinemet (Δρυναίμετον) 6, where court cases were almost exclusively considered as a final and peremptory authority. This system, brought from the distant West, gradually disappeared and even during the period of its traditional dominance did not at all suppress the tripartite nationalistic fragmentation of the newcomers into Trocmov, Tektosag and Tolistobogi 7. The first were located to the east in the best part (Strabo XV, 5:2) closer to Cappadocia and Pontus along the river. Galisu near the city of Tavia (now Nefes-kei), the third settled on the western outskirts near the ancient Pessinunt - Pessina (Bala Hissar) and adjacent to Bithynia and Phrygia “acquired” 8, the second established itself between two rivers, and their capital Ankyra (Angora - in Turkish Engo(u)ri) was the metropolis of all Galatia (τῆς λαμπρωτάτης μητροπόλεως τῆς Γαλατίας in S. Boeskh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, No. 4015, ἡ μητρόπολις της Γαλατίας Σεβαστὴ Τεκτοσάγων Ἄγκυρα 9, equal to Sebaste Tectosagum), as is now the political-administrative center Turkish Republic. The area was and remains quite harsh, but it is rich and fertile, and its importance was unusually elevated by the fact that a large trade route passed through it, which, heading from Ephesus, led through Pessinunt, Ancyra and Pteria (Bogaz-kei, near Tavia) to the Euphrates; another more direct road - through southern Phrygia and Lycaonia - was then still in its infancy and was not yet suitable for general convenient use 10. All this gave the Galatians quite favorable conditions for a peaceful existence, but - due to their innate tribal habits - they did not want to be content with a quiet life, continued to interfere in all the confused relations of Asia Minor and necessarily attracted the suspicious attention of the Romans, who were not slow to take revenge on them for helping Antiochus III the Great (223-187 BC). After the battle (189) at Magnesia at Sipylus, the Roman consul Manlius Vulso (Cn. Manlius Vulso) moved to Galatia, and the Galatians had to submit to Roman weapons 11. However, there was no final defeat, and then (about 160) they (according to W. M. Ramsay) received “surplus” territory (προσειλημμένη - ώρα: Ptol. V, 4:10) from Lycaonia (west of Lake Tatta to Amoria and Laodicea) with Iconium and 13 other cities. In any case, the Roman triumph was not yet accompanied by enslavement, and the Galatians retained their freedom as if on the rights of Roman allies, but solely for the sake of the prudent calculations of Roman policy and in its selfish interests. In this new situation, the Galatians found themselves under the diversified influences of Pontus, Cappadocia and Pergamon, and were partly forced (about 164) to submit to Ariarat of Cappadocia (IV, Pious: 220–163) and especially suffered from the Pontic kings, which is why they took such an active part in the struggle of the Romans with Mithridates of Pontus (VI, Eupator: 121–64), that the latter ordered the beating of the entire Galatian nobility, from which, allegedly, only three tetrarchs were saved. At the end of the troubles, Pompey recognized (in 64) exactly three tetrarchs over the Galatians - Castor (probably) for the Tectosogi, Brogitara (Deiotarus's son-in-law) for the Trocms and Deiotarus for the Tolistobogii - with the annexation of Lesser Armenia and part of Pontus to the latter's region. Deiotarus gradually pushed aside and eliminated other co-rulers, and the crowning of the criminal career of betrayals and murders of this insidious intriguer was his proclamation as king of Galatia. He died in 40. His successor and son-in-law, Castor the Younger, was awarded internal Paphlogonia by the all-powerful Anthony (which Pompey granted to Attallus in 64). This new ruler soon died, and his inheritance was transferred in 36 to Amyntas, the former secretary and military leader of Deiotarus, who had been king of Pisidia since 39 with the inclusion of Apollo and Antioch (Strabo XII, 6:4). Now the Galatian kingdom already embraced a huge area between the (salty) lake Tatta (now Tuz-gol) and the Taurus mountains (Strabo XII, 5:4). In the war between Antony and (Octavian) Augustus, Amyntas and Polemon (1st, Elder) of Pontus took the side of the former, however, even after the unhappy battle of Aquium (September 2, 31 BC), these allies of the defeated dictator did not lose the favor of Rome, which well appreciated their abilities and the importance of the help expected from them. In 30, Amyntas was even awarded the annexation of Trachea (Tracheotis or Harsh Cilicia, in its western part) and Isaurians - with permission to seize non-Roman territory, which is why he took away from Antipater, Cicero's former friend, part of Lycaonia with Derbe and Laranda (Karaman) and something from Phrygia. In 25, Aminta died during a campaign in Cilicia against the Homanadens (Omonads), a warlike tribe living in the Taurus Mountains on the borders of Lycaonia, Pisis and Isauria (south and east of Lake Beyshegr-gol). Now the entire kingdom of Amyntas passed to the Romans under the general name of Galatia for the entire province. The latter was declared imperial and was subordinate to the Iegatus Augusti pro praetore, which combined military (imperium) and civil (potestas) powers - like the former Russian governors-general. However, there were no Roman legions there, and this allowed us to talk about some fictitious independence. Marcus Lollius was appointed the first ruler, but the entire organization of this region was completed no earlier than 20 BC. At the beginning of this new distribution, the boundaries were reduced by the withdrawal of Pamphylia, while Trachean Phrygia with eastern Lycaonia (including the districts of Castabala and Cybistra as far as Derbe), known (from about the time of 129) as a “surplus” (to the previously eleven) or eleventh (ἐπίκτητος, ενδεκάτη) strategy (governorship) in Cappadocia was approved by the latter’s ruler, Archelaus. But over time, Galatian Square still continued to expand. Around 7 BC. (probably after the death of Deiotar Philadelphus) the district of Paphlagonia at Mount Olgassia (Ilkas-Dag) with the cities of Gangra (Chengri) and Andrapa (Iskelib) was assigned to it (in the north). Parts of Pontus were also included here (in 2-1 BC. Sevastopol, Amasia and, apparently, Gaze (di)lonitida - between the river Halys and the city of Amis (Samsun) - together with the possession of Ateporig, in 34-35 AD - Komana), in general later called Pontus of Galatia (Pontus Galaticus, i.e. belonging to Galatia) in contrast to Pontus of Polemon (P. Polemoniacus), ruled by Polemon II from the 37th to the 54th year with the participation of his mother Tryphaena and then alone until the year 63, when his kingdom was also absorbed by Galatia, although it retained its former name. In the further course of events, a similar fate befell many other surrounding countries, such as Phrygia - with Apollonia, Antioch and Iconium (Conia), titled (see in Acta Sanctorum under September 29) Phrygia Galatica in contrast to Phrygia Ascianä Pisidia (cf. Acts. XIV, 24); part of Lycaonia with the cities of Lystra (probably Khatyn-serai) and Derbe (it seems, near the present Gudelissin), as well as some other areas that did not yet have a proper urban organization (for example, Gida, Barata, Perta, etc., summarized in Acts XIV, 6 with the term ἡπερίλωρος - “neighborhoods”); finally, Isauria or Ἰσαυρική (χώρα) with the city of Isauria. Under the new order of things, many features of the previous system were preserved with the retention of a representative assembly for all of Galatia (in τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Γαλατίας), the capital of which remained Ancyra. But, of course, the Roman influence did not pass without a trace, and in the south of the province of Pisidian Antioch (Colonia Caesaria Antiochia, now Yalovaj) was for it, as it were, a second metropolis, being the center of the system of Roman garrison settlements (coloniae) and military or imperial roads (ὀδαὶ βασιλικαί) and serving as a place of departure regional cult. Evidence of Roman influence can be seen in many Roman cities, of which Augustus had already founded as many as seven: Germa (Julia Augusta Fida Germa) - in northern Galatia, Antioch, Lystra, Parlanda, Cremna, Comana and Olbassa - in southern Galatia. And under his successors, many other points were transformed and Romanized (Pappa - Tiberiopolis, Claudio - Seleucia, Claudio - Derbe, Claudio - Iconium - in southern Galatia). § 2 Galatia is ethnographic (northern), and not the entire Roman province of this name (mainly in the southern part), as the area of ​​the immediate destination of the letter to the Galatians The history of Galatia briefly outlined by us shows that the Roman invasion and dominion significantly contributed to the increased expansion of its original borders. In the apostolic era, the area of ​​the Galatian province was much wider than the area of ​​the Gallic region proper, which was included in it only in the northern part, and included more territories with an unconditionally non-Gallic population. For this reason, a legal, factual opportunity opens up to distinguish between ethnographic Galatia, occupied by Gallic newcomers, and official Roman or political Galatia with a very mixed composition of inhabitants, where natives and old aborigines predominated. From here a natural and inevitable question arises: what exactly does St. Apostle Paul mean by Galatia as the object of his missionary exploit and the place of the original destination of our “letter to the Galatians”? The solution to this problem is far from indifferent to the correct understanding of the latter from the point of view of illumination of apostolic history and in fundamental dogmatic significance. It is easy to comprehend this from the simplest considerations. If the Apostle speaks with all the rigor of Roman administrative terminology, then we must accept that all (four) Asia Minor cities of Paul’s first evangelistic journey (except Pamphylian) belonged to the Galatian province and were Roman colonies: Claudio-Derbe, Colonia Julia Felix Gemina Lystra (sometimes Lustra, Claudio-Iconium (although already from Hadrian, not from Claudius) and Colonia Caesaria Antiochia. In this case, it is quite possible to assume that the Christians of these very regions were the first recipients and original readers of the letter to the Galatians. There is no factual basis to dispute this conclusion based on historical data, since belonging to the Galatian province is confirmed - for Antioch by Strabo XII, 6:4 (from which it is clear that it was still part of the possession of Amyntas), for Iconium - by epigraphic documents (C. I. Gr., No. 3991 from the times of Claudius and Nero), for Lystra - by Pliny the Younger (Hist. nat. V, 42), for Derbe - Strabo XII, 6 (also from the time of Amyntas), although Ptolemy V, 6:17 classifies it as the region of Antiochus of Commagene 41-72). This means that some doubt is possible only for the last city, but it must be remembered that the indication of the writer-geographer (in the middle of the 2nd century AD) does not contain exact chronological definitions, and the name Claudio-Dervia rather indicates that it was also a border point of Roman possessions in Asia Minor and, therefore, was within the direct competence of Rome. Under such conditions, Galatia turns out to be the Roman province of this name in its entirety. And if the Epistle to the Galatians was published after the two visits of their St. Apostle (Gal. 4:13), then in this case it turns out that it was among the early writings of Paul 12. Given such a historical situation, it turns out that in the missionary activity of St. Paul’s sharp anti-Jewish aspirations almost immediately prevailed, and we see no actual justification for this, since the book of Acts paints us a completely different, even opposite, picture on this subject. As a result, one of the two most precious monuments of the apostolic era is being torn from us, and we are left without objective historical guidance, being obliged to choose for ourselves for various theoretical reasons. But with any decision, the polemical sharpness of the missionary and sacred writing activity of St. Paul will be without sufficient factual motivation in the gradually developing and complicated Judaistic agitation, which threatened to absorb or at least degrade Christianity, why the apostolic opposition is historically justified and dogmatically salutary. And without this postulate, there will be a legitimate reason for guessing that the Paulinian polemic stemmed exclusively from a renegade prejudice against Judaism in its entire religious and ethical structure and does not in the least reflect actual inter-religious relations, which were completely different. The historical perspective is again obscured by the “fanatical” figure of Paul, as the “first Marcion”, who does not agree either with the true Gospel of Christ the Savior, or with the true teaching of His direct successors and the fundamental “pillars” of the Church. From here it is also clear that the early dating of the Epistle to the Galatians, which gives a purely Hegelian picture of the apostolic age in the spirit of the New Tübingen school, with a wide variety of combinations 13, significantly changes our ideas about the course of the apostolic work in general and the entire church creation in the primal era. Now it should be indisputable for us that a purely ethnographic definition has high historical and dogmatic importance. However, it does not need to be exaggerated (together with W. M. Ramsay, Valentin Weber, etc.), as if fatal decisions of faith and knowledge depend on it. This only speaks of an artificial elevation in this whole issue, which does not go beyond the boundaries of objective historical interest. It is easy to be convinced of this already because exegetes of the most diverse directions, sometimes completely diametrical, deviate from the usual interpretation 14. There are actually no special critical tendencies here that threaten the dignity of historical evidence, or that are hostile to the divine integrity and dogmatic integrity of the Christian gospel. But, of course, for objective knowledge, which actually protects our faith and eliminates disturbing misunderstandings, it is necessary to scientifically analyze and reasonably find out: which Galatia was the actual field of the apostolic evangelization of St. Paul, who then turned there with a special message of exceptional dogmatic significance? Usually this question was always answered in favor of only the Gallic region in Asia Minor. Apart from J. J. Schmidt from the second half of the 18th century, then only J. R. Mynster, then Bishop of Zeeland († January 30, 1854), first developed in 1825 the so-called “South Galatian theory” 15 in the sense that the Apostle speaks of Galatia as a Roman province, and of it he means mainly the southern part in Pisidian-Lycaonian district. Since then, this idea has been supported and defended by a number of scientists for various reasons (Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, Bottger, G. Perrot, Tiersch, L. Ranke, E. Renar, Hausrath, Weizsacker, Jacobsen, Wendt, O. Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Steck, Baljon), until already in the 90s of the 19th century - the most authoritative specialist in Asia Minor geography and history - the “secular” professor at the University of Aberdeen (in Scotland) Sir W. M. Ramsay did not demand absolute supremacy for her and, with his fiery speeches in many writings, attracted new champions with the most respectable theological names (Catholics R. Comely S. J., J. Belser, Val. Weber Gifford, Rendall, Marcus Dods, S. H. Turner, Ernest De Witt Burton, C. Clemen, Th. Zahn, John Weiss). Nevertheless, the final advantage has not yet been achieved 16, for the members of the old party were no less firm in their justifications and in their energetic objections 17. The matter does not go beyond the boundaries of fluctuating equilibrium 18. And the reason for this is that the main strength of innovators lies more in attacks on the weaknesses of the enemy, meanwhile, if the first are successful, then the second are natural and inevitable in such a dark matter. At the same time, to ensure the South Galatian theory, a lot of hypothetical, sometimes downright fantastic, is allowed - according to the principles of subjective probability, i.e. controversial or unacceptable in principle. Let's look at the main points related to and drawn from the book of Galatians. 1) There is no doubt that the term Γαλατία was used in the apostolic era for the entire Roman province of Asia Minor, judging by data from Ptolemy (V, 4), Pliny the Younger (V, 146–147) and Tacitus (II, 9), joined by Eutropius and G. Sincellus, relying on ancient authorities. All this is fair and is in no way denied by the luminaries of the old view, and therefore does not refute it, because innovative conclusions are not at all unconditional and, therefore, are not obligatory in themselves. Even from random previous mentions (for example, on page But Pontus Polemoniacus) we know that the official administrative designation did not completely absorb for a given area its ancient names, common and familiar to the population, which continued to use the same terminology, passing it on successively to the next generations. Therefore, it is impossible to state in advance about the subject under consideration that here ancient geographical names are unacceptable and would be unexpected in the mouth of the Apostle, as he adhered to the official Roman speech 19. On the contrary, for him, only two examples of official nomenclature are undoubted - in the attribution (2 Cor. 11:9 and cf. Phil. 4:15 ff.) of Philip to Macedonia and in the distribution (Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14) of the volume of Judea and to all of Palestine with Galilee and Samaria, which were included in it with 44 or from 52, but even here not everything is clear 20, since St. Paul could simply be referring to the actual area of ​​predominance of the Jewish faith, for which the entire Palestinian territory was Judea - in a religious sense. Often in the Apostle the official and popular meanings turn out to be equally suitable, as can be found in relation to Macedonia (1 Thess. 1:7, 4:10; 1 Cor. 16:5; 2 Cor. 1:6, 2:13, 7:5, 8:1; Rom. 15:26. Phil. 4:15), Asia (1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8) and Achaia (1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:1, 9:2, 10; Rom. 15:26), united with Macedonia 21 and seemingly separated from Athens (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15), and the latter is only conceivable for popular use, contrary to the official classification, which is observed everywhere and always. Under Illyricum (Rom. 15:19) not absolutely, but, perhaps, most likely the entire coast of Epirus (up to Actium), where Nicopolis was (Tit. 3:12), although Epirus was never part of Illyria, and from 40 BC. they were not even contiguous, for the southern Illyrian border moved much further to the north, passing through Skodra and Lissus on the river. Drilone. Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21; cf. Acts 15:23, 41) are also noted without official administrative precision, since it is difficult to reconcile this order with other factual indications (Acts 9:30, 11:35 ff.); the first - as a Roman province - also embraced Galilee and Judea (Matt. 4:24; Luke 2:2. Acts 18:18, 20:3, 21:3), the second is noted separately by the Apostle (Gal. 1:22), and both of them at the beginning of the first century stood under common control 22. Along with all that has been stated, we must not forget that - in any interpretation - the Gallic region will remain in the region of Galatia, as the main, central part, which gave its name to the entire province, no matter how much the latter expands and becomes more complicated. Naturally, the most serious arguments are needed here in order to eliminate the root core when mentioning the later complex complex. This is even more necessary when applied to speeches that speak not of territory, but of persons—not of Galatia, but of the Galatians. Is the required data in the message being analyzed? 2) They say that in it Barnabas is supposed to be known to the readers (Gal. 2:13), but this is only possible for the inhabitants of the Lycaonian-Pisidian district, where he was on the first evangelistic journey of St. Paul, and then did not accompany him and remained unknown to the Galatian northerners themselves, for whom he could not be an authority, as someone unknown personally. This is not a fact, but only a dubious and distant syllogism, not justified by analogies. After all, before the Corinthians in the same exact meaning it is called (1 Cor. 9:6) Barnabas, although he was hardly there directly and, moreover, together with the Apostle Paul. Therefore, we must agree that Barnabas is noted only in the dignity of the apostolic luminary, about whom it is especially emphasized (Gal. 2:13) that even he (καὶ Βαρνάβας) was carried away by hypocrisy. Even from this side, Barnabas is sufficiently recommended to readers, as equal in rights with Paul himself (Gal. 2:9), far superior to his other collaborators (Gal. 2:1). Consequently, it is interpreted exclusively about church authority, but it does not at all require personal acquaintance with Barnabas, which was not the case among any Galatians in relation to the Apostle Peter (Gal. 1:18), who did not visit them. 3) The appeal of the message (Gal. 2:5) to the readers that during the second visit to Jerusalem of St. Paul did not give in to the Judaizers and vigorously fought for evangelical freedom, “that the truth of the gospel may rest in you” πρὸςὐμᾶς), is commented (Cornely, Zahn, Val. Weber) as if during the Jerusalem conference the Galatian readers were already illuminated by the Christian light, since the feat described here was undertaken for their sake, in order to preserve the true teaching they had previously received. All this is suitable only for the Pisidian-Lycaonian Christians, for of all the Galatian inhabitants it was they who were converted before the Apostolic Council and could be the closest object of Paul’s protection there. Outward persuasiveness here borders on outright sophistry if it forces one to agree that the Apostle fought specifically for the Galatian readers. But is this acceptable even to the slightest extent? Wouldn't it be more correct that the matter concerned fundamental doctrines, obligatory and saving for every Christian, necessary for everyone and always immutable? True, it is said about abiding (διαμείνῃ), but the latter refers entirely to the “truth of the Gospel”, and then there will be an actual application to all people, including the Galatian readers, when their turn actually comes, now highlighted in front of St. Pavel. The author’s combination of verbis quiescentis, expressing continuous peace, with the pretext of movement in the direction of someone or something is remarkable. This means, of course, a constant state, but not of deathly inertia, but designed for real application in all possible cases that will occur historically. Therefore, saving adaptability to every person - for example, to Galatians - is an essential property of the “truth” itself and does not need to be protected, and this is required exclusively by the truth of the Gospel, in which the corresponding application is inevitable. It is now obvious that the Apostle labored in Jerusalem for reasons of principle and was in no way limited to private requests, which he always considered in the unity of his inner being, as completely dominant in all specific phenomena of missionary practice and Christian life. The existing needs, of course, were taken into account, receiving complete and deep satisfaction, but during dogmatic discussions they were obscured by their conditionality and could only be an external reason for theoretical discussions and decisions. Therefore, we must forcibly admit that the quoted apostolic maxim presupposes all for whom Evangelical independence from the legalistic constraints of partisan Judaism was dear, and this will be the entire body of Christians - not even just pagans. In this case, even if the actual motivation for the apostolic apologetics at the Jerusalem conference was the internal confusion in the Pisidian-Lycaonian communities, it does not follow from this that the truth obtained and proclaimed then applied exclusively to them, for it is dogmatically universal. It is not surprising that such identification of the protected ὑμᾶς only with the Galatian readers causes great inconvenience and difficulty. The apostolic definitions of the Jerusalem Conference were promptly transmitted to the Pisidian-Lycaonian district by St. Paul (Acts 16:4) at least before the release of the Galatian Epistle. It is clear that at the same time all the necessary explanations were made and least of all the special features that directly affected the listeners could be kept silent, since it is directly said that the local “churches were established by faith and increased daily in number” (Acts 16:5). Everyone knew exactly and were completely satisfied. Contrary to this, the written summary of the message gives the impression of unheard of news precisely in relation to what would affect the readers vitally and should have reached them immediately after the events described, when St. Paul was there. All this is completely unnatural, because it is not historically probable. After all, the author does not in the least hint that he has only a simple reminder here, which he would not keep silent about, since all such examples are emphasized by him with perfect clarity (Gal. 1:13, 5:21). By the force of all that has been said, we are obliged to accept that the addressees are only now aware of the details conveyed in the Galatian Epistle and, therefore, do not coincide with the Pisidian-Lycaonian Christians, whom the Apostle, of course, informed long ago about subjects of such significant interest to them. 4) The appeal (Gal. 3:1) ὤ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται is equally not suitable for them, because the Pisidian-Lycaonian aborigines did not have “Galatian” impurities in their blood and stubbornly retained their local jargon (Acts 14:11). At this point, it is important to weigh and objectively understand all the details that are unnecessarily exaggerated by the partisans of the South Galatian theory. They rightly point out that only about 20 thousand, along with women and children, moved to Asia Minor with Lutarius and Leonnorius. This number was not enough for the Galatian territory itself within its original borders, where, of course, the majority of the local population remained, in which the Phrygians were still to predominate, with the gradual and insignificant addition of Greeks, Jews and Romans to them. Only mutual tribal assimilation was possible, but even this was slow and weak. Dominating the entire country and living off the labor of the natives, who cultivated the land for a certain share in the profits, the Galatian nobility settled on their fortified estates (φρούρια, castella), which even included Yankira, also called φρούριον by Strabo 23 . The rest of the Galatians, outside of wars, led a pastoral, semi-nomadic life. The cities there retained a non-Galatian physiognomy for a long time, and Pessinus was always more Phrygian. All this is fair, but other data with mandatory conclusions cannot be ignored. There is no doubt that the term Γαλάτης is not geographical, but ethnographic. It is likely that it was formed among Greek settlers on the Gallic coast in Massalia or Massilia (Marseilles) 24, which, having been founded around 600 BC, was here “the center of Greek education and Greek learning” 25. This name means “courageous, brave, noble” 26, while the term Gall simply indicates belligerence (according to Holder). Both of these names differ only in a later era among Greek writers - in the application of the first to Asia Minor (Eastern: Γαλατία ἡ ἐώα in Arrian. De bell. civ. II, 49. Ἀκύλας ὃ ἐκ τὴς ἐώου Γαλάτίας in Philostr. Vit. soph, N, 11: 1) Galatians Γαλατία in Dioscorid. (De materia medica) and the second to the inhabitants of Gaul or France, and even later in education κέλται (except for κελτικός in Strabo VII, 5:2) was used generically for all ethnologically and linguistically related tribes. Galatae are Romans, and geographers learned this classification from them. But despite any hesitation, the term “Galat” retained a strictly ethnographic character. Therefore, the deviation of the Apostle Paul in this case would be simply unnatural and is not justified by analogies with Afri (ae) and Baetici for all the inhabitants of “Africa” and Hispaniae Baeticae (according to Baets, now Guadalquivir, “great river”), or present-day Andalusia: - in the latter, peoples (for example, Punic Carthaginians, Greeks) are included in the territorial concept, which is centuries old lost its ethnographic content and did not note the special African people at all, embracing all the “Africans” who lived there, even if they were not at all nationally similar and not aborigines, but only groups from different peoples who settled in Africa. In relation to Galatia, the exact opposite is true, for here the topographical qualification was only an extension and application of the original ethnographic title, which prevailed so much that “Galat” meant, first of all, a member of the Galatian people and only then identified him as a citizen of a well-known Roman province. Therefore, the term Galati would be inconvenient and, perhaps, completely impossible for all the heterogeneous members of the population of the Galatian-Roman region. But they say (W. M. Ramsay) that it was impossible to express belonging to the citizenship of the Roman Empire otherwise than by classifying oneself as one of its parts, i.e. in this case - Galatian, and such a desire is all the more necessary for the epistle under consideration because St. Paul and the readers looked at themselves precisely from the state point of view. So be it! Even if this pre-established position is correct, it remains completely indisputable that for him the treatment of Γαλάτης was in every way inconvenient, since it was dominated by a nationalist element, which characterized a person more by his tribal isolation than by the administrative and political connection of different people. At the same time, we are not talking about an official manifesto, but about a friendly conversation between a teacher and students familiar to him by nationality, who cannot be depersonalized by a general administrative nomenclature, just as I, for example, will never dare to call those Macedonians and Romanians who attended my university readings in Belgrade and Sofia Serbs or Bulgarians. From this side, the following observation is important, almost decisive in the whole issue. The letter is addressed (Gal. 1:2) to the “churches of Galatia” (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας). Let us assume that the second word will be from the lexicon of the official nomenclature: - after all, the Greek member with the first irresistibly convinces that these are strictly defined Christian communities of a known national composition. It is clear that the writer is not appealing to the abstract “churches in the (province of) Galatia” or – simply and indifferently – to the “churches of Galatia,” but has before him a select circle of people of a given tribe who will directly listen to written exhortations, as before they (Gal. 1:6, 4:13 ff.) listened to the oral gospel. The Apostle knows his readers well, because they are his children by spiritual birth into Christ (Gal. 4:19), and accurately calls them “Galatians” (Gal. 3:1). It is easy now to imagine all the extreme strangeness if these were Lycaonians and Pisidians, alien to any racial properties of the Galatians. The result would be an abnormality similar to that when, under the dominance of the Russian state, we would begin to call Finns and Poles Russians, and now the latter would be declared by their citizenship to these states - for Finns and Poles... To eliminate such an inconsistency, it is necessary to agree that the Apostle relied most of all on the natural Galatians, who stubbornly and long maintained their national differences and all used their own special language (Strab. XII, 5:1). Therefore, even supporters of the South Galatian orientation accept (Th. Zahn, Ernest De Witt Burton) that St. Paul also went to the Galatian north, but this reservation requires recognition of the apostolic addressees of the Galatians by nationality, and in the proportion assumed by the letter they undoubtedly were not in Lycaonia and Pisidia. This indisputable fact immediately weakens the strength of the objection that the South Galatian theory clearly reveals to us the history of the emergence of the Galatian Christian communities, which without this would have been forgotten by the Writer. However, the latter does not mention the removal of St. Paul to Arabia and the presence of Titus at the Jerusalem conference, which caused extremely acute complications, does not speak about the churches of Cilicia, Colossus, Laodicea and Rome. This means that his silence on this point is not at all extraordinary and simply requires each time a precise search for justifying motives, which are quite sufficient for the example under consideration. As for the very convergence of events, there is no basis for this in the abstracts of the Galatian Epistle and the book of Acts - even from the southern Galatian point of view. Sometimes they put forward (Jacobsen, Sabatier, Zahn, Ramsay) an analogy of the scriptural testimony about the false belief of the Listrians in the divinity of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:11 ff.) with the fact that during the first visit to Galata they received the “weak” Apostle “as an Angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14). The opposite will be true, that there is a perfect contrast here. The frantic Listrian enthusiasm flowed from crude pagan superstition and was exhausted by its character; Naturally, it did not bear fruit and could not be the subject of pleasant memories. On the part of the Galatians it was quite the opposite - in true insight that the humble and weak preacher is truly a heavenly messenger, expressing the will of God as accurately as if it were the Lord the Redeemer himself. Therefore, in relation to them, the Apostle cries out in the epistle itself (Gal. 4:15): what then is your blessedness? Could something similar be said about the Listrians, who showed wild superstition? The circumstances of the announcement to the readers again do not coincide with the data on the missionary activity of the evangelist in the Pisidian-Lycaonian country. The visit to her was decided according to the plan itself, and this intention was carried out despite the fall of the young assistant, Mark. In Galatia, St. Paul was delayed due to the “weakness of the flesh” (Gal. 4:13), i.e. unexpectedly, and began to preach the gospel here contrary to his original assumptions. They are trying (W. M. Ramsay) to use this fact in the interests of the South Galatian hypothesis. It is assumed that the disease in question, in vain associated with the “devil of the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7), was a special local malaria that raged endemically along the low-lying Pamphylian coast with alluvial decompositions and swampy miasmas. The Apostle, having captured her there, allegedly hurried for his recovery to a healthy hill near Antioch of Pisidia, where the scenes described in the letter then took place. But if they had such an important missionary significance, then it turns out that the Writer made a significant omission, completely incomprehensible and inexcusable given his detailed story about that period. A pure guess that the disease was malarial and occurred precisely in the Pamphylian lowland. You can get sick anywhere, especially for the weak Paul, who later took with him Luke, his beloved and as a doctor (Col. 4:14). In comparison with him, the young Mark, who allegedly left the Apostle due to climatic troubles, had nothing to fear from the dangers and hardships of traveling through a harsh and unhealthy country, since this did not frighten the sick teacher and since the latter was now heading to a climate-friendly area on a high plateau. But for Mark it would have been completely criminal to leave the weak Apostle in Pamphylia, known for robberies (Strab. XII, 7:2) (Acts 13:13), and St. Shortly after his recovery, it would have been impossible for Paul to endure severe physical trials with beatings almost to the point of death (Acts 14:19–20). At the same time - according to the message - illness was the reason for stopping and evangelism, i.e. struck among the readers, but was not at all brought into their midst from anywhere, for example, from the Pamphylian swamps. And the most important thing is that the author portrays it as an unforeseen reason for the Galatian missionary work, which is depicted as unexpected in its occurrence and even more gratifying in its result. This certainly cannot be attributed to the Pisidian-Lycaonian region, just as the touching words of the sacred writer about his first visit to Galatia (Gal. 4:14 ff.) are also inapplicable to it. After all, evangelistic activity in Pisidia and Lycaonia was accompanied by such severe depression that until the end of his days the Apostle did not forget about the persecution and suffering that befell him in Antioch, Pisidia and Lystra, which persecution he endured only because the Lord delivered him from all of them (2 Tim. 3:11). Finally, in the Lycaon-Pisidian district, Christian communities had a significant Jewish contingent, calling for special adaptations (see Acts. 16:3), meanwhile, among the Galatians, the dominant element was the pagan one, on which the author of the letter focuses almost exclusive attention. It is true that in the mixed population of the Galatian south with a large participation of the Jewish elements, it was easier for the Judaizers to appear with successful propaganda, but the character of the latter will be a great historical mystery. With the southern Galatian interpretation, we get that in the Pauline churches, Judaistic agitation developed soon after the end of the Apostolic Council and the conference with the “most famous” in Jerusalem. There, by the will of the Holy Spirit, freedom in Christ from nomistic restrictions was authoritatively sanctioned for the Gentiles. Of course, all this was extremely unpleasant for the fanatical Judaists, and not long after the Jerusalem agreement they tried to win their case in Antioch through “some of Jacob” (Gal. 2:11ff.). But this experience was resolved with complete collapse, turning both Cephas and Barnabas against them, as they refused to defend the Judaistic policy even in the softened form of Jacob’s practice of the Jerusalem Church, where many legalistic customs were still observed. It seems absolutely unthinkable that after this the Judaizers would embark on a dangerous adventure far from Palestine. This would be the obvious imprudence of irrevocable self-condemnation, because by evading the apostolic sentence in Jerusalem, the false brothers necessarily discredited themselves in the eyes of all Christians, since they everywhere hid behind the apostolic name of “imaginary pillars,” meanwhile it turned out that the latter were completely against them - and this was known to everyone in the Lycaon-Pisidian district (Acts 16:4). Is it possible to allow such frivolous madness among clever Jewish intriguers? And it becomes downright idiotic when we give the characteristic details. In Antioch, the nomistic spies seduced only the Judeo-Christians, and even then only temporarily, and suffered a shameful defeat for them. And suddenly it would turn out that in the Galatian south they decided to capture even Christians from the pagans and obtained their fatal stake, for they partially persuaded the Galatians to accept circumcision and keep the law (Gal. 5:1, 6:12-13). Is all this likely for the most extreme religious-partisan bandits? Rather, one must think that the Jerusalem Apostolic Decree first suppressed the Jewish struggle and the leaders of its volens-nolens had to quiet down with their objections where there was still no favorable ground for them. Then purely pagan Christian communities were formed, formed in addition to political mergers and participations and not recognizing them in the least. Such brotherhoods were a living and tangible denunciation of all Jewish hopes, which is why their Christian prosperity equally irritated and confused the conscience of the nomists. The latter were forced through this to sacrifice all their dogmatic predilections of religious-nationalist privileges. It goes without saying that all this could only happen in a gradual, painful process, when at first the interests of self-defense are more prominent and intensified with energetic repulses of various attacks. In turn, this provided a special antinomian task for apostolic discussion with a corresponding applicable disclosure of the true teaching. Likewise, the course of Jewish polemics and the development of apostolic apologetics are explained quite satisfactorily, but with the indispensable condition of attributing them to an era later than the Apostolic Council, and the fact that the author visited readers twice before writing the Galatian Epistle will require that it be confined to his own Galatia, i.e. ethnographic. And if they consider it surprising that the Judaizers penetrated so far into the north of Asia Minor, then they pursued the Apostle on all the paths of his evangelism and even reached Corinth, where they caused great turmoil. In any case, northern Galatia was no less accessible to them than St. Pavel, for whom we have sufficient data on this subject in the Writer's abstract. What is contained in the book of Acts to define the Galatian region, which was the actual area of ​​evangelistic announcement and written apostolic appeal? Here for the first time the “Galatian country” is called along with Phrygia (Acts 16:6) in the account of the continuation of the second missionary journey and - according to the meaning of the southern Galatian theory - embraces the cities of Pisidia-Lycaonia, which were all in the Galatian Roman province. Because of this, Acts. XVI, 6 will designate one administrative-geographical territory: then in the phrase τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴνχώραν the member receives a strictly unifying energy, and the union is equalized with lat. sive, seu (or), noting that the items mentioned here are interchangeable. From this they conclude that there is of course a Phrygian-Galatian area in general, which could be designated by one name or another, since it was formerly Phrygian and then became Galatian (Ligntfoot), or turned out to be bordering (between) Phrygia and Galatia (Gifford, Marcus Dods). It is further emphasized that from the idea of ​​the whole - the province - the author more closely qualifies the part of interest, why χωρα is equivalent from Lat. regio and, therefore, will be permissible only for a certain geographical district, but not at all for the entire Roman Galatia with the inclusion of ancient Gaulish. The adjective γαλασικος is also interpreted in this tone, not as a direct national (tribal) characteristic, but to highlight the special (administrative) affiliation to Galatian of what ethnographically was not actually Galatian. Before us will be the country of Phrygian-Galatian, which was geographically Phrygia, politically Galatia (W. M. Ramsay). Accordingly, Acts. XVI, 6 is dedicated specifically to Iconium and Antioch. The entire missionary circle will end within the administrative borders of Galatia, and the “obstruction from preaching in Asia” seems to be the latest. Here is the testimony of Acts. XVI, 6 states the chronological continuity that the evangelists first passed through the mentioned territory and only then were forbidden to go forward (διηλθον κωλυθέντες = διηλθον καὶ εκωλύθησαν = διελθόντεςεκωλύθησαν). In the interests of this interpretation, the later reading (t. rec. according to HLP) with subordinate participles is approved (W. M. Ramsay, Val. Weber): διελθ τες δέ...κωλυθέντες... ἐλθότες κατὰ τὴν Μοσίαν ἐπείραζον, etc. In this case, “Asia” will also be an administrative term. All these constructions are too complex and require simplification to the real size of historical data. First of all, let's talk about the terminology itself. The new interpretation suggests that Galatia was an administrative composition of completely different parts, why it would be more correct to call it Galatiae regiones, as Val admits. Waber in relation to Acts. XVIII, 23. In such a situation, each district should be designated by its original name and the addition to it of the title of the entire province - similar to the mention of Acts. XVI, 6. However, neither secular nor Christian authors find such examples, and they all talk either about the entire Galatian region, or about its known “countries” under their own names. The same is true in our case and for the Writer. According to the theory under consideration, it turns out that Phrygia is included in Galatia, being part of the latter together with the cities of Iconium and Antioch. But the first of them is only in Xenophon (Anab. I, 2:19) is considered Phrygian and by Ammianus Marcellinus (14, 5) - Pisidian, and among all other witnesses it is recognized as the main city of Lycaonia. As for the second, in Acts. XIII, 14 directly says that the evangelists from Perga came εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν τῆς Πισιδίας (or τὴν Πισιδίαν). Let Strabo (XII, 8:14) put it in Phrygia on the borders of Pisidia, Ptolemy hesitates between Pisidia (V, 4:11) and Phrygia Pisidia (V, 5:4) and only Pliny (V, 27:94) categorically associates it with Pisidia. Apparently, there was no complete stability here. But the whole importance lies solely in the fact that the Writer himself in no way thought of this Antioch as Phrygian, although Phrygia was well known to him. Then it cannot be assumed that for him Iconium, more southern and more distant to the east, was also Phrygian. Even if Luke is completely mistaken, we still do not have the right to distort his clear words and, when he speaks of Phrygia and the Galatian country, mean Galatia alone. This is incredible for other reasons as well. The analyzed interpretation necessarily requires accepting that the indicated countries were passed through before the evangelists were prohibited from entering Asia, after which they had to rush to Mysia. Otherwise, it will turn out that they ended up in Phrygia and Galatia after reaching Asia, i.e. after passing the Pisidian-Lycaonian territory, or headed back from there, “making a missionary circle,” but the second is not at all in harmony with the usual apostolic practice of always looking for a new field, and not moving around in one place 27 - very unnatural for the literal phraseology, marking the movement forward to Asia and inconvenient for figuring out the route to Mission 28. In these difficulties lies the reason for the peculiar textual-exegetical operations on Acts. XVI, 6. However, the projected edition, being weak on factual grounds in the textual evidence, does not at all serve in itself as an indisputable guarantee in favor of southern Galatia, for before others it was proposed by extreme apologists of the opposite interpretation, such as, for example, Bishop J. V. Lightfoot. And a more solid textual reading (BNACD) undoubtedly notes a completely different sequence, that the participle κωλυθέντες does not at all mark a later moment compared to the “passing”, but either a previous one or a synchronistically concomitant one for the aorist διῆλθον. At the second opportunity, all the mention will say that the Apostles passed through Phrygia and the Galatian Stream and during all this time they were forbidden to preach in Asia. Here all three geographical terms merge mutually into the unity of a territorial object, where all three parts are closely in contact with each other, and this is actually unacceptable, because with any understanding of Galatia and Asia, the first will be outside the second, formed in 133 BC. from Mysia, Lydia, Caria and sometimes even from the adjacent Phrygian regions. From Antioch it was impossible to get to Asia except through Phrygia, while it turns out quite the opposite, that the evangelists reached the Phrygian borders only from the Asian region. Therefore even the South Galatians (Marcus Dods) agree that the “rebuke” was a preliminary act to the “passage.” In this case, Phrygia and the Galatian country will be on the evangelistic path already after the Apostles reach Asia, where St. Paul and Silas entered from the Pisidian region, making their way into Galatia only later from the Asian borders. It is necessary that in this case only the ethnographic region will remain for the Galatian country, even if it is in the Roman province. These considerations eliminate all philological objections, which are essentially weak, since the equation καὶ with sive is only a rare exception, and the term χώρα in St. Luke and LXX are used periphrastically, without technical-administrative exclusivity, and the epithet γαλατικός retains the natural force of the national-geographical description of the area taken. Otherwise, every non-Gallic part of the Roman province could be called by such a name, which is why the closest topographical definition, for example, Pontus Galaticus, was required to accurately indicate one known locality and distinguish it from others. In the book of Acts there is no such division and no such division is noted, and γαλατικός will be a specially ethnographic designation of the Gallic territory proper, i.e. northern Galatia. This conclusion is sufficiently justified by Acts. 18:23, where we read that on his third journey St. Paul - upon departure from Syrian Antioch (on the Orontes River) - “went through the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, confirming all the disciples” (...ἐξῆλθε, διερχόμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, (ἐπι)στηρίζων πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς). Advocates of the South Galatian theory hesitate a lot in commenting on this data, sometimes equating it in volume to Acts. 16:6, sometimes expanded. The most important thing in all the reasoning focuses on the fact that the Writer supposedly meant two countries in the province of Galatia itself. These are χώρα Λυκαονία and χώρα Φρυγία. The first as Roman and in contrast to Antioch (Lycaonia Antiochiana, (χώρα) Άντιοχιανή was Lycaonia Galatica 29 and in this dignity is called the “Galatian country”. The second is the Phrygian part of Galatia with the separation of this Phrygia Galatica from Phrigia Asiana. The whole saying is conveyed in such a way that The Apostle Paul “made a missionary circle through the Galatian country - with Derbe and Lystra - and through the Phrygian country - with Iconium and Antioch” (Pisidian). This interpretation immediately strikes you as unexpected, unsteady, and even somewhat strange. After all, it turns out that Phrygia was separate from Galatia and was not included in it, yet they want to prove the completely opposite. And according to the method applied by the southern Galatians to Acts. 16:6, in an extreme case, one could talk about “the Galatian country and specifically about (part of it) Phrygia,” but this identification is subverted by their obligatory sequence in καθεξῆς, marking the border contiguity of two separate topographical quantities. The mistake lies in the fact that one geographical concept - Γαλατικὴ χώρα - is illuminated by administrative-official vocabulary, while another - γία - is understood ethnographically in popular usage. Such duality in the early Christian chronicler is completely unnatural, for both terms are united by a term of equal meaning, and it is even admitted (by W. M. Ramsay) with violence that Φρθγία is also an adjective of a geographically defining nature. There is also no actual correspondence with Acts. 16:6. Since in both indications a common territory is conceived, then, moving along it in one direction - from east to west, how could one start either from Phrygia or from the “Galatian country”, mistaken for Lycaonia? It is argued that both epithets were so firmly connected by inseparability and by the identity of the intended geographical area that their relative position was indifferent to the matter itself. Here again, arbitrariness is allowed, since καθεξῆς energetically emphasizes the geographical isolation of two territories - one after the other. In this case, the difference in the mention of the same topographical points necessarily forces one to think about moving through the country under discussion from different sides, while this could not actually happen and did not happen historically even according to the requirements of the South Galatian theory. It is not surprising that in the interests of the latter, obvious disharmony is introduced into the writing abstract. For Acts. 16:6 The Galatian area of ​​ancient Phrygia, or Phrygia Galatia with the cities of Iconium and Antioch, is assigned to the Phrygian and Galatian countries together, and for Acts. 18:23 All this is absorbed by one Phrygian region, when Lycaonia Galatica with Derbe and Lystra is associated with Galatia. It is so unnatural that Val. Weber, without any factual basis, is ready to cross out in Acts. 16:6 mentions the country of Galatia, as an ancient interpolation from 18:23. Taking the first, † Prof. John. Weiss (in R. E. X3, S. 559) is even more inclined to think that the compiler simply confused the information from the sources and, for example, recognized another Ancyra as Galata - Phrygian (Kilisse-kei) on the road from the city of Cotiea to Pergamum. But for a New Testament historian, elevated for his chronicle works to the level of a Christian Thucydides, all this would be pure abnormality, which is why we, in any case, have no right to resort to such a humiliating hypothesis while there are means to do without it. This is the last thing we find with the universal sameness of content in Γαλατικὴ χωρα, since it will be covered by the northern ancient Gallic Galatia 30. Now the entire apostolic route is outlined more clearly before us, although much still remains vague due to instability, inconsistency of terminology and the great diversity of the latest interpretations. Under such conditions, it is neither fair nor scientific to demand indisputable clarity. On his second journey, the Apostle Paul ended up in Phrygia and the Galatian country precisely because evangelists had previously been prohibited from preaching the word of God in Asia. From this we conclude that this is not Galatian Phrygia, which was passed even before entering the Asian borders, but in contact with them. And the other Phrygia was Asian and lay in the Asian region, which is why it could differ from the latter on the only condition that here Psia is not taken as a Roman province formed in 133 BC. At the same time, we must admit that Asia is also understood in the popular sense - coastal areas (Misia, Lydia, Caria, etc., as was the case after the division from 295 AD). Therefore, now St. Paul and Silas cut through the entire southern Galatia through Lycaonia and Pisidia to Antioch, from which there was a fairly convenient route near Sultan Dag 31. It was easy to go around this mountain range - from the west through Asian Phrygia, or from the east through Galatian Phrygia. Both possibilities are permissible, but the first is more consistent with the continuity of members of the descriptive phraseology, although probably not strictly punctual and far from complete. Then we have that, keeping to the west from Pisidian Antioch, the missionaries past the western spurs of Sultan-Dag reached the Asian borders, where they were not allowed by the Holy Spirit. For this reason, the Apostles, continuing their evangelistic ministry, turned to the northeast and first of all ended up in Asian Phrygia, from which they entered nearby ethnographic Galatia. On this subject the instruction of Acts is not entirely clear. 16:7 (ἐλθόντες) κατατὴν Μυσίαν 32 ; it can state that it was “against Mysia” (cf. Acts 26:7 κατὰ τῆν Κνίδον), but without contact with her, or near her - in contiguity with Mysia. Both interpretations are philologically equally possible, but in themselves they do not provide geographical accuracy. Certainty is acquired only by the connection of speech in the description of successive moments of the missionary flow, where it happened that, having reached κατὰτήν Μυσίαν, the travelers tried to invade Bithynia and were again prevented by the Spirit, which is why they passed Mysia and descended into Troas (...παρελθόντες δἐ τὴν Μυσίαν, κατέβησαν εἰς Τρωάδα: Acts 16:78). Here Mysia is placed in a geographical relationship with Bithynia, and not with Galatia, and is depicted in such a combination that it was necessary to go down past (the borders of) Mysia in order to find ourselves in Troas. Apparently, the evangelists, being already opposite Mysia, wanted to penetrate Bithynia. They were neither there nor here, but closer to the second region, which they were preparing to enter, and this was more likely to be possible when moving west through northern, ethnographic Galatia. From it St. Paul and Silas again returned to Phrygia of Asia, which they had previously passed, where Mysia (from the left) and Bithynia (from the north to the right) were already meeting in one corner. Having approached the latter and being opposite the first, the evangelists then headed parallel to the Mysian border to the southwest along Phrygia Asia, which it was necessary to pass (secondarily) in order to reach Troas without visiting Bithynia. It seems that along the convenient (cf. Plin. Epist. ad Trajan. 77 (81)) road: Ancyra-Germa-Dorylei-Nicaea, at the beginning a large slope was made to the west; there, being actually diagonally across Mysia, the Apostles thought of entering Bithynia. However, with any decision, it turns out that they kept to the northwest towards Bithynia and, rushing there, of course, could not take too far to the east. Therefore, we must agree that from our own Galatia, its western strip, closest to Asian Phrygia, was now captured, and then (contrary to the statements of southern Galatian opponents) it would not be necessary to turn almost 450 versts to the east. This route is quite clear and in turn illuminates the path of the second Galatian visit. For him they are called "Galatian country and Phrygia." It will not be incredible that the condensed account is silent about the intermediate links that preceded the visit to Galatia. Such is Cilicia and from it through the Cilician Gate of Taurus the southern Galatian region. καθεξῆς does not categorically exclude this; it refers only to the two mentioned areas, because it would hardly be “in order” to jump from Syrian Antioch directly to the Galatian territory of the Roman province, or ancient Gali. However, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the Apostle, following the same path, would have “confirmed all the disciples” in both the Cilician and Lycaonian-Pisidian churches, and in this case it was inconvenient for the early Christian historian to hide such a fact, since this is reported for other points. For these reasons, it is more reasonable to think that St. Paul was now neither in Cilicia, nor in Lycaonia and Pisidia and was moving by land, going from Syria through Cappadocia directly to ethnographic Galatia (as Prof. Th. Zahn also admits). The direction would be approximately the following (Prof. R. W. Schmiedel): through (Cappadocia cities) Arabis (Jarups), Kokus (I(ge)ksyun), Arazaksu (Serisek), Matianu (Danes), Archelais (Garsavra) (Akserai), Parnassus (along W. M. Ramsay, between Chekinal and Kesi(k) - Kepri on the river. Kizil-Irmak) to Ancyra, Herma, Pessinus, then to the previously familiar region of Asiatic Phrygia 33 and, finally, to Ephesus through the “upper countries” (Acts 19:1), or in the usual way - south to Ephesus 34. Of course, more new areas were now visited in the Galatian region, for it seems that before the Apostle did not stray too far from Pessinus. However, the proposed projection is not at all eliminated by the certificate of “affirmation of all disciples.” It goes without saying that everyone always accepts that this was carried out where the latter were, and they could even be outside the places of their initial announcement, from where they moved according to everyday interests, for St. Paul not only enlightened, but also inflamed with zeal. Because of this, it is quite possible that after the departure of the Apostle Christianity spread in different directions, 35 and most of all to the east, among the related Gallic population, for which there were external conveniences in good communication between the Galatian cities. However, not all ethnographic Galatia is taken along the second path. It is more likely that this was predominantly its western section, gravitating towards Asian Phrygia. Then the difficulties and objections caused by some extremes of the hypothesis (in Bp. J. B. Lightfoot), artificially exaggerated by opponents, disappear, as if both times St. Paul walked throughout northern Galatia from west to east and back again. In fact, this idea is not entirely suitable for both cases, if only because it takes too much time and creates confusion when placing missionary events according to the apostolic chronology. There is no actual need for this expansion, which no one insists on 36, and it is rather denied by the Writer’s abstract in favor of the western half, where the evangelist penetrated without any special obstacles. It is clear that the Judaizing spies could just as freely follow in the footsteps of the Apostle. And it cannot be said that in the Galatian north they did not have ready soil for themselves in a sufficient contingent of fellow tribesmen. It is known that the Seleucids (334–189 BC), in their political interests, attracted Jews to Asia Minor and awarded them significant privileges with the provision of citizenship rights, guaranteeing their religious integrity in a special νόμος τῶν Ἰοαδαίων, mentioned, for example, in Apamean inscription. As supporters of the Seleucid dynasty, Judean colonists settled along the lines of communication between east and west, as government agents and natural spies. This was more outside the borders of ethnographic Galatia, but the natural wealth of the latter and mercantile interests soon drew them to where the trade in linen products (Bp. J. B. Lightfoot) was hardly carried out apart from these patented merchants. They, of course, did not hesitate to establish themselves firmly in all advantageous points (at least later than in the south) and took possession of the situation in each district, and this was possible only through the main centers, from where Jewish ingenuity penetrated into all useful nooks and crannies. There is even a decree about special benefits that Augustus ordered to be inscribed in his Ancyra church to provide for the Jews (Jos. F1av. Antiqu. XVI, 6:2). This interpretation (Bp. J. B. Lightfoot, Emil Schurer, etc.) is not indisputable 37, and it is almost more correct to think (according to W. M. Ramsay) that the decree does not mean Ancyra of Galatia, but a council (congress) of representatives of the Asian province (τὸ κοινὸν τὴς Ἀσίας). Despite this, the Jewish element in the Gallic north is quite undeniable in large numbers 38 and according to documentary data. For example, among the inscriptions - with the exception of unreliable ones - up to five have survived from ancient Galatia with purely Jewish names - in Pessina Ματατᾶς (the text is not without suspicion), in Eudoxia (Yurma) Jacob the deacon and Esther, in Tavia Daniel, etc. But if we admit the presence of a sufficient Jewish contingent in the northern Galatian region, this necessarily confirms that there were regular relations with Jerusalem from here and there were suitable methods for this 39 . Obviously, there was a rather rough path for mutual communication, and the Judaists successfully took advantage of it, following St. Paul, who in his evangelistic movements stuck to administrative centers, where there were always Jewish residents. This means that from this side, ethnographic Galatia completely satisfied the apostolic missionary practice, and the totality of all other evidence, observations and considerations, in our opinion, is more favorable to the ancient, northern Galatian theory. § 3 Foundation and history of the Galatian churches before the publication of the letter to the Galatians. Now the history of the founding and development of the Galatian churches in connection with the conditions of origin of the letter to them is depicted in the following form. On his second evangelistic journey, the Apostle, having visited and established the Syrian-Cilikian and Lycaonian-Pisidian communities, wanted to go almost directly west to Asia, i.e. of course, to Ephesus, because there was an influential Jewish population from which he could successfully begin his Christian educational activities. His intention, apparently, was a purely Jewish mission, and for the sake of it he even deliberately circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), so as not to create tempting obstacles to his ministry among the children of Israel. However, the providence of God led the evangelist to a different field and directed him to the pagan catechumen, which required gradual experimental propaedeutics. Discouraged in their intended desire for Asia, the missionaries were forced to turn northeast to Bithynia. It seems that this time, too, paganism was not specifically included in Paul’s evangelistic plan and was later chosen only at the special direction of God, from which it was necessary to accept that the Lord called to evangelize in Macedonia and further throughout the Greek regions (Acts 16:9-10). It is clear at the same time that the Galatian country was not included in the main missionary project in advance and appeared unexpectedly due to a factual coincidence of circumstances. It was something extraordinary and - according to human judgment - even accidental. And the Writer, in all his historiography, always and everywhere monitors the implementation of divine decrees regarding Christianization and considers everything else only incidental. Therefore, he keeps silent or only mentions all human attempts of this kind, even if the latter are distinguished by deep sincerity. The work of God was built on earth, of course, by human hands, but not at all by people themselves due to various external historical conditions. Naturally, St. Luke speaks very briefly and quite vaguely about apostolic ministry until the will of God to be sent to the European continent was again directly expressed. This, of course, is a completely understandable and convincing reason that St. Luke reports too briefly and somewhat vaguely about Pavlova's Galatian activities. Nevertheless, he also suggests that the Gospel seeds were now planted here on fertile soil, since during his second visit to Galatia the Apostle “confirmed all the disciples” (Acts 18:23: ...διερχόμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν (ἐπι)στιρίζωνπάντας τοὺς μαθητάς), which obviously existed there previously – since the first visit, although the term μαθητή; The Writer means Christians in general (Acts 6:1, 2, 7, 9:1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 38, 11:26, 29, 13:52, 14:20, 22, 28, 15:10, 16:1, 17:27, 19:1, 9, 30, 20:1, 30, 21:4, 16). All this is precisely consistent with the message’s own data. According to him (Gal. 4:13), St. Paul stopped in Galatia due to a physical illness, which served as the immediate cause (διά with accusat.) for evangelistic appeals to the Gallic northerners (οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι᾽ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον). The properties of this disease are unknown to us and are unimportant for real speech. It is only enough to emphasize that the note about the possible contempt of others towards the sick person, even to the point of spitting (Gal. 4:14), does not at all speak of his external disgust, since it speaks of disdain for the religious title and teaching of the missionary, and not at all for his physical condition. Therefore, there is not even a foothold for the extremely fantastic and ephemeral guess († Prof. Erwin Preuschen’a) that St. Paul suffered from leprosy, although - according to the customs of that time - he himself would not have dared to show himself among people with it, and he would not have been accepted anywhere even out of compassion. No less doubtful is ophthalmia, or (according to Dr. Adolph Seligmuller, 1910) “ocular migraine”, for the mention of (Gal. 4:15) about the readiness of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes and give them to the sufferer reflects a proverb that is not alien to our time to testify to all-devoted love, which is glad to sacrifice even something as dear as sight. There is not even the slightest hint of actual need and insane readiness to give up your eyes to someone when both become blind. We confidently think that there is no correlation here with the “foul of the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7), since these were sudden attacks with the exceptional and special cunning of the “angel of Satan”, who did dirty tricks so that the Apostle would not be exalted. In our example, not only was there nothing like this, but there was quite the opposite - in a humiliated state, which in appearance could cause disgust among others. For us, it is indisputable that of course it was an accidental illness that unexpectedly upset all the missionary calculations, if only in connection with the undoubted general illness of the Apostle of nervous origin and nervous nature, always (especially in moments of supreme inspiration), threatening satanic attacks 40. This unfortunate event was sudden, but it also helped the higher plans. Chained to the spot, the evangelist could no longer carry out his intended intentions, but the latter retained all their commanding power, because outside of evangelistic interests there was no life itself for the saint. Pavel. It was natural and inevitable, to the extent of a necessary function, that the great missionary began to carry out his duties in an environment accessible to him and preached the Gospel to the sheltered inhabitants. And about them, historically, it is quite likely that the natives were very affected by the unusual speeches of their unexpected guest. Judging by the Western Gauls, they were an inquisitive people, greedy for all kinds of news and carried away by them 41 , clinging to the cloak of every visiting wanderer-sage more tightly than iron sticks to a magnet 42 . Under such conditions, it is not surprising that a large audience of inquisitive and attentive listeners soon formed around the Apostle. They were ready to perceive and even assimilate the Gospel speeches, but for them there was a considerable temptation, which was rooted in the flesh and was drawn from it, of course, in the situation described, or actually because it was weak. What was perplexing and seductive in this ubiquitous phenomenon? For Christian insight, all of humanity - both fundamentally and empirically - was a continuous complex of suffering and burdened people, for whom saving revival was in every possible way necessary. Therefore, the Christian proclamation certainly turned out to be a statement about the gracious energy of the universal and complete rebirth accomplished by the Lord the Redeemer. Of course, St. Paul fervently testified to the power of God, which overcomes and renews everything, all the more miraculous because human nature by its very nature was considered incapable of correction, as being fundamentally damaged. And along with this, there was a particularly painful dissonance that the very herald of the absolute omnipotence of the divine lay motionless, almost more helpless than a child, in need of blissful care to alleviate his weakness. The result was acute disharmony, which the pitiful sufferer, who was almost on the brink of the grave, called for life and promised everyone an indestructible fortress. This contrast was involuntarily and sharply felt by the militant Galatians at the first impression, when they had not yet comprehended the full depth of the apostolic revelations. Then everything could have been resolved with a disgusting and insulting reproach: “To the doctor, heal yourself!” and evoke mocking contempt among the ardent barbarians with the expulsion of the strange dreamer, unless he is a deceiver. The minute was critical for the entire Christian future of Galatia. But, having stopped the Apostle in it, contrary to his elaborate plans, the Lord provided these evangelists with the means and convenience for practical preparation for the Christian mission among the uncircumcised, confirming in him the unshakability of hopes for blessed success beyond all human calculations. And here is the saving word of the Gospel from the lips of St. Paul invigoratingly warms the numb soul of the pagans, and gracious warmth fills their hearts with inexplicable satisfaction. And now the Galatians are joyfully convinced that the sick and poor stranger is a kind of Angel of God and - in the dignity of a truly divine messenger - reproduces the Calvary mystery of universal redemption with such life-giving accuracy, as if it were Christ Jesus himself. Having begun in this way, the apostolic preaching in the Galatians was accompanied by directly blessed results and instilled in the neophytes a filial devotion of absolute trust in their enlightener. It is clear that the evangelistic action was not limited to one point, but was spread by zealous disciples in different directions, for which St. Paul always took regulative measures (cf. 1 Thess. 1:5 ff.). With all this, new plantings were constantly in need of unremitting control and vigilant care, without which normal growth and healthy strengthening were not entirely guaranteed against fatal vacillations and dangerous deviations. Under precisely these conditions, and in the further course of the Galatian churches, painful complications and deplorable defects were discovered. The Apostle apparently did not remain on the Gallatian territory for so long - only until his final recovery, when the missionary duty to carry out the initial evangelistic route was ensured. Naturally, in Galatia he was not able to complete everything to the desired extent, although he was and considered himself the only and exclusive educator of this area (see Gal. 1:8, 3:1, 4:12–20). In turn, the Galatians had many national weaknesses that were extremely dangerous for maintaining stability in their Christian inspiration. All ancient information agrees that by their nature these people were very unstable and extremely changeable 43 , capable of getting carried away and distracted every minute 44 if they were not subjected to strict discipline and kept within certain limits. Gallic religiosity was inseparable from superstition, for natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus (Jul. Caesar. De bello Gall. VI, 16; cp. Diod. Sic. V, 27), and this taught rapid fluctuations. Equally, the experience of the entire religious history developed an indifferent promiscuity with an equally willing acceptance of what was closer and more convenient, or simply stronger and more irresistible. All this led to a thoughtless mixture of the most diverse elements without an exclusive attraction to some, when the latter would be the support and criterion for religious feeling. With their old sentiments and hopes, the Galatians came into close contact in the new country with the original Phrygian population and met something similar in the local cults, which, with their fanatical fanaticism and the predominance of priestly tyranny, sufficiently corresponded to the former religious skills of the Asia Minor foreigners, rude by nature 45. Among them, in the European West (Jul. Caesar. De bello Gall. VI, 13, 14) and in Britain, despotic Druidry dominated with the dominance of priests in the darkest Sacerdogalism and with the complete predominance of bloody sacrifices in dark forests in the darkness of the night 46 . Naturally, religious syncretism soon began to appear in Asia Minor, and, moreover, in the direction of borrowing. In particular, the veneration of the Thrician Zeus and the great “mother of the gods” Cybele (in Pessina) 47 was inculcated, where all sorts of religious furies and even human blood were too enough for the fiery Galatians. Greek influence was also not insignificant and had to be captured in its sphere. Strong throughout Asia, it significantly subdued or affected all local religiosity, and therefore directly and indirectly attracted such pliable newcomers. True, all this cannot be exaggerated, but the judgment (W. M. Ramsay’a) is exaggerated that the later 48 names (Strab. II, 5: 28. XII, 5: 1. Tit. Liv. XXXVIII, 17): “Gallogrecia” and “Gallogreki” (οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι (Gallograeci) they do not speak at all about the actual dominance of Greek culture, since there are no broad and lasting traces of it. From this it follows no more than that the Greek influence was more external, but one that subordinated local religiosity to its special forms and through them introduced its own direction there. Therefore, Hellenism had to be reflected accordingly on the thought and life of the Galatians, especially in religious and ritual terms. From the same side, Roman rule also pressed forcefully, since the performance of well-known specially Roman ritual ceremonies was associated with civil loyalty, which certainly required open observance of the cult of the Caesars, even without internal recognition 49 . The evidence is not flawless that noble Galatian families performed the priestly functions of the Roman religious ritual, as is more permissible with regard to the Phrygian cults; there may also be suspicion about their participation from τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Γαλατῶν 50 in the creation of the church to the divine Augustus and the goddess Roma - Dea Roma (Rome) - in the city of Ancyra, but the existence of this fashionable sanctuary in the capital of Galatia is undoubtedly 51 and significant. Therefore, we must agree that the religious pressure of Rome on the Gallic colonists was noticeable, at least in large centers. Finally, industry and trade 52, of course, were not slow to attract the Jews here, and they, of course, tried to show their proselytizing zeal, which did not remain fruitless. In any case, we have characteristic evidence on this subject (Pausanias VII, 17: 10) about the aversion of the Galatians (Pessina) to pork meat, which was beneficial for Jewish propaganda, if only not directly due to it by its very origin 53 . We now see how many heterogeneous religious and cultural layers fell on the weak soul of the Asia Minor Gaul - and he easily believed everything, but lost his unshakable religious confidence, having disbelieved in everything. Under these conditions of spiritual devastation and religious vacillation, it was not difficult to confuse him even with the visiting Judaizers, who appeared with the aura of Jerusalem authorities. For the agitators there were convenient points of support in the religious predispositions of the Galatians, and then we must take into the most serious consideration that in general the religious practice of Asia Minor was significantly closer in appearance to the nomistic 54, allowing the latter a free and widespread invasion there without violence and coercion. The religious instability of the Galatian neophytes already directly helped the insidious work of undermining all the Paulinian foundations of their original Christian confession. The faith of the Galatian converts rested strictly on enthusiastic devotion to the evangelistic personality of the Apostle and therefore turned out to be dependent on his dignity. Then the first was necessarily shaken along with the second, which was far from being protected from the betrayal of its former Galatian admirers. They were too inclined to “offer” their sympathies and could easily return to their former seductiveness in relation to their enlightener. At the same time, the Judaizers, who probably came from Palestine 55, acted under the impressive authority of commanding powers from the Samovids and servants of the Lord, and with the brilliance of these advantages they darkened the modest figure of St. before the eyes of the Galatians. Pavel. The enemy pressure was all the more tempting and irresistible because the Judaizing spies did not resolutely deny Paulinism and tried to quietly replace the apostolic gospel with their own - another Gospel (Gal. 1:6). Under this guise it was convenient for them to even play the role of benefactors who want to bring the highest and final perfection to Pavlov’s Christian neophytes. Judging by the totality of all the conditions, it is clear that the “foolish” Galatians wavered in their original Christian beliefs, naively thinking that they were only improving them in the original spirit. And the Apostle is surprised not so much by the betrayal itself, but by its unreasonable rashness. That time St. Paul is far from the Galatian region and could not directly and actively intervene with his saving participation. It is possible, however, that bad news had already reached him from there, forcing him to take certain measures. Therefore, on the third evangelistic journey, he first brings Galatia into his missionary route and, it seems, cuts through it partly from east to west in order to capture the Christian brotherhoods that arose besides and after him. The writer expressively says that now the Apostle “confirmed all the disciples” (Acts 18:23). The mark on the number indicates a sufficient number of Galatian Christians, formed according to the influence and example of Pavlov. All this favorably recommended the Galatian churches and confirmed their prosperity. Unfortunately, it was more external, for from the methods and actions of the apostles it is clear that “everyone” there needed religious-Christian strengthening, as not being completely firm and even fortune-telling. And the analyzed message reveals all the fatal severity of the created situation, since the fiery reverence of the Galatian children for their father is depicted as a past phenomenon exclusively of the first visit, and the Apostle considers it necessary to warn of unconditional anathema to everyone who preaches the gospel in disagreement with him. Matters became so alarming already at the very second visit (Gal. 1:9), when the readers received many warnings of a completely unflattering nature. By all accounts, it seems that the Jewish machinations found a sympathetic response in the hearts of the Galatians and inclined them to seduction. The balance was upset towards a treasonous bias. The living fiery word of St. Paul was burned by the slander and malice of his Judaizing enemies, who hastened to hide, fearing shameful exposure for them with the inevitable collapse of the entire insidious machination. It is no less natural that the Galatians were again moved by such a bright radiance of truth and began to return to the old path of devotion to their announcer and exclusive trust in his Gospel principles. At least it is certain that in the presence of Paul they were zealous for good (Gal. 4:18) and, consequently, abandoned the evil they had committed, so as not to renew or continue anything similar. It was a happy success with the promise of a good future. We do not know how long the Apostle spent this time in Galatia, but he worked here a lot (Gal. 4:11) and not in vain (Gal. 5:7), and therefore not entirely briefly. It is easy to assume that the evangelist left the Galatian country, if not with complete confidence, then not without firm hope. Unfortunately, events turned out completely differently and even contrary to the apostolic hopes. The Jewish spies, humbled by the irresistible defeat, were well aware that the foot of the great Apostle would not soon set foot on Galatian soil, and, of course, they tried to start their campaign again, developing cruel agitation in the most shameless forms. The plan was conceived extremely insidiously and cleverly. The Judaizers could use their temporary retreat before the Apostle for themselves in the sense that the evangelist won the position only due to the absence of opponents, and when the Galatians succumbed to these tricks, the agitators boldly attacked the weak positions of Galatian Christianization. The latter was based more on the passion for the apostolic personality and therefore was entirely determined by the degree of faith in Paul as a missionary, who himself called for mutual conformity (Gal. 4:11). It is inevitable from this that, having denigrated and humiliated the Apostle, the Judaists undermined the most important foundation of specific Galatian religiosity and opened up scope for their own suggestions, directing them in the direction that Christian harmony, disturbed by the Paulinian invasion, is now only being restored. Then the Judaizing spies freely took possession of the minds of the Galatians and attracted them to themselves under the plausible pretext that they would correct and improve the work of Paul, since they would impart to him moral stability in legalism, without which everything could lean toward carnal licentiousness (cf. Gal. 5:13). Of course, this intrigue was conducted in a Judaistic-particularistic spirit and proclaimed the religious superiority of nomism in Christianity itself, where it supposedly retains regulative power and provides the highest dignity. Therefore, the blessed pagans, in their own interests of their Christian prosperity, were forced to fulfill the most important requirements of Judeo-nomistic practice. In this regard, the false brothers again had considerable success, accustoming the Galatians to observe Jewish festivals (Gal. 4:9-10) and developing an inclination even to accept circumcision (Gal. 5:2 f.), and therefore, not without reason, one could fear that all the apostolic labors were in vain (Gal. 4:11), since the threat of “translation into another gospel” was approaching ( Gal. 1:6). Such terrible news struck St. like thunder. Paul, both for the salvation of his children and for the protection of the Gospel truth itself, he, of course, hastened with written admonition in order to return the lost Galatian sheep to the chosen flock of Christ. § 4 Time of publication of Galatians The mutual connection of all noted historical moments with sufficient accuracy determines approximately the time of origin of the letter to the Galatians. First of all, here the dates based on the South Galatian theory 56, which we reject, must be eliminated - and we are forced in advance to directly eliminate all relevant opinions that this writing was the very first (Rendall, Zahn) in the series of literary creations of Pavlov (part of Marcion according to Tertull. Adv. Marc. V, 2; Michaelis, Corre, Keil), or was released before the Council of Jerusalem (Calvin, Rev. Prof. N. L. Goudge) and before the beginning (Ulrich, McGiffert) of the second evangelistic journey, for example, around Acts. 14:28 (Val. Weber), then during it - during the period of stay (Acts 16:8-10) in Troas (Hausrath), in Macedonia (Schenkel, Pfleiderer), in Corinth (Cornely, Rendall, Zahn), or - finally - during a stop in Syrian Antioch (Acts 18:23) before the start of the third missionary circle (Volkmar, Renan, Ramsay, Verron Bartlet). According to our opinion, these early dates are eliminated by themselves and do not require special criticism, because - according to our ethnographic considerations about the readers - the analyzed message was released no earlier than during the third evangelistic round of St. Paul of Asia Minor churches. The next question will be whether this happened later? Of course, recognizing the Galatian letter as the latest is a vain and empty guess (Kohler), but there were serious exegetes who attributed it to the era of the Roman bonds of Paul (Blesseds Jerome and Theodoret, Euphaly, pseudo-Athanasius, Icumenius, Baronins, Estius, etc., Schrader, Straatman, Halmel), about which traditions have been preserved in the textual tradition (Bcorr KPL, 37, 47, 48 pedestrian and Coptic (Bogair) translations). However, this event is not in the least suggested by the author's mention (Gal. 6:17) of the wounds on his body, since they were a common burden that the Apostle had to constantly bear. Therefore, all support for detailed calculations will be only in the term τὸ πρότερον (Gal. 6:13), found in the speech about the apostolic visits to Galatia. The particular expressiveness in the use of this word with member does not allow us to identify it with the general πάλαι in the sense of “once before”, “some time ago”, for of course the definite “once upon a time”. In this case, there are only two more possibilities, that πρότερον 1) means “before” in comparison with a further chronological point, or 2) marks the previous one, the first time of two already former and past ones. In the place under consideration there is no such sharp and obligatory comparison of the earlier with the later, and we would not be able to answer at all “before” what exactly it was, since everything that follows (cf. Gal. 1:9, 5:3) is not divided into several repeated acts, but is depicted as continuous and individual. This means that there were no chronological divisions in it, and it seems to be a holistic moment, in relation to which everything that preceded it will be separate in time, although similar in content. And since before and after only duality is stated, then πρότερον marks the first of two, which in this passage were the apostolic visits to Galatia. For all this, the second interpretation is more likely and rightly accepted by most commentators - about doubleness, which perfectly withstands all the energy of the apostolic phrase. It is clear that before his epistle, St. Paul personally visited the Galatians twice 57 and therefore could appeal to them in writing only during the continuation of the third missionary journey. The period that elapsed from removal from the Galatian region to the receipt of St. Paul's data about the betrayal there is unknown to us in detail, and we conclude about him only from the exclamation of sorrowful surprise that the readers are “so quickly added to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). However, this connotation should not be exaggerated to the point of excessiveness 58, for here “speed” is affirmed in comparison with the enormity of the catastrophe, which is always “hasty”, which is why ταχέως, in itself, equally means “quickly” and “rashly” 59. Nevertheless, the undoubted strengthening of the chronological moment (through the addition of οὕτως) does not allow for a long duration and forces us to agree that the three-year period of the Apostle’s life in Ephesus is sufficient here. since it is almost completely unthinkable that such a thoughtful and deep message would have been composed anywhere on the way to this Asian city (Hug, Ruckert, Holsten, Belser), they usually date it to the Ephesian stay (already Mari Victorinus; Neander, Meyer, Reuss, Wieseler, W. Weiss, H. J. Holtzmann, Sieffert, Lipsius, Warfield, Ernest de Witt Burton), towards the beginning of the latter (Schmiedel), about 53 or 54 years old (Prof. Max Meinertz, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vierte Aufl.Paderborn 1933, S. 103. Prof. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vierte und funfte flufl. Gutersloh 1921, S. 37), and sometimes to the very end (Schaff). This opinion is probable from all sides, although the apostolic greeting (Gal. 1:2) is indirectly directed against it, where it is not the ranks of the Church of Ephesus that are mentioned, but only all the brethren who are with the author (οἱ οὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί), of which, apparently, there were not so many 60, meanwhile, the Ephesian community is vast in the number of believers. Of course, this objection is far from decisive, for St. For the most part, Paul does not name either the local church or his co-workers at all (Rom., 2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., 1-2 Tim., Titus), or he notes along with himself only the second, but only in a small number - one (1 Cor., Philim.) and two (1-2 Thess.). From this we could conclude that in this case there were more similar assistants to Pavlov 61, and they were all of the same mind with the evangelist. However, this does not at all guarantee the position we are contesting, since it is based solely on theoretical probabilities, when factual justification, or at least justification and confirmation, is desirable. Always and in everything (both in science and in life), preferring the latter, we were inclined to favor the solid arguments of the authoritative † Bp. J. B. Lightfoot, borrowed from the very contents of the Galatian Epistle. These arguments are all the more serious because, by putting forward indisputable facts, they successfully paralyze their critical applications and deprive the destructive attempts of critics who seek to undermine the authenticity or integrity of all monuments of Pavlova’s literary activity from real support. Reasonable data is sought († Bp. J. B. Lightfoot) in the close textual and ideological similarity of the Galatian letter with some others, which establishes their mutual chronological sequence. In relation to 2 Corinthians the close coincidence is illustrated by very characteristic examples. Thus, the phrase “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse against us” (Gal. 3:13), is very similar to the expression (2 Cor. 5:21) “thou shalt commit sin for us who knows no sin, that we may have the righteousness of God concerning him,” and the proverb (Gal. 6:7) “if a man sows, that will he also reap” only a slight variation of the words (in 2 Cor. 9:6) “who sow with poverty, and with poverty he will also reap, and he who sows with blessing, with blessing, he will also reap.” Sayings: “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6; 2 Cor. 11:4), “a new creation” (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17), “to be jealous for you” (Gal. 4:17; 2 Cor. 11:2), “to please men,” “to exhort men” (Gal. 1:10; 2 Cor. 5:11), ἀπορεῖσθαι (Gal. 4:20; 2 Cor. 4:8), κανών (Gal. 6:16; 2 Cor. 10:13, 15, 16), κυρόω (Gal. 3:15; 2 Cor. 2:8), τοὐναντίον (Gal. 2:7; 2 Cor. 2:7), φοβοῦμαι μή πως (Gal. 4:11; 2 Cor. 11:3, 12:20), metaphor about devouring one another (Gal. 5:15; 2 Cor. 11:20) - all these typical features are found mainly in the two named messages. – For 1 Cor. 5:6 and for Gal. 5:9 the identity in the same use of the maxim about the little kvass, which leavens the whole mixture, is remarkable. – As for the Epistle to the Romans, its closeness to Galatia immediately catches the eye, for it stands out clearly both in the structure of phrases, and throughout the entire argument, and in the way of quoting biblical texts (cf. Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20 for Ps. 143:2) 62, and in the use of Old Testament historical examples with a consistent tendency to comprehensive the conviction that Abraham’s justification was from faith and his inheritance goes to others (namely in Christianity) in the same way, since the law did not impart righteousness even to its sincere confessors, why the nomistic economy was only a temporary preparatory institution, completed and eliminated in Christ - the true Redeemer and divine Renewer of humanity for a free life in spite of the enslaving desires of the flesh. The similarity of this entire three-part group of Paul's writings from the third journey is now quite certain and, being indisputable factuality, should most likely be explained by similar phenomena in the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, or by their mutual chronological proximity, when it is quite natural for them to have contact in content and presentation. To determine their immediate historical continuity, it is necessary to consider the writer’s attitude to Judaistic nomism in his understanding of legalism and Christianity. This attitude is characterized by the Apostle’s decisive opposition to such a false interpretation and insidious application, but it goes without saying that protest is always more intense and sharper when an immediate conflict intensifies than when events are smoothed over by life itself and therefore discussed more calmly. From this point of view, the letter to the Galatians is immeasurably more fiery and passionate than the letter to Rome, where a more peaceful tone of objective historical contemplation prevails, even in polemics, from which we conclude that the former was earlier in origin. In Gal. 5:19–21 Among carnal deeds and along with them, completely insensible sins are listed. The reason for this could only be that their life practice connected them in this way, and this is what we find in Corinth, where envy, slander and strife went along with bodily lewdness (2 Cor. 12:20-21). This means that when writing to the Galatians, its author was precisely aware of all the Corinthian troubles. By this association, the apostolic exhortation to the “spiritual” to correct sinners in a spirit of meekness (Gal. 6:1) can be taken as an echo of the episode with the Corinthian incest, whom the severity of the community threatened to drive to despair. But it seems that when writing the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul was not yet thoroughly informed about the Galatian vacillations, therefore (in XVI, 1) he recommends the Galatian practice on the issue of collecting alms for the “saints” 63, and during the deception it was hardly observed for the sake of fulfilling the apostolic covenants; and the Galatians themselves, having wavered in their Christian stability, of course, were no longer a worthy role model. Contrary to this, it is likely that by the time of the 2nd letter to the Corinthians, the evangelist knew about the sad confusion in Galatia, for the phrase that he was in the care of all the churches (XI, 28) will be more meaningful and more specific if we admit that it was dictated by the heavy impression of the bad news from the shores of Sangaria and Halys. In harmony with these observations is the fact that during the period of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, the position of the Apostle is drawn with gloomy features - and it softens little in the depiction of the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, meanwhile, in the Galatian Epistle, all sorrows are considered to have been experienced and, as it were, completely past, if the suffering of St. Paul puts forward here as a clear and irresistible sign of his closest affiliation with Christ, resolutely rejecting any further tests (VI, 17), since the previously existing certificates are sufficient to testify to apostolic dignity. Similarly, in relation to the Judaizers, it is noted that in the era of the Corinthian Epistles, the Jewish polemics primarily affected the evangelistic personality of Pavlova in her missionary behavior and did not so clearly concern dogmatic points. This happens everywhere at the beginning of life's collisions, when all the details of fundamental differences have not yet been revealed and the possibility of agreement is not foreseen. In the Galatian letter, the starting point is personal attacks on the Apostle, and yet everything in it is illuminated dogmatically in the sense of the fundamental opposition of legalism and grace-filled freedom. This marks a later historical moment in the development of polemics and apologetics, which still continue to be dominant. Therefore, it is fair to arrange all the apostolic writings from the third journey so that the letter to the Galatians will be in the middle between the letters to Corinth and Rome, around the time of the publication of 2 Cor. (Stein, Conybeare-Howson, Bp. J. B. Lightfoot, Bruckner, P. Hartmann), and not closer to the latter (although earlier than him: A. Resch) - according to the dubious dating of the Corinthian stay 64 before the departure of the evangelist to Jerusalem (De Wette, Bleek, Farrar, M. Dods) or on the way there (Dalmer), even during the Caesarea imprisonment of the Apostle (Kuhn). But to the Achaean Metropolis of St. Paul wrote for the last time before leaving the borders of Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) around the spring of 57 65 and then, delighted in Macedonia by the arrival of His messengers with good news about the Corinthians (2 Cor. 7:5–6 and cf. 1 Cor. 16:10–11; 2 Cor. 12:18), addressed them a second time (2 Cor. 7:9). And Ephesus was abandoned, in any case, no later than Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8) 57, and, judging by the extreme impatience in waiting for Titus (2 Cor. 2:12-13), the path to meeting him in Macedonia (2 Cor. 7:5-6) was covered with the fastest haste and hardly took at least six months. From this it must follow that the Epistle of Galatia, along with 2 Cor. was published in the Macedonian region unknown to us 66 at the end of 57 and no further than the beginning of 58 - before the removal of St. Paul to Greece proper. §5 The Authenticity of Galatians In the historical and chronological situation we have depicted, everything is so natural in fact that this is ensured in advance as an authentic and intact apostolic work, which was actually written by St. Paul and remained intact. Along with the few other New Testament monuments, the Galatian letter remained for a long time beyond any doubt or suspicion. Only in the 50s of the 19th century did Bruno Bauer († 1882, IV, 15) begin a destructive campaign against all New Testament writing. He argued that Christianity was simply an original natural product of Roman Stoicism, which grew gradually and matured only in the later imperial era. since Pavlova’s epistles reflect complete beliefs, Bruno Bauer attributed them all to the era from Hadrian (117–138) to Marcus Aurelius (161–180), and considered the letter to Galatia the completion of the entire process and adopted a special tendency for him to displace from the church consciousness, as unsuitable now, the image of the Hellenic missionary outlined in the book of Acts, although equally historically unreliable (Kritik der paulinischen Briefe, Berlin 1850–1852; Christus und die Caesaren, 1877). In 1878, the Dutchman Allard Pierson declared only some passages in the Epistle of Galatia to be authentic, and declared the whole to be a reworking of an anonymous extreme peacockist with a caricatured distortion of the true real figure. Preferring the Descriptive description for it, the Dutch theologian A.D. Loman tried (in Quaestiones Paulinae 1882–1886) to support this conclusion with a lengthy argumentation of the thesis that the historical evidence about all the letters of Paul and in particular to the Galatians does not extend beyond the borders of the 2nd century, when in fact the typical idealized Paulinism was formed in opposition to the Judaistic messianism of the leading Christian churches and in the interests of the triumph of universalistic principles. In Germany, only Rabbi Joel joined this (in 1883) and in England (in 1887) Edvin Johnson (the pseudonymous author of the book Antiqua Mater), but in Holland a whole critical school gradually took shape (Loon, Meyboom, Matthes, Bruins) with the most dramatic destructive aspirations. Their highest expression is the combined work of A. Pierson and S. A. Naber'a Verisimilia (1886), which proves that the most important Pauline epistles, originally coming out of the circles of free-thinking and spiritualistic Judaism, were later edited by some Bishop Paul in the spirit of conformity with later Christian development. The authority of the Galatian Epistle was undermined, and now the Swiss professor Rudolf Steck, denying the entire Paulinian writing, attacked (in 1888 and then in 1889, 1891, 1892, 1895 and 1897) already its content, from where he tried to justify that this epistle draws all its materials from the epistles of 1-2 Cor., Rom. and the book of Acts and applies it without sufficiently meaningful understanding, but with complete anti-Judaic bitterness of blinded hatred, which was kindled by the resumption of Jewish movements in the “Catholic” church. It must be stated first of all that although the skeptical poison about the Galatian Letter is widespread and hitherto felt weakened, the main critical conclusion is accepted by very few scholars (van Manen in Holland, who saw in the Galatian Epistle a “catholic” reworking of the original Marcionist document, Voelter 1890 and J. Friedrich (Maehliss) 1891 in Germany) and is generally denied 67. This circumstance alone convinces of the subjective bias of such hypotheses, for the recognition of which one must have a direct bias in advance. From this it necessarily follows that there is no solid factual evidence in favor of the fact that the Galatian Epistle, together with Rom. and 1–2 Cor. did not exist until the 2nd century, when all these harbingers of antinomian Marcionism appeared from the combination and concentration of the ideas of Hellenistic Judaism (Philonovsky), Stoicism (Bruno Bauer) and “Orientalism”. Here there was only a peculiar fruit of religious syncretism. But these are only theoretical constructions; meanwhile, there is enough solid external evidence of the authenticity of the Galatian letter. There is no doubt that it was included in Marcion’s Apostolicon (about 140), in the Syriac and Old Latin translations, is listed in the Muratorian Canon, and is reflected in its influence in the selection and interpretation of Old Testament biblical sayings by St. Justin Martyr (Dial. 90, 95, 96 and Apol. 1, 53 cf. Gal. 3:10, 13, 4:27), prominently suggested in Athenagoras (Legatio 16) and quoted in Irenaeus (Adv. haer. III, 6:5; 16:3. V, 21:1), Clement Al. (Strom. III, 16), Tertullian and others, was used by various heretics and sectarians, for example, by the Valentinians and Ophites, and St. Polycarp borrows from there (IV, 2. VI, 7) some 68 expressions (Phil. 3: ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν) with a foreword about their popularity among Christians (ibid. 5: ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν), which indicates the prevalence of the same source, which could only be written. These observations are weakened by the controversy of the most patristic monuments, which critics date to a late time. Such attempts are idle and objectively completely unconvincing, because historical documents are never determined and dated according to pre-occupied secondary considerations, where obvious bias rapes the former and overthrows the latter, and this only more clearly proves that at the very beginning a basic untruth was admitted, which necessarily entails further ones. The main thing is not at all in the decades, and - given the complexity of the chronology - we are ready to sacrifice them without much risk. It is necessary to pay special attention to the fact that in the literary tradition we are not simply informed of the bare presence of this or that apostolic epistle. Along with this factual certification, an authoritative importance is put forward for each of them, obliging Christians to reverent respect for the exceptional dignity of the given author and the content of his book. External testimony here is always inseparable from the confession of legal sacredness. It goes without saying that literary forgery could not have acquired such widespread popularity in a short period of time, nor such a high significance in the eyes of living history. In this case, by the instructions of the 2nd century, we are certainly forced to admit a much earlier era for the origin and recognition of the Galatian Epistle, which will be an apostolic creation, since then it is even less possible for the transformation of a falsification into a sacrifice. Otherwise, it will be necessary to decide on the absurdity of ultra-radical critics, which is fatal for the whole history, as if in fact there was no Apostle Paul and even Christ the Savior himself, but ex nihiio nihil fit. Then everything is exhausted by purely theoretical objections that such sharp antinomianism would have been unnatural in the early periods of the existence of the Christian Church, when everything in it, in views and practice, was completely Jewish, and then became Judaistic 69 . This judgment would be acceptable only if one affirmed the natural origin of Christianity from the nomystical elements through their gradual, slow transformation. If the Tübingen scheme is involved in this, then we must not forget that already in the 1st century the latter depicts the irreconcilable enmity of the oppositional movements of Paulinism and Petrinism, from which it is obvious that before the clashes they still had to form, develop and strengthen, which, of course, required a fairly long period of time. Here, ultracritical theories do not agree with Baur’s views and, exposing their falsity, only help restore a historical fact that is unpleasant to them. It actually says nothing more than that in the apostolic age difficulties arose and there were bewilderments about the relationship of the Old Testament religious order to the grace-filled Christian one. It can hardly be disputed that these tasks were then aroused by life itself, where the new certainly and inevitably struggles with the old. But in the leading Jerusalem brotherhood, a peaceful connection with sacred Jewish religiosity was still maintained. To disrupt this calm balance, an external push was needed, and it was most likely created by the emergence of Christian communities that did not have such closeness to the Old Testament cult and by their very existence denied the dogmatic importance for the full Christian maturity of all Jewish religious norms. Thus, with the historical course of events, the question of the fate of the Old Testament religious dispensation in the Christian kingdom of God was brought to the forefront and acquired vital tension. Hence it is irresistible that for the Judaistic opposition and for the antinomian polemic there were reasons and rights only with the emergence and gradual formation of purely pagan Christian churches, or during the most vigorous period of the activity of the historical Paul. On the other hand, in the historical process of progressive maturation, the initial unevenness and mutual inconsistencies were eliminated by the natural movement of Christian life itself, which chose a solid channel for itself and flowed in it without the former turbulence. Collisions and roughness had already disappeared in the past and then became inappropriate, even virtually impossible. In this sense, Jewish complications are understandable during the expanding missionary work of the Apostle Paul among the pagans and are completely strange after its conclusion in the 2nd century. Now all the misunderstandings were already over and illuminated by life’s historical experience, which simply absorbed them with itself, handing over to the future only the finished, purified result. And we see from the “Teaching of the XII Apostles”, from the writings of Barnabas and Clement Romans, that in the 2nd century, when adherence to the Old Testament law manifested itself weakly among Christians (see Justin the Much. Dial. 47. Ignatius B.: to Philadelph. VI, 1; to Magnes. VIII, 1. X, 3, etc.), there was not such a burning sharpness at all on the question of the reciprocity of mosaicism and grace; on the contrary, this problem is considered to be completely resolved in the spirit of Pavlova’s freedom even in “Clementines” - with all their malicious hatred of the very name of St. Paul, as inimicus ille homo. As a result, it turns out that - factually and doctrinally - the Epistle to the Galatians is more natural in the age of primacy of Christianity and therefore turns out to be a genuine apostolic work. All further objections will be simply the pickiness of the party’s stubbornness in its tendentious prejudices. It is true that in this document there are mysterious points, for example, about the “quick” falling away of the Galatians, about Paul’s journey to Antioch (J. Friedrich), but all this is not at all surprising given the insufficiency of our information about all, even large, particulars of the apostolic era and should be accepted by science as new material for it. This is the reason for the imperfect harmony with the book of Acts (R. Steck and others), although the second everywhere only complements the Galatian letter and itself finds in it a clear explanation for itself. We have the same thing regarding the dependence on the epistles to the Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (R. Steck), since 1) in itself it does not lead to a denial of the authenticity of the Galatian letter, at least a compilation, 2) is completely natural, given their undoubted chronological proximity in edition and 3) was rather the opposite, for an impartial analysis reveals between Gal. and Rome. the relationship between a colorful sketch, directly responding to the living needs of the historical moment, and calm theoretical contemplation with a detailed objective consideration of the entire issue. In the mention (VI, 11) about the handwriting of the writing one cannot (with Steck) see the falsifier’s desire in advance: to protect his forgery from suspicion by categorically assimilating his languages ​​to the Apostle, but here we are not talking at all about approbation of authenticity, and then in this way absolutely everything, even the newest, historical documents can be discredited. In fact, the author puts forward the noted detail only to clearly illustrate his self-devoted love for the readers, for the sake of whom this mechanical work, not entirely familiar to the Apostle, was accepted. Such argumentation is conceivable only in living reality, and not for abstract tendentiousness, which is why it follows from this that the message being analyzed is a genuine creation of Pavlovo. At the same time, from the very beginning it acquired caring guardians, and the apostolic dignity certified for them was a reliable guardian of its further inviolability. §6 Integrity of Galatians This actually ensures the usual for such literary documents in the text and - therefore - in the composition of the content in its current form. Tertullian and St. Epiphanius reports that Marcion declared the traditional church type untrue and made his review in the interests of removing later layers (interpolations) in order to get closer to the pure apostolic original. But, placing the Galatian Epistle at the head of his Apostolicon as the primary one (principalis), this Gnostic of the half of the second century solved textual-critical questions on the scale of his extreme and antinomian dogma, cutting off for its sake everything unsuitable, while in such matters one must always subordinate his subjective theory to the written apostolic word, as certified by documentary tradition. From here it should be obvious that Marcion’s review does not have factual validity and does not cast a shadow on the surviving church form, although in liberal circles it is still defended as a primary source for the latter, which completely distorted it 70. The traditional belief was not shaken by the latest textual operations, which (in Pierson et Naber'a and Voelter) were intertwined with doubts about the authenticity of the message and then (partly in Weisse in 1867, but more and especially) in the Dutch school (Harting, van de Sande-Backhuyzen, van Manen, J. M. S. Valjon, Cramer) developed into a whole system of conjectural criticism that makes textual corrections ex conjectura (i.e., according to a theoretical assumption about the logical necessity of this or that reading), omissions or additions without actual support in the textual apparatus. Such methods are usually allowed out of absolute inevitability and to the most limited extent, when there are absolutely no objective means of eliminating the undoubted difficulties of the existing edition. Therefore, the predominance of conjectural methods in New Testament textual practice, contrary to textual data, is both abnormal and unscientific, and at the same time perniciously harmful. And indeed, through this, complete arbitrariness is established in existence, rejecting and accepting different types solely because one seems more appropriate in relation to Paul’s evangelical views than the other. But how do we know the apostolic plans and evangelistic intentions, when it is assumed in advance that their authentic exponents have not survived? In this case, doesn’t it reveal here that “critical peacocking,” being tendentiously fabricated, is not real at all and precisely because of this requires the elimination or distortion of the original text, since it is completely negated by the latter? From this side, textual-critical attempts expose the actual futility of fundamental critical suspicions and, like Marcion’s, in no way destroy traditional textual authority. There are no external incentives for the conjectural experiments of the Dutch radicals, because for a scientific textual assessment we have sufficient materials in the evidence of manuscripts 71 and translations 72, according to which everything is restored by literary critical methods with satisfactory strength, which is not always available and not for all homogeneous monuments of ancient writing. § 7 Historical circumstances, occasions, purpose of writing and general character of the epistle to the Galatians Here we have an objectively guaranteed text, and it is all the more solid because in this form it is precisely consistent with its content. In it St. Paul, on the one hand, victoriously defends his apostolic dignity, on the other, he again confirms the Galatians in his pure confession of the Gospel of Christ, but it is equally historically probable that the Judaizing spies hastened to penetrate Galatia and succeeded a lot in their machinations, and the evangelist was not slow in repelling the latter. It is possible that in the churches of Galatia there were several members from natural Jews, although this cannot be stated decisively, for the author, identifying himself with the addressees (in the form “we”) upon liberation from the oath and all bonds of legalism (Gal. 3:13–14, 23–25, 4:3), does not necessarily note his blood relationship with his readers, since he takes them in conditions of Judaistic enthusiasm, when they themselves voluntarily subjected themselves to nomystical constraints (Gal. 4:21) and became like the carnal descendants of Abraham. The discussion is completely fundamental, according to which all people before Christ were under a curse - some, as bound by the law, others, as “ungodless in the world” (Eph. 2:12). And then the writer so sharply emphasizes the contrast of his Galatian children with the privileged Israel that we are naturally inclined in favor of the pagan composition of the Galatians. This - in addition to the ethnographic name itself - is indicated by clear allusions to the pagan past (Gal. 4:8-9), not involved in nomistic restrictions (Gal. 2:5) and not sanctified by the seal of the covenant of God (Gal. 5:2, 6:12-13). There is neither reason nor need to support the hypothesis (Mynster'a, Credner'a) that - partly or in the majority (E. Jacquier in F. Vigouroux) - The Galatians were proselytes, for then the Apostle’s emphasis on innate paganism would not be entirely understandable if they had already previously abandoned it due to religious desires, and the nature of the argument with the help of biblical justifications and analogies is easily explained by adaptation to the point of view of opponents, adopted by the Galatian simpletons, and by the fundamental consideration that the Old Testament word of God was recommended as a religious authority for the religious edification to all Christians, with the obligatory inclusion of converted pagans among them. Thus, in the Galatian territory, the evangelistic principles of Pavlov actually triumphed, receiving here support and soil for practical dominance. It is not surprising that the Judaizers tried at this very point to defeat their rival and achieve actual dominance for their particularistic theories. The Judaizing spies usually followed on the heels of the Apostle Paul and, of course, appeared in the north of Asia Minor after his first visit there. It is difficult to agree (with De Wette, Neander, Bleek, especially Val. Weber) that this agitation developed only in the period of time between the publication of the Galatian Epistle and the removal of its author from Galatia. The writer indirectly suggests that the Galatians, including all the disciples of Christ, needed some confirmation already at the very second visit (Acts 18:23), and from the letter to them it turns out that at the same time St. Paul had to pronounce anathema on those who had been there and, apparently, had succeeded in carrying another Gospel (Gal. 1:9), spoke to the readers in a more severe tone, perverted by the false brothers into an enemy one (Gal. 4:16), and categorically warned about the terrible dangers of moral laxity (Gal. 5:21). However, the Jewish victories were not yet completely decisive - and this exactly corresponds to the state of affairs legitimized and established in Christian communities by the Jerusalem Council. Condemned in their extreme lusts, the Judaizing spies volens-nolens were forced to vicious restraint until the tremendously rapid and widespread growth of the pagan churches forced them to resort to radical means of energetic agitation in the interests of protecting their privileged nomism and its obligatory nature for all Christians. Therefore, it is natural that after the second stay of the apostle in Galatia, Jewish propaganda reaches high tension and covers a wide area. Its successful outcome certainly does not seem extraordinary. The catechetical periods of Paul's preaching ministry among the Galatians were not long, and their living faith had not yet had time to enter flesh and blood, becoming an organic element of all religious existence. It was only immediate delight and an external custom according to the memories of the past, which was quickly fading. The unstable character of the Gaul required many generations for him to be internally reborn into an invulnerable and unshakable warrior of Christ. Even the later history of Christian Galatia was far from brilliant, and writers of the 4th century (Eusebius of Caesarea and Blessed Jerome) directly testified that the apostolic reproaches to the Galatians from their childhood remained perfectly suitable for the era of their courage. Under these and many other historical conditions that were favorable to Judaistic machinations, it was not so difficult for the false brothers to sway the “foolish” Galatians, seducing them with the false charms of the best Christian dignity, which the Judaists disputed in the Enlightener Paul himself and his apostolic incompetence in comparison with the “imaginary pillars.” Now it is natural that in the personal presence of their father the Galatians walked well (Gal. 4:18, 5:7) and with animated zeal aroused bright hopes, just as it is humanly understandable that they, having lost direct apostolic leadership, soon struck the evangelist with their reckless vacillation (Gal. 1:6). Briefly, the Epistle to the Galatians is precisely justified by all historical circumstances, which provided a sufficient reason, since the writer-Paul, of course, had to defend the cause of Paul the preacher when it was being shaken in its very foundations, and at the same time a fundamental danger was foreseen for the very Gospel truth. This means that the situation created in Galatia was extremely important in a purely dogmatic sense, and the Apostle had to hasten with his sobering decision on all the aggravated issues. In turn, the interest of ardent love and vigilant care for his Galatian children satisfactorily explains why such bad news from the shores of Sangaria and Halys reached St. Paul "soon", although in ways unknown to us. He probably gave orders in this regard during his departure, leaving behind reliable observers and informants, or some of the more prudent members of the Galatian Brotherhood felt a pressing need for direct apostolic advice and authoritative admonition. Therefore it is not visible (Prof. Th. Zahn, S. 8) reasonable reasons to resort to a vain hypothesis (Prof. J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann 1879, Friedr. Zimmer 1882, Prof. W. M. Ramsay 1899), as if the Galatians themselves turned to St. Paul with a special, special letter, which is restored in fragments according to the current text, where, supposedly, it is quoted more or less literally. This guess is rather directly refuted by the fact of the author’s sad and so far insoluble perplexities regarding all the details of the turmoil that was taking place (Gal. 4:20). But there is no reason to turn all relationships into a theoretical conjecture of a suspicious misunderstanding, as if St. Paul considered Satan his main enemy in Galatia (Wilh. Karl), meanwhile, of all the seducers, he clearly singles out mainly one (Gal. 5:10) and, apparently, knows him well 73, although the rest of the intriguers seem to have not been known to him personally and definitely (Gal. 3:1, 5:7). However, the most important thing in the Galatian crisis was undoubtedly for the Apostle and consisted in the “betrayal” of the readers of the original, pure Gospel of Christ, proclaimed through St. Pavel. Therefore, the direct goal of the letter was determined from here in the direction of returning those who had fallen away and strengthening those who waver through the protection of the divine dignity of the apostolic preaching. And the latter was undermined in Galatia by the fact that the Judaizers denied the evangelistic authority of the Hellenic missionary, in contrast to those “before them,” and through this they fundamentally condemned his special, Paulinistic teaching. The general plan of the message, both polemical-apologetic and dogmatic-defensive, also corresponds to this task. In it, the writer I) first asserts his apostolic prerogatives for an independent and responsible evangelistic ministry, II) then eliminates Judaistic views and false interpretations, ensuring the truth and correctness of his preaching, and III) finally lays the unshakable foundations for a normal Christian life, alien to both Pharisaic-nomistic formalism and pagan-carnal licentiousness. This is how we get - in addition to the introduction (Gal. 1:1-5) and conclusion (Gal. 6:11-18) - three parts: - personal-apologetic (I-II chapters), dogmatic-polemical (III-IV chapters) and moral-exhortation (V-VI chapters). This order was logical and consistent, but at the same time it was actually objective, as dictated by genuine historical conditions. Only the author penetrated into their very essence, mastered them ideologically and gave his review a fundamentally harmonious consistency. It is natural that, developing and revealing his thoughts in adaptation to the serious complications of church turmoil, the Apostle writes far from with a joyful heart, does not express the usual thanks to the readers, and in the presentation itself shows violent ardor and impetuous swiftness of argumentation and literary formulation. But this also reflects the vital self-devotion of the evangelist to the truth of Christ, which, naturally, found the most clear expression, dogmatically corresponding to historical needs and therefore always suitable for the historical progress of Christianity on earth. All this obliges us to present an accurate analysis of the content of the Epistle to the Galatians on the issues discussed in it: 1) about the authority of St. Paul, as the Apostle and evangelist of Christ, 2) about the freedom of the Gospel of grace and 3) about the purity of Christian life in the Spirit. See †Bp. J. W. Lightfoot, b. 239 – 251: “Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons?” “The Galatians, in addition to the Greek language, which is spoken throughout the East, had their own language, almost the same as that of the Trevirs; it does not matter that here and there they spoiled something (in their original language), for the inhabitants of Africa (Punians) also changed the Phoenician language in some respects”: Migne lat. XXVI, col. 357; Blessed creations Jerome, part XVII (Kiev 1923), p. 77 (book II, introduction to the interpretation of the letter to the Galatians). But Justin preserved extracts from the extensive historical work of Trogus Pompey, who lived under Augustus. But see Encyclopedia Pauly-Wissowa III (Stuttgart 1899), 1, Sp. 829–830 that it is Brenn who is different. So Pausanias (Periergetes, under Hadrian and about their Antonines, writing around 174 AD) I, 8:1; Wed Strabo (66 BC - 24 AD) XIII, 4: 2. According to Georges Perrot, Dryn – neimheidh – “church of oaks” near Assarly-kay, at 7 o’clock. southwest of Ancyra, according to Nolder' (Altkeltischer Spachschatz, Leipzig 1891) dri - an intensifying prefix and nemeton - a sanctuary. But August Fick claims that dru means “oak”, and hence the name druid, and nemos - grove (Vergleichendes Worterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, Gottingen 1890, S. 455, 502), and the latter specifically and specifically - as a sacred place in the forest (in Aug. Fick II Theil: Urkeltischer Sprachnchatz von Stokes - Bezzenberger, S. 192). T. D. Kendrick, The Druids, London (Methuen) 1928. This is common in the inscriptions and coins of the Roman period, as well as among the most ancient authorities, but in the early inscriptions the form Tolistoagia is found. It must be borne in mind that there were also fights among the Celts († Prof. Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte 4V, Berlin 1894, S. 87 Anm.). Ἐπικτητος Φρυγία, i.e. the “acquired” part of Phrygia, annexed to the main (indigenous) part through a later “acquisition”. See Pauly-Wissowa I (Stuttgart 1894), Sp. 2221 – 2222; VII (ibid. 1912), Sp. 538. At Apamea in Phrygia, it bifurcated along two paths: one went from the north of Sultan-Dag through Laodicea Katakekavmena (Kombusta, i.e. burnt), Caesarea Cappadocia and Commagene to the Euphrates, the other south of the named mountains through Antioch, Iconium and the Cilician Gate. See below. Some (but not Mommsen) think that the mention of 1 Mac. VIII: 2 about the Roman conquest of Galatians refers to this particular event. According to Prof. Th. Zahn'a (S. 19–20) it is earlier than 1 and 2 Thess. E.g., † Prof. Cuthbert Hamilton Turner refers to the epistle of Galatians "early in A.D. 49" and considers it to be the first of all existing ones, predating the Apostolic Council, like the episode of Gal. II, 11 ff. (A Study of the New Testament 1883 and 1920: an Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on October 22 and 29, 1920, Oxford 1920, p. 23–24). Such are, for example, the conservative theologian T. Zahn, the free-thinking O. Pfleiderer, the rather radical A. Gausrath, the historian Ed. Meyer, Scot (at Aberdeen University) Ramsay, prof. W. F. Adeney (for whom see “Critical Reveew” XII, 3: May, 1902, p. 273), American prof. Ernest De Witt Burton (p. XXI-XXIV), Catholic W. Weber, Jesuit R. Corneli and many others. etc. Of the patristic authorities, St. apparently leans towards this side. Asterius of Amasia (IV century). As early as 1897, † Principal S. D. F. Salmond testified in The Critical Review VII, 3 (July, 1897), p. 310 that the last word has not yet been said on this interesting question, and Prof. Cuthbert H. Turner claims in vain (A Study of the New Testament 1883 and 1920) that “Sir William Ramsay... finally swept the opposing theory from the field.” See also Ramsay’s polemic with Prof. E. Schurer in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1893, Nos. 16 and 20. Among the newest proponents of the northern Galatian theory, the following stand out: Bp. J. B. Lightfoot, Zockler, R. R. Lipsius, Sieffert, E. Schurer, B. Weiss, A. Julicher, H. J. Holtzmann, Riggenbach, F. Godet, F. G. Chase, Findlay, Davidson, Th. Momsen, Ad. Deissmann; Catholics Ladeuse, Knabenbauer, A. Steinmann, Lagrange. See also † Prof. Th. Mommsen in “Zeitschrift fur die neutentamentliche Wissenschaft” II (1901), S. 85, and cp. Pauly-Wissowa VII, Sp. 558. Prof. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Gutersloh 4–51921, S. 139. Prof. Max Meinertz, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Paderborn 41933, S. 101. Therefore, it is freely assumed that the letter to the Galatians was issued either from Corinth in the year 50 for the southern Galatians, or at the beginning of the Ephesian stay of the Apostle Paul in Ephesus (at the end of the year 52) for the Celts (Einfuhrnung in das Neue Testament von † Prof. Rudolf Knopf; dritte Auflage unter Mitwirkung von Prof. Hans Lietzmann bearbeitet von Prof. Heinrich Weine1, Giessen 1930, S. 76–77). Prof. Th. Zahn, S. 10–11. So, according to Prof. Th. Mommsen Judea from the time of Pompey to Vespasian was in suzerainty dependence on Rome, remaining a clientel state, but always subordinate to the Syrian monument, but it was not an integral part of the Roman state itself, at least indirectly - through its inclusion in the province of Syria. Who could understand these technical-administrative subtleties and observe them in ordinary speech, where accepted folk usage always prevails, and for Galatia, was this not the original ethnographic designation? The eastern of the three southern European peninsulas the Apostle Paul - according to Eratosthenes - takes as one whole and unites Macedonia with Achaia (Rom. XV, 26): † Prof. E. Kurtius, Gessammelte Abhandlungen II, S. 536, and in Russian by † prof. A P. Lopukhin in “Christian Reading” 1894, IV, p. 17 (on reprint of p. 15). See † Prof. Th. Mommsen, Romiche Geseichte 4V (Berlin 1894), S. 297–298, 309, 323, and according to the Russian translation by V. N. Nevedomsky V (Moscow 1885), pp. 290, 300, 314. See Pauly-Wissowa I, Sp. 2221–2222. See † Prof. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthnms III (Stuttgardt 1901), S. 671 ff. See † Prof. Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte 4V, S. 72, 100 (Russian, trans. V, pp. 66, 95); cp. Iw. Muller, Handbuch III, S. 521. Vergleichendes Worterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen von August Fick; vierte Anflage, zweiter Theil: Urkeltischer Sprachschatz von Whitley Stokes, ubersetzt, uberarbeitet und herausgegeben von Adalbert Bezzenberger (Gottingen 1894), S. 108: “gala Tapferkeit, Galato – s., gall. Γαλάτος Polys. II, 21:5, Γαλατία... Γαλάτης mag Gracisierung von Galatias" (cnf. 107: gala Tapfetkeit). S. 16: "gallo-s Fremder, Auslander..., sein, wie Γαλάτης von gais-atieo“ lat. Gallus, Gallia aus einer keltischer Mundart entlehnt.” S. 83: kelto-s from kelo – haben, sich regent reiben, gehen; kelmjo-s thatkraftig, muthig. Therefore, the interpretation of blessedness is unfounded. Jerome that Galatia means translatio, in the sense of translatio, translatio: “the adoption of the word translatio by the Galatians (cp. I, 6) is very suitable (for them), for the word Galatia means in our language precisely translatio - translatio, relocation” (Creations XVII, p. 15)• This is how W. M. Ramsay interprets διῆλθον Acts. XVI, 6 in the sense of “made a mission tour", but διέρ εσθαι does not indicate a circulation, but an evangelistic walk (travel) with the preaching of the Gospel. In view of this, Val. XVI, 1–5 paths, when the Galatian country XVI, 6 will embrace the regions of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. But the very unnaturalness of such a reinterpretation clearly demonstrates the artificiality of the theory that required it. Defenders of the South Galatian hypothesis (W. J. Woodhouse and part of E. H. Askwith) lean toward this understanding of Acts. XVI. 6 that “the travelers passed through only Phrygia and the Galatian country and limited themselves to this particular region, because they were not allowed to preach in Asia.” The obstacle will fall on this Phrygian-Galatian area, and therefore W. M. Ramsay attributes this act to Antioch, arguing (contrary to Strabo XII. 8: 13-14 -) that then this city was not actually Pisidian, but only ἡ πρὸς τῇ Πισιδίᾳ, i.e. Pripisidian, and administratively belonged to Phrygia Parorea (Φρυγία παρώρειος) or (between) mountainous, in the valley among Emir-Dag and Sultan-Dag from the city of Polybotes (Bulavdin) to Tirieus (Ilgun). In this case, the further route to the north would go to Nakolia through the province of Asia itself, the eastern borders of which were Troknady, Orkist, Amor. Why is it not surprising if the “prohibition” by Ramsay himself is sometimes directly associated with the Asian region, although this is strongly contradicted by the written text, according to which there was first a prohibition for Mysia, then passing through Phrygia and Galatia, finally penetrating to Mysia in order to get from there to Bithynia, but if the “exclusion” point is assigned to Antioch, all of the above combinations will be topographically difficult. Others (Gifford) date this interdict to Iconium or Lystra, projecting that then the missionaries rushed to Dorylaeum (Eski-sheher) along the modern Araba from Konya to Constantinople; However, here Antioch completely disappears, which turns out to be unexpected in the apostolic path, if the path in this direction was closed even earlier by the command of the Holy Spirit. But this is only a guess by W. M. Ramsay, that the part of Lycaonia, with the cities of Derbe and Lystra and other places, was different from Lycaonia ipsa - or the non-Roman region that was in the possession of Antiochus and sometimes called Lycaonia Antiochiana - and was called Lycaonia Galatica. There is no factual evidence of this yet and has not been provided. Prof. also admits such an identity for these terms. Th. Zahn. See the map of pre-Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Turkish roads in Asia Minor from Prof. W. M. Ramsay on his works: The Historical Geography of Asia Minor and A Historical Commentary on St. Paul s the Epistle to the Galatians, and hence Carolin A. J. Skeel, gives a condensed overview of all Asia Minor routes of communication in the first Christian century (Travel in the First Century after Christ with Special Reference to Asia Minor, Cambridge 1901, p. 116 sqq.). See James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible III p. 465b, and y Prof. W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 419. If this is the same as in Acts. XVI, 6 Φρυγία is a noun, then it is possible philologically (even according to W. M. Ramsau and Marcus Dods). - this interpretation does not at all contradict our opinion, meanwhile, for the southern Galatians it is more desirable (†Prof. Jоh. Weiss) that in the first mention there should be adjectiv., in the second substantiv. For the northern Galatian theory, it is perhaps more convenient to adjectiv., but this is again allowed by its opponents (cf. above on pp. 30–31). Here W. M. Ramsau gives a route along the shortest mountain road through Seiblia, Dionysopolis, Tepru and the Kaystra Valley. This path is also possible in our view, if we admit that already in Phrygia St. Paul turned south from the Germv-Dorylei-Nicaea highway. In any case, it is more fair to define the “upper countries” (τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη) according to the encountered distinction between ἡ ἄνω and ἡ κάτω Ἀσία and so on. - in the sense of the eastern part of the Asian province in general (Prof. Joh. Weiss in RE X3, S. 536: 12–21, 557: 37). However, † Prof. Adolf v. Harnack claims that St. Luke believed that all his interest was in the coastal mission and therefore makes only weak allusions to Phrygia and Galatia, and in τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη, σc τῆς Ἀσίας he means mountainous Lydia bordering northwestern Phrygia (Die Apostelgeschichtë Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1908, s. 90). This is also assumed for southern Galatia, for example, near Va1. Weber. For example, according to O. Zosk1er, from all of Galatia the surrounding areas of Pessia and the settlements of Aksilon (i.e., the treeless steppes of Lycaonia) were captured. Yes, Prof. R. A. Lipsius suggested reading Ἄγκυρα τὴς Ἀβαείτιδος, meaning it on the river. Makeste is not far from the borders of Lydia (Strab. XII, 5), but this arbitrary guess is also dangerous because then one will have to suspect the authenticity of the news about the Augustan Church in Ancyra of Galatia. Josephus (Antiqu. XVI, 6: 1) has an indication that the local authorities in Galatia even took measures to limit Jewish agility, and this suggests the presence of a large Jewish element there. Blazh. Jerome writes (Works XVII, p. 6): “until that day the patriarchs of the Jews sent (their) apostles (to the Galatians); It was from them, in my opinion, that the corrupted (seduced) of the Galatians then accepted the custom of observing the precepts of the law.” Jul. Caes., De bello Gail. IV, 5. Themistius (second half of the 4th century AD), Orat. XXIII, p. 299 A. Thus, it is said that - stormy at the beginning of the battle - at the height of it the Gauls behaved worse than women (Tit.Liv. X, 28), of course, in case of excessive prolongation of the battle. J. Caesar (De bell Gall. II, 1) states that among the Gauls mobilitas et levitas animi. Cp. Tacit. Germ. 29. Blazh. Jerome testifies that “the Galatians come ... from among the more bestial Gauls” (Creations XVII, p. 75); “they are disobedient and stupid and do not easily learn wise instructions” (p. 61). See Prof. W. M. Ramsay. A Historical Commentary, p. 53: "old barbaric and Celtic character". On Druids and Druidism, see August Fick, Vergleichendes Worterbuch, S. 465. Stokes–Bezzenberger, Urkeltischer Sprachsatz, S. 157: drui-s, druid-os – Wahrsager, Druid. Pauly-Wissowa's article on the Druids (V, 5p. 1730–1738) says that the birthplace of Druidism was Britain, from where it was transferred to Gaul (Sp. 1735), and the Asia Minor Galatians may have known it (Sp. 1736). Hitherto, some echoes of Druidic customs are found and maintained in Ireland, Britain and Brittany. Wed. at Ch. Daremberg et Edm. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines I, 2 (Paris 1887), p. 1679–1690. However, since the last times of the republic: † Prof. Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte V4, S. 313; Russian lane V, p. 305. See the oath of allegiance to Rome in the churches of Augustus (Augusteumukh) at the altars (altars) erected to him on March 6, 3 BC. Chr. on the part of the inhabitants of the Deiotarian part of Paphlagonia annexed to Galatia (cf. above p. 10) - Phasemonitids (Phaseman Naples Neo-Claudiopolis Andrata (?), now Vezir-Kopru). According to this monument, “the cult of Augustus already has the significance of a state institution and is established in the (named) country immediately after its annexation to the borders of the Roman Empire,” and the personality of the sovereign appears in an aura of divine greatness, as a “son of God” († Prof. Yu. A. Kulakovsky, Reopened oath in the name of Augustus in “Philological Review” XX, 2 Moscow 1901, p. 159 ff., 162–164) and σωτήρ ?а - the Savior (“The Expositor” 1903, II, XII, p. 114, 438; cf. Pauly-Wissowa I, 2, Sp. 2222). For the cult of the Caesars, see Ch. Darenberget Edm. Saglio III, 1, p. 432–433. Emil Aust, Die Religion der Romer (Munsteri. W. 1899), S. 98–99. It was a meeting (concilium, κοινόν) of deputies, which constituted the council of an entire province (like the “congresses of the nobility” that once existed in Russia); it was concentrated everywhere around the churches in honor of Rome and Augustus. See Ch. Darenberg et Edm. Sag1io III, 1, p. 326b. (G. Boissier) V, p. 433a (R. Cagneat). There were special Γαλατάρχης: II, 2, p. 14281429 (Georges Perrot). As you know, on the walls of this church there were inscriptions listing the most important acts of Emperor Augustus; this is the so-called Monumentum Acyranum, ill. † Prof. Th. Mommsen?om, Res gestae divi August! (Berolini2 1883); Romische Geschichte V4, S. 322. 1; in Russian lane V, pp. 313.2. See about this † Prof. Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschiehte V4, S. 332; Russian lane V, cf. 323–324. On this subject in general see The Jewish Encyclopedia II, p. 211–213; V, r. 548a. For Pavlov's times, see J. Hastings, Extra-Volume, p. 94–95, where it is stated in Josephus XVI 6:2 of the Edict of Augustus in Ancyra in favor of the Jews (see above p. 36) that the specified Galatian city is named erroneously instead of the original word αργυρη. We categorically testify to this by W. M. Ramsay, at least in relation to mountainous Galatia. According to him (in J. Hastinga II, pp. 92–93), “the Phrygian religion of Sabasius formed the basis for this mixed type. Sabasiy was identified with the Jewish Sabaoth, and θεὸς ὕφισιος (the highest god) was revered in such a form that a strong influence of Jewish elements is noticeable here, even if in many ways it still remained pagan. There are indications of θεὸς ὕφισιος even of a purely Jewish nature, but this must be distinguished from mixed veneration. A significant part of the Phrygian people, especially in the center and south, were captured by a half-Jewish, half-pagan cult. On this subject Mr. Cumont reports: “These strata, imbued with biblical ideas without close attachment to Jewish law, were fertile soil for Christian propaganda, whence the fact is better explained that the new faith achieved more conversions in Asia Minor than in any other country.” This consideration is especially applicable to those areas where the Jews were most powerful; but W. M. Ramsay admits directly (p. 88b) that the Jews penetrated into the north of Galatia only later than they established themselves in the south. See † Prof. Th. Zahn, S. 4–5. Some proponents of the South Galatian interpretation argue that this does not directly predetermine the question of the time of writing and publication of the epistle to the Galatians (E. N. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians, London 1899, p. VI, 99 sqq.), but in any case an earlier date would be required. Even Val. Weber suggests for τὸ πρότερον a relationship with Acts. XIII, 14 - XIV, 20, but this is so little relevant to the matter that he is rather inclined to doubt the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bduplicity in this Greek term. So, and † Prof. Cuthbert N. Turner believes on the basis of Gal. I, 6. that “only a few months had passed since he (St. Paul) left them” (the Galatian Christians): The Study of the New Testament, p. 24. Cp. archbishop Filaret, although he also exaggerates, claims that ταχέως supposedly allows for 10 or more years (p. 19). Some people tend to understand praes. μετατίθεσθε in the sense of indicating the rapid development of the anomaly itself. Wed. Phil. IV, 21-22, where the Apostle is greeted - on the one hand - by the brethren who are with him, on the other - by “all the saints” in the whole mass and in particular “especially from the house of Caesar.” It is clear that in the first group we mean those close to the evangelist - assistants and collaborators, but there could not be many of them, which is why in our case we are expressively called “everyone” in full and, as it were, known to the readers. Cp. † Prof. Th. Zahn, S. 2, although his exculpatory reference to Gal. I, 8 ff. we do not find it convincing. In this case, the assumption († C. Weizsacker, S.2110 ff., Vollmer, S. 38) that the similarity of different monuments in biblical citation indicates the existence and prevalence of special collections of biblical passages, arranged under different general headings, is not particularly important for us. We have no factual basis or practical need for this guess, for the Jews have always been distinguished by the most sophisticated knowledge of the Bible from memory, but, of course, this hypothesis is possible and more easily explains such literary phenomena. However, in this case the most important question is not revealed: why were the same texts chosen and why are they applied in the same way? From this circumstance they also try to extract an argument in favor of the South Galatian theory, for - according to the demolition of Acts XX, 4 and 2 Cor. VIII, 18–23 - it turns out that among the representatives from the churches with alms offerings there were persons not from northern, but only from southern Galatia, which, supposedly, should be understood in 1 Cor. XVI, 1. But the Writer does not mention such a “representation” at all, as it would be strange to send money from Galatia through Pisidia and Lycaonia. Prof. is also approaching this conclusion. S. Clemen, considering the Galatian Epistle to be later than the Roman Epistle and not written in Rome (Chronologie, S. 199 ff., 203), but for this it is allowed that Acts. XV and Gal. II must refer to the time after Acts. XXI, 17 ff. Later, S. Clemen was inclined to believe that the Galatian Epistle was written in Athens (see “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1903, Nr. 30, Sp. 542). Of course, all these and similar chronological dates are not absolutely accurate and are indicated only approximately. Now on this issue the Delphic inscription is important, that Gallio became proconsul of Achaia (Acts XVIII, 12) in the summer of 61. Bp. J. B. Lightfoot (p. 73) not without right notes that, mentioning “all the brothers” (I, 2), the Apostle does not say anything (contrary, for example, Rom. XVI, 16 –) about the unanimity of the local church with him (cf. 1 Cor. IV, 17. XI, 16). And since the latter would be extremely important in apologetic interests, we must conclude that there was not yet an organized church there, or it was insignificant and in any case did not coincide with the Church of Ephesus. See and Pastor em. Hermann Schulze, Die Urspunglichkeit des Galaterbriefes: Versuch einer Apologie auf literar-historischem Wege, Leipzig 1903, and for a review of this book (88 pages) see “Theologisches Literaturblatt” XXIV, 43 (23. Oktober 1903), Sp. 511–512. For Phil. 6 compared to Gal. IV, 17–18 see The Journal of the Theological Studies IV, 15, p. 443. See and Prof. W. With van Manen in Encyclopaedia Biblica III, col. 3628–3629. See and Prof. W. S. van Manen in Encyclopaedia Biblica III, col. 3627, 3634. The entire epistle to the Galatians is preserved in 10 ounces (out of 20 by Paul) NB (IV–V centuries) C (from the 2nd verse of the 1st chapter) A (Vth century) D (Greco-Latin. VI century) E (Greco-Latin) FGKL (IX century), fragmentarily - in N (VI century: Gal. I, 1–10. II, 9–17. 17, 30-V, 5) Fa (VII century: Gal. IV 21–22) N (IX century: Gal. V, 12–VI, 18). up to 485 italic lists and about 265 lectionaries. It is useful to note that in his edition N. 3 † Prof. N. v. Soden again returned to Tischendorf's view, for he values ​​B not as much as W.–N., and attaches more importance to NAS (see Ernest De Witt Burton, p. LXXXII). Some specific textual criticism will be made during the interpretation. For the Greek text, see the special, but not always convincing, remarks of Prof. Friedrich Zimmer, Zur Textkritik des Galaterbrifs in "Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie" XXIV (1881), 4, S. 481–494; XXV (1882), 3, S. 327–343; XXVI (1883), 3, S. 294–308 for Latin translations and reviews – Italafragmente der Paulinischen Briefe von L. Ziegler, eingeleitet durch ein Vorwort von Prof. Dr. E. Ranke (Marburg 1876), Friedr. Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen” I (Konigsberg 1877), Petrus Corssen, Epistula ad Galatas ad fidem optimorum codicum Vulgatae recognovit, prolegomenis instruxit. Codice Sangermanensi Petropolitano (Christianiae 1887), there are only some indications and materials for criticism in the master's thesis † of Prof. G. A. Voskresensky, Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and its fate until the 15th century (Moscow 1879), pp. 312–325. However, this is not entirely certain for ὁ ταράσσων Prof. Th. Zahn, S. 4. You might be interested in: