Such is Harnack's "construction" of the history of the Church in the first three centuries.

At the end of the volume under consideration, Harnack does not summarize his conclusions and propositions, and thus deprives the reader of the opportunity to check whether everything is understood by him (the reader) as the author should have wished.

AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS

In intending to make an analysis of Harnack's historical theory, as expressed in the first volume of his work, we wish that our analysis should be accessible and intelligible to everyone, and therefore we will not be given room for a scrupulous and literalist criticism. We will not analyze the author's private thoughts and particular propositions, because if we were to undertake this task, our work would be more complicated, and the result would be the most thankless. No matter how hard we tried to analyze Harnack's book, we would analyze only a smaller part of what it contains (perhaps a twentieth or a smaller part of the book), and therefore we would not achieve the goal in the least, we would not make a convincing judgment, since most of the content of the book would remain untouched by criticism. For a factual criticism of Harnack's entire book, it would be necessary to write more than one volume. One would have to fight with the author, armed with both elementary and specialized information from several theological sciences: St. Scripture in the broad sense of the word, patristics, canon law, dogmatics, and church history proper. But such a task cannot find a hunter for itself.

Freeing ourselves from a petty, factual and textual analysis of Harnack's work, we will consider his work from a more general point of view and mainly from the point of view of the method followed by the German historian in clarifying the course of the history of the most ancient Church. The goal of criticism, it seems to us, will be achieved, but in the shortest way. Of course, we cannot avoid not analyzing this or that small fact, a particular thought in a book. But this will be a passing matter.

Harnack begins his book with a picture of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the teaching of Christ is presented in his book as extremely poor. We must, however, say that Harnack is not far from thinking that the Founder of Christianity had no teaching at all. An outline of the teaching of Jesus Christ, as this teaching seems to Harnack, we compiled in the exposition of the content of the book of this scientist on the basis of the text of the book. But in the notes to this text, Harnack doubts the authenticity and authenticity of even those views of Christ that are attributed to Him in the text. Thus, the German scholar doubts whether Jesus Christ declared Himself to be the Messiah, finding that this part of the Gospel Tradition still requires the strictest criticism (S. 49). Harnack, furthermore, is not sure that Jesus Christ taught about His second coming, even in the simple form in which he, a German scholar, expounds this teaching. "What Christ said on the eschatological question, and what was not said by Christ, but came from His disciples, no one can say anything about this," remarks the German historian (S. 51). Christ, as Harnack teaches in the notes, did not give any institutions that would serve as a distinctive feature of the society of Christians. That Christ did not institute the sacraments of baptism is clearly and directly stated by Harnack (S. 56); and as for the sacrament of Communion, whether Christ instituted this sacrament, this scholar says neither yes nor no (inclining to naught), on the pretext that the meaning of Christ's words about the Body and Blood is "difficult to understand" (S. 51). But what follows from the facts we have just cited? And it follows that Harnack completely abolished the person of the Founder of Christianity; and from this, in turn, it follows that Harnack writes his history without having a starting point, or more precisely, that his starting point is empty space. But here is the question: Does Harnack have the right to take empty space as the starting point? No, it does not, at least we are sure that it does not. Why didn't he use the Gospels to depict Jesus Christ? He has his own reasons for this, but these reasons are partly unfounded, but understandable, and partly unfounded and incomprehensible. He does not recognize the Gospels of the Synoptics as authentic. As for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, he asserts that they were for a long time considered in the Church to be non-apostolic works, and only about the middle of the second century did they begin to be considered the works of the above-mentioned apostles (S. 273). He also denies the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke, since it was unknown even to Marcion with the name of Luke (middle of the second century), but allegedly received this name later (S. 179). Such reasoning, let us assume, is completely unfounded, but we at least understand why Harnack did not use the synoptics in expounding the preaching of Christ. Harnack is the son of his ultra-Protestant milieu, where this is precisely how the historical character of the Synoptics is viewed; And we may sincerely wish that he would not slavishly follow others, but we cannot demand it. Another kind of question is: why does Harnack not use the Gospel of John as a source? Does he deny the authenticity of this monument as well, as he rejects the Synoptics? It does not reject and does not recognize. He only says: "The origin of John's writings, considered from the literary and dogmatic-historical side, constitutes the wisest riddle posed by the most ancient history of Christianity" (S. 66). Thus, Harnack does not know what point of view to hold on the origin of the Gospel of John. But what of the fact that he does not know this? Does it follow from the fact that the Gospel of John, in its origin, is "the wisest riddle"—does it follow from this that the historian may not use this Gospel at all in expounding the teaching of Jesus Christ? Harnack thinks so. He completely leaves aside the Gospel of John, as if it did not exist in the world. It is scarcely necessary to prove how little foundation there is in such an act of a learned historian. To do so means not to know the most elementary requirements of science. If the author does not understand how to solve the "most intricate riddle" regarding the Gospel of John, then he first had to think of some solution, and only then write a history of the Christian development of the first centuries. Now it is clear to us why the teaching of Jesus Christ (even in the text of Harnack's book) is so poorly presented. In the exposition of Christ's teaching, the testimony of the chief witness to Christ's preaching, the testimony of the Gospel of John, is not taken into account, and is not accepted for reasons that are completely incomprehensible.

The circle of truths in which the "first generation of Christ's disciples" lived, i.e., His apostles, His immediate disciples, and apostolic followers, is also excessively scarce in Harnack. A few very simple truths, almost not new—this is the gospel in which the "first generation" of believers in Jesus believed and moved. Could it be that Harnack, from his point of view, could not have found such monuments that would testify to a wider range of beliefs of the first followers of Christ? It was difficult for him to find such monuments, but in any case he could have found them if he had wanted to. How difficult it was for him to find such monuments can be judged from the proscription with which he subjected most of the canonical writings concerning the history and teaching of the apostolic age with a single stroke of the pen (do not look for proofs in Harnack): the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles is not authentic (but on what page and in what expressions the author speaks about this, I do not remember); the conciliar epistle of James, in its original form, is the preaching of some early Christian enthusiastic prophet, and only later in Tradition it received the name of James, therefore, it is not authentic; Peter's first conciliar epistle was originally a letter from an unknown Paulinist (a follower of the Apostle Paul), and then in Tradition it received the name of St. Paul. Peter, therefore, is not genuine; the second epistle of Peter is a very late work, published after the middle of the second century; the Epistles of John represent, in their origin, "the most intricate riddle"; the conciliar epistle of Jude, in all likelihood, was originally a letter from an unknown Paulinist and was later attributed to St. Paul. Judas, therefore, is again not genuine; all the so-called Pastoral Epistles of Paul occurred shortly before 180, are not authentic; The Epistle to the Hebrews was originally a letter from an unknown man or Barnabas (it is noteworthy that Harnack is ready to attribute this Epistle to Barnabas, and he considers the Epistle attributed to Barnabas to be a forgery), and then it was remade into the Epistle of St. Paul. Paul; Especially about the Apocalypse of John, the author notes that originally it did not have any John as its writer (i.e., neither Apostle John, nor the presbyter John, to whom it was sometimes assimilated by the ancients), only about the middle of the second century it acquired the significance of the work of Ap. John, after the name of John was included in the text of the Apocalypse (S. 273, 275, 279). Needless to say, after such a sweeping rejection of the authenticity of more than ten New Testament writings relating to apostolic times, it is very difficult to compile a detailed exposition of the teaching of the apostles and other early followers of Christ. It is impossible to write history without monuments – this is self-evident. But the reader, of course, noticed that Harnack's proscription sheet did not include many of the epistles of St. Paul. Paul, which provide a great deal of data to characterize the beliefs of the "first generation" of Christians. Why and why? The matter is murky, in need of explanation. Harnack rejected the above-mentioned New Testament writings (which we have enumerated) as the sources of his work, because they are considered inauthentic by the rationalist clique of German theologians: he is an admirer of rationalistic German theology, and therefore his peremptory supposedly scientific verdicts are seized on the fly and obediently submit to them. Even rationalist theologians recognize their authenticity. Judging by many examples, it can be argued that Harnack would have sung from someone else's voice if one of his brethren had declared all of Paul's epistles to be spurious, but this is not the case. No one dares to deny the authenticity of all Paul's epistles. What was left for Harnack to do? Not to declare them false himself? It remained, standing firmly on the ground of his science, to recognize the majority of Paul's epistles as authentic, and on the basis of them to depict the nature of the teaching of the "first generation" of believers in Christ. But Harnack did not want to do this. (We will talk about why a little later.) Harnack decided at all costs to deny Paul's epistles any influence on church doctrine up to the end of the second or even the beginning of the third century. More than once he appeals to the benevolent reader and urges him to forget the epistles of Paul, that "former Pharisee." The reader listens to Harnack's speeches, but is perplexed and even simply does not believe the learned German professor. The author begins from the very first pages of his book to assure the reader that Paul's epistles remained for a long time as if under a bushel and had no influence on the dogmatic education of the Church. He says: "Paul's understanding of Christianity did not bear traces of Greek influence (and is it necessary? — A. L.). In this property of Paul's teaching lies the reason why nothing of it has passed into the general consciousness of Christians, except the idea of the universality of salvation, and therefore it is impossible to explain the further development of the Church by Paulinism" (S. 41). How new it is! Other Western rationalist scholars deduce the entire development of Christianity from Paul's theology and assert that "Paul is the Christ" of Christianity, while Harnack asserts that Paul's teaching did not have any reception and dissemination in the early Christian societies. It is difficult to get to the truth if we take the leaders of modern German scientists of a rationalistic nature, and their name is legion. Yes, let us suppose that Paul did not have an influence on the dogmatics of the primitive Church, as Harnack wishes, but Paul himself lived in apostolic times and revealed very many Christian beliefs with remarkable completeness; Why did the author not deign to say anything about him and his teaching in the exposition of the first Christian dogmatics? Paul and his dogmatics are facts to which the historian of the apostolic age must pay attention if he does not want to fool the reader. But let us see further how Harnack evades in order to obtain for himself the right not to expound Paul's teaching and to deny any influence of it on the Church from the first times of its existence. Explaining his words now, Harnack assures the reader that the historical traces of the Church's acquaintance with Paul's teaching are so "general that they cannot be represented in a definite image" (S. 42); "Pauline theology," says Harnack, "is not identical with the original teaching of the Gospel, nor with any form of later doctrine" (S. 93). In short, the author is very anxious to persuade the reader to forget as much as possible about Paul's epistles, for they interfere with Harnack's work. When were Paul's epistles finally discovered in the history of Christianity? When and who was the first to appreciate this invaluable treasure? This happened, in Harnack's opinion, no earlier than the middle of the second century, and these epistles were brought out of oblivion by the Gnostics, the Marcionites and the Encratites: "Paulinic theology took its place among them" (S. 424). This is the beneficence that the Marcionites and Encratites have done to Christendom. As soon as the attention of these heretics was first drawn to the Pauline Epistles, then the Orthodox Church, he argues, could no longer ignore the Pauline Epistles. But at first the discovery of the Pauline Epistles caused a great deal of trouble for Orthodox writers: the latter could not adapt themselves in their views to ideas that were unusual for them (S. 280)... From all these arguments of Harnack's, one thing is clear to the reader: this scholar did not want to give Paul's theology a place in the history of the Church until the end of the second century.

Thus, there is no doubt that Harnack's poor depiction of both the teaching of the Founder of Christianity and of the first apostolic time is a deliberate matter, i.e., completely artificial. He expounded the teaching of Jesus Christ, not taking in his hands the Gospel of John, but the teaching of the early Christian time, without taking into account most of the Pauline Epistles. He had no basis for either and no rights, not even from the point of view of his science and his own scientific ideas. But if he had no scientific basis and no right to act as he did, he had an irresistible need to do so. Harnack wanted to "construct" his history as secular historians do, not only without taking into account the actions of supernatural principles, but also imagining history as the development of mankind from the lowest degrees of civilization to the highest degrees of this civilization. We will not talk about whether secular historians who are guided by such views are right. It is important for us to note in the present case only that Harnack adheres to these views, working in such a field as church history. Church history does not fit into the framework in which secular historians confine civil history. Church history has as its point of departure not a minimum of development, but the fullness of religious ideas. This, however, Harnack did not want to take into account, and from this, as a natural consequence, came his distortion of the history of early Christianity. According to the theory of secular historians, the initial historical stage of the development of a given society (state) is simple, uncomplicated, less rich in ideas and institutions than the subsequent stages of the life of society. Therefore, Harnack also had to present the initial era of Christianity as poor in ideas and institutions. But in the development of this preoccupied view, he encountered, after various proscriptions of historical monuments, two of the most important monuments of Christian antiquity, the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul. It was impossible to deny the authenticity of all of them. But, on the other hand, it was impossible for Harnack to use these monuments as a testimony to the nature and properties of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, from the point of view of this teaching. If he had expounded the gospel of Christ and the teaching of the early Christian epoch according to these sources, then the gospel of Christ would have turned out to be immensely broad, and the apostolic preaching and the faith of the first disciples of Christ would have been rich in content and comprehensive. But if the latter had happened, then the first stage of the history of Christianity would have been a progressive way that destroyed Harnack's theory of the development of Christian society, as well as of any human society, from the simpler to the more complex. It was necessary to untie the tightly tightened knot somehow, but instead of untying it, Harnack decided to cut it. And as a result, there are machinations unworthy of a serious historian, with the help of which the German scientist tries to get rid of inconvenient monuments that interfere with the harmony of the development of his theory. And so there appeared his unconvincing and unprovable elucubrations, that the Gospel of John could not be used in the exposition of Christ's preaching, because "it is, in its origin, a most intricate riddle"; that it is necessary to reject the Pauline Epistles as a source from which one can draw information about the beliefs of the "first generation" of Christ's followers, because, allegedly, they remained without influence on the religious-intellectual structure of the apostolic age.

Thus, we see that from the initial points of view Harnack's work is devoid of thoroughness and tendentious. The incorrectness of these points of view is reflected in the incorrectness of the revelation of the church-historical content and the subsequent stages of the historical life of Christianity.

As a matter of fact, we could end our analysis of Harnack's work on the first three centuries here. It is now clear to us why his work is what it is, i.e., it does not correspond to the more fundamental and widespread ideas about the first period of church historical life. The dignity of work is wholly harmed by the method on which it is based, but which is unsuitable for working on ecclesiastical-historical material of the first century of Christianity. If, as the saying goes, a good beginning is half the battle, then a bad beginning, like Harnack's, naturally spoils almost the whole thing. We say: we could conclude the analysis of Harnack's book, limiting ourselves to the criticisms already made, since we have exposed shortcomings that must inevitably have had an unfavorable effect on his entire work; but we considered it best not to leave without critical remarks, at least short ones, the author's further reasoning. We hope that in this way it will be even clearer: what difficulties a historian has to struggle with when he has taken the wrong path in his research.

First of all, let us note that Harnack considers the general principles governing the course of development of ecclesiastical and historical life in post-apostolic times to be Hellenic-Roman culture and Judaism, especially in the form represented by Hellenized Judaism (for example, Jewish Alexandrian philosophy). We will not dwell here on the real meaning of the first of these principles, since we will speak about this question later, when we begin to evaluate Harnack's views on the forms and fruits of the influence of Hellenic-Roman culture on the Christian Church. We will only make a remark about such a factor in the life of the Church as Hellenized Judaism. Harnack ascribes to it a very great importance in the further development of church-historical life. As we already know, he directly says that this Judaism had "a remarkable influence on the emergence of the catholic teaching of faith." From such a decisive statement of Harnack's opinion, it should be concluded that the learned historian knows very well how this influence took place and what evidence there is for it. In fact, Harnack knows as little about it as anyone else. He confesses that "no separate person can be indicated" through whom this influence would be effected (S. 45). On another occasion he declares that "there is almost no direct evidence" on which to assert the opinion that the Christian worldview belonging to the Church depended on Hellenized Judaism as its source (S. 74). And if so, then there is no reason to present Judaism as a principle that governed the development of the Church. This is Harnack's conjecture, which remains a conjecture.

But we turn to the fate of the Church and its doctrine, as Harnack imagines these destinies. A long time, according to the judgment of this scholar, passes before the Church began to possess a system of dogmatic teachings. During the period from 60 to 160 A.D., it was little enriched in the sphere of doctrine in comparison with the early Christian era. We have shown earlier what, in his opinion, distinguished Christian society from 60 to 160 A.D. in the dogmatic respect. These were some fragments of beliefs. True, in some Christian circles, according to his judgment, the awakening of dogmatizing thought began, but there was nothing definite, firm and stable here. In the teaching, one can see hesitation, discrepancies and even outright contradictions. In expounding the contents of Harnack's book under consideration, we have also cited examples from this book, with which he wants to prove his view of the unattractive state of the Church from 60 to 160 AD. Harnack had his own reasons for attributing as little importance as possible to the Church of the time in question. Studying this time, he could not find a source, an indubitable and important source, from which it would be possible to complicate the religious and intellectual life of the Church. He could not ascribe importance in the development of religious and intellectual life to Christianity itself, because Christianity, as he understood it (and we have already seen how he understood it), was only an indefinite energy without a definite content. It remained to deduce the quantitative and qualitative development of Christian ideas from any extraneous influences, but all efforts to find such a source for the development of Christianity were in vain for the epoch of the 60-160s. But since Gnosticism, which appeared in the second century, did not suddenly develop and perfect itself, and could not suddenly exert a beneficial effect on the Church, Harnack had to postpone his speech about changing the circle of views of Christians, about enriching them with new, better ideas, as this scholar thinks, until he began to expound the history of Christian life during the period from 160 to 300 A.D. a completely artificial consideration compels him to try his best to ensure that the Church, for whatever reason, in his opinion, does not prematurely appear richer in ideas than the German scientist needs. He is so zealous in his efforts to present the epoch of Christianity from 60 to 160 A.D. as poor in ideas, that he does not even speak, in the study of this epoch, of the development of the literature of Christian apologists, postponing the discussion of this subject for some reason to a later time in the history of the Church. Of course, such a maneuver somewhat helps him to carry out his views on the course of the development of the Christian life of the time he studied with some (seeming) plausibility. But in essence, by means of such artificial maneuvers, by deliberately concealing the actual state of the dogmatizing thought of Christians from 60 to 160 A.D., Harnack achieves nothing. The facts speak too loudly against him. No matter how much Harnack distorts the actual state of Christian dogmatics of a given epoch in his exposition, this dogmatics clearly says that it was not poor, but rich. Let us see, for example, what incredible troubles and sorrows it cost him to reveal the idea that in this epoch Christians did not yet have a teaching about the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This, as is known, is a cardinal dogma in Christianity, and the history of the Church clearly proves that this dogma has always been professed by Christians from the very beginning of Christianity. But Harnack finds that it is more in accordance with his historical theory that this dogma should have been established and revealed in Christianity later, after the development of Gnosticism, within the range of 160 to 300 A.D., and he makes every effort to erase this dogma from the history of Christianity in the 60-160s. Harnack, with all his prejudice, could not fail to notice a very striking fact, namely, that from the very beginning Christians regarded the Founder of Christianity with the greatest reverence. This fact seems incomprehensible to the rationalist theologian, and he tries to obscure it in some way. For example, he says: "Jesus, as the Messiah and Lord, was reverently revered, which means," the German scholar thinks, "that name (italics in the original. — A.L.), which Jesus was given by His Father" (S. 56). It's a trick! Harnack encounters in Christian literature from 60 to 160 A.D. innumerable indications that Christ was revered and called "God." The German scholar tries to get rid of all this evidence in a plausible (in fact, not at all plausible) way. In this case, he resorts to a variety of tricks. He hammers into the reader's head the idea that one should not be embarrassed by such a name, "since the concept of Θεός was very variable and elastic, both among educated and uneducated persons" of that time. In general, at that time "they were considered gods – passionless, blissful people who continue to live in eternity" (S. 82). We do not argue, we will say to this; but why did the name of God later retain for Jesus Christ, and all other claimants did not retain this great name? Further, Harnack tries to show that the clearest testimony to the Divinity of Christ is to be found in works of suspicious origin, heretical: in the Apocrypha Acta Iohannis, in Marcion, in the Montanists (S. 140). But surely there is evidence of this teaching among church writers? Eat. Harnack does not want to deny this. But it seems to him that these testimonies should be understood differently from the way they are usually understood. The clear testimony of Justin, who calls Christ God, he strengthens to weaken either by the consideration that this name is given by Justin on the basis of the Old Testament sayings (but is not the Old Testament overflowing with indications of the dignity of the Messiah?), or by the observation that this apologist for the word Θεός, which he uses in relation to Christ, does not precede the term ό (but does not Origen do the same? who directly taught about the consubstantiality of the Son of God, Christ, with God the Father?). With other Christian testimonies of the second century about the Divinity of Christ, Harnack acts even stranger. He asserts that if Christian literature used the name of Jesus as God, it was not "to exalt the dignity of Christ, but often on the contrary, in order to show that the foundation of His dignity does not lie in Himself, but that He is only an independent proclaimer (Offenbarer) of God" (S. 131-133). The interpretation is incongruous. With the help of such supposedly scientific operations as Harnack allows himself, it is easy to transform the clearest dogmatic teaching of ancient times, however, for his own pleasure, into the most obscure. It is remarkable that all these scientific tricks did not give the desired satisfaction to Harnack himself; He feels that he has not been able to dispose of the uncomfortable testimony as he had hoped. Hence we encounter a strange complaint about the "carelessness (die Unbekiimmertheit) of the early Christian writers, who assigned Christ the place of God" (S. 128). Hence, according to Harnack's judgment, they acted unreasonably. But does the modern scholar act judiciously in deliberately distorting the meaning of the words of the first Christian writers?

During the 60-160s, the Church, according to Harnack, was poor in dogmatic content, unstable in its beliefs and as it were dead, but at the end of this phase in the life of the Church, according to the same scientist, a phenomenon arose and developed, which in the very near future was to enrich the Church in the content of her beliefs, to give them firmness and strength, and to call her to life. to revive — in a word, to "renew the face" of the Church. Such a phenomenon was, in Harnack's opinion, Gnosticism. Who could have expected such an opinion from a learned historian? He addresses all his best compliments to the Gnostics. For the German historian, Gnosticism is that "Pandora's box" (see § 12) from which the Christian Church could borrow everything it needed. What is usually said of the Catholic Church is what he now ascribes to Gnosticism. "The Gnostics," he says, "were the only theologians of their time; they raised Christianity to a system of dogmas, they were the first to systematically process traditions," etc. He found plenty of everything among the Gnostics, and their science was excellent: here appeared the first scientific commentaries, philosophical-dogmatic works, and art flourished among them: religious hymns and odes, church songs were born in them like mushrooms after a summer rain. But the reader already knows all this and will certainly ask: is it so? One might think that some kind of rich Gnostic literature has come down to us, before which scholars can only be amazed and reverent. But in reality, there is nothing of the kind. From the literature of the Gnostics, fragments have come down to us, which have been preserved for the most part in the works of ancient Christian polemicists.

That Harnack's view of Gnosticism is not the view of science, but a private opinion, unauthorised by science, is better known than others by the scientist in question. He says bluntly that "no one has hitherto recognized for Gnosticism such an importance in the history of dogmas" as he ascribes to this phenomenon (S. 163). To this it must be added that Harnack's overly original view of the Gnostics will undoubtedly never become a universally recognized scientific truth, because this view was invented by the author for his own personal needs. In his view, Christianity itself, as it appeared on Jewish soil, was almost devoid of any content. And in order to become meaningful, to become a great world power, a catholic Church, Christianity had to absorb the life-giving juices of the Greco-Roman culture. But when did it happen? History clearly indicates that in the third century Christianity became a great world power. Therefore, Harnack, from his point of view, it was absolutely necessary during the second century to indicate the point when Christianity could enter into close communion with Greco-Roman culture. But no matter how much the German scientist strained his eyes, he could not discover anything of any importance that could be recognized as such a point. In order to find a way out of his awkward situation, Harnack, for lack of anything better, recognized in Gnosticism the Greco-Roman factor, which allegedly determined the further development of the Church. But Harnack's difficulties did not end there. For him, for all his biased views, it seemed too bold to admit without any evidence that the culture of the Greco-Roman world of the second century and Gnosticism were one and the same. Therefore, he had to convince the reader that when we deal with Gnosticism, we are actually dealing with Greco-Roman culture. It turned out to be very difficult to convince the reader of this, because science does not think of identifying the Greco-Roman culture of the second century with Gnosticism. In such a state of affairs, the German scholar had no choice but to find in the most extensive German literature some writer who would say a word in favor of the tendency indicated by Harnakov. After many searches, Harnack found a writer, named Joel, who says that "Gnosticism is very much of a Greek character, and that Platonism is especially in the foreground" (S. 165). But Harnack had forgotten to give any information about this to Joel. According to the information, it turns out that Joel never studied the history of Gnosticism, that he was a Jewish writer, not in the least known in science, who wrote two thin pamphlets on the relationship between Christianity and Jewry in the first centuries. It was from these pamphlets that Harnack extracted the above opinions of Joel on Gnosticism. If Joel is at all authoritative for us, we must follow Harnack's views; and if Joel is not authoritative for us, then we can with complete peace of mind reject Harnack's views, built on Joel's fleeting thought. We believe that the choice will not be difficult for the reader.