The use of the word 'barbarian' in Paul's epistles is extremely curious. It is once used in the sense of "one who does not understand the language": "If I do not understand the meaning of words, then I am a stranger to him who speaks, and a stranger to him who speaks to me (βάρβαρος) (1 Cor. 14.11). The second case is more interesting. As an "apostle to the Gentiles," Paul declares, "I owe both Greeks and barbarians" (Romans 1:14). This phrase can be understood as "to all people"[21]. But the third context is most important: in Colossians, Paul exclaims: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all and in all" (Col. 3:11). The word "Scythian" here undoubtedly pairs with the word "barbarian", reinforcing it and at the same time pointing to the political aspect of the cultural definition: the "barbarians" of Colossians are no longer just uncivilized subjects of the Empire, like the inhabitants of Malta in Acts, they are real "savages" living beyond the Limes. "Scythian" is a barbarian par excellence. Thus, Christian literature, albeit in the form of hyperbole, a vague declaration, for the first time introduces the problem of relations with the non-imperial world. Of course, theory is one thing, and practice is another. And yet the seed of world mission is in these words of Paul to the inhabitants of the city of Colossae in Asia Minor.

II. The Greco-Roman Concept of "Barbarism"

The Greek word 'barbarian' is an onomatopoeia. Initially, it described a person who spoke an incomprehensible dialect, that is, talking "gibberish". This is how the Hellenes called everyone who did not understand their language. The word goes back to Homer (Homeri Ilias, 2, 867). Although at the very beginning it did not imply an evaluative value, it was not long in coming: already Thales in the VII century BC said that "he is grateful to fate for ... that he is a Hellen, and not a barbarian"[22]. Although any non-Greeks were called barbarians, Hellas greatly respected the wisdom of ancient Eastern cultures: Babylon, Egypt, Persia. This led to paradoxical consequences. For example, it was said with admiration of Pythagoras that he was initiated into the Chaldean wisdom, which was called "barbarian," and at the same time the philosopher himself asserted that "to trust an unreasoning feeling is the property of barbarian souls." Negative attitudes towards barbarians intensified among the Greeks after the Persian Wars. Herodotus believed that "in barbarians there is neither loyalty nor truth"; for Thucydides, a clear division of the world into Hellenes and barbarians is an absolute given, because they are at different stages of development. The Greeks believed that since they had freedom, they were destined to rule the barbarians. This opinion remained unchanged until the Roman era. Here is one example of hundreds of similar ones: as Dionysius of Halicarnassus says, "I believe that people should be called Hellenes insofar as they are the opposite of barbarians. In my opinion, rational and humane thoughts and deeds... are Hellenic, and the cruel and bestial are barbaric" (Dionysii Halicarnasei Antiquitatum Romanarum quae supersunt, XIV, 6, 5-6). Nevertheless, the "philosophical" respect for the wisdom of the East never disappeared: "magicians", "Chaldeans", and after the campaigns of Alexander the Great also "Brahmans" and "gymnosophists" remained inveterate sages until the death of antiquity. And later, in Byzantine times, the Persians could be included in the number of barbarians, or they could be mentioned separately from them.

The Romans inherited both the Greek word 'barbarian' and the concept behind it. However, if the Greeks generally communicated little with the surrounding peoples, then Rome, due to its desire for expansion, was in constant contact with them. Did it lead to a better understanding, to a deeper knowledge? Apparently not[26]. Stereotypes of perception have not been revised for centuries, and the more the barbarian threat grew, the less reality there was in the ideas about barbarians. The victories of Rome were perceived as a sign of the favor of the gods, the enslavement of the barbarians as a religious duty. Pagan authors endowed the Empire with a divine, providential meaning[28]. Both the Romans and the Greeks were extremely proud of the gigantic size of the Empire, its "universal" character. The fact that there were still lands that were not subject to Rome was perceived as a temporary phenomenon, an unfortunate oversight[29]. For the Roman, the genus humanum "human race" is only the population of the Orbis Romanus of the "Roman world," and the attempts of some late antique philosophers to talk about the equality of men and universal peace are nothing more than an attempt to sweeten the pill of defeat.

Subsequently, the Byzantines adopted the Greco-Roman concept of "barbarism" with all its inconsistencies: as we shall see, they also sometimes included "cultured" peoples among the barbarians, and sometimes they did not. But the most interesting thing for us is to find out whether this concept has undergone any changes under the influence of Christianity.

III. The Christian Apologists' View of Mission

1

The early Christians opposed themselves to the Roman state. Accordingly, it was important for them to demonstrate the universal nature of their religion, its popularity outside the Empire. For the first time we encounter such reasoning as early as the second century in the writings of Justin Martyr: "There is not a single kind of people at all, whether barbarians or Greeks, or, simply, called by any name, or living in carts, or called homeless, or living in tents of cattle breeders, where prayers are not said in the name of the Crucified One" [31]. According to Tertullian, Christianity had already embraced "other peoples, such as the various [tribes] of the Getuli, and the numerous border regions [belonging] to the Moors, and all the borders of the Spaniards, and the various tribes of Gaul, and the regions of the Britons, Sarmatians, Scythians, inaccessible to the Romans, but subject to Christ, and many remote tribes, provinces, and islands, unknown to us, which cannot even be enumerated" (Tertulliani Adversus Iudaeos, 7). And here are the words of Irenaeus of Lyons (II century): "The Church is spread (διεσπαρμένη) throughout the entire world, even to the ends of the earth. The languages of the world are different, but the power of [holy] tradition is the same: the churches founded in Germany believe and revere tradition no differently [than we]. The same is true of the Iberian [churches], the Celtic, the Eastern, the Egyptian, the Libyan, and also those located in the middle of the world." Hippolytus of Rome (3rd century) asserts that the new religion is professed by "Hellenes and barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts and victorious Latins – all who inhabit Europe, Asia and Libya" [33].

This universality of Christianity (of course, it was only a dream at that time) could have value only if the barbarians had cultural equality with the subjects of the Empire. And it is true that early Christian writers pay a lot of attention to the substantiation of the thesis that other peoples are superior in wisdom to the Greeks and Romans. "Do not be too hostile to the barbarians, O men of the Greeks," exclaims Tatian, "and do not despise their teaching!" (Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos, 1.1.1). And here are the words of Origen: "The Greeks, who themselves used the laws, called all other peoples barbarian, however... the Jews began to use the laws before the Greeks"[34]. In this exaltation of barbarians, apologists could rely on the opinion of pagan philosophers[35].

2

Thus, the pathos of the original equality of peoples was very strong in early Christianity, but it was profoundly contradicted by the very conceptual system of the language in which the apologists wrote. Above we drew attention to the fact that the Apostle Paul of necessity used the term "barbarian," which in itself implied the pagan division of the world into "us" and "them." In the same way, the discourse of the "Roman universe" was literally imbued with the imperial spirit, with which Christians were forced to operate for lack of any other. The term "universe" (οικουμένη) meant lands inhabited by civilized people and ruled by the Romans. Whatever the attitude of the early Christians to Rome, this "of Babylon", they unwittingly assimilated its system of coordinates. Already in the Gospel the words "the whole world" are used not only in the providential mystical, but also in the most mundane bureaucratic sense: "In those days there came from Caesar Augustus the command to rewrite the whole universe (άπογράφεσθαι πάσαν τήν οικουμένην)" (Luke 2:1). Thus these two meanings live side by side in early Christian literature. When the apocryphal Acts of the Apostle John says: "God who chose us to preach to the nations (άποστολήν εθνών) and sent us into the world" (Acta Joannis/Ed. M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, Vol. 2.1 (Leipzig, 1898), p. Ill), the first meaning is certainly meant. But when Justin Martyr addresses the Roman emperors, he pronounces "your universe" (Justini Martyris Apologia, I, 27) in the second meaning.

The perception of the Empire as a "world" automatically made the world outside the imperial Limes "otherworldly", and this inevitably turned the people who lived there into non-humans. Initially, Christianity resisted this logic. It is this pathos that permeates the Life of Christopher (. BHG, 309—310). The text opens with a declaration that "God not only helps Christians, but also becomes a recompense for those who believe among the tongues"[36]. Then there is a story about a certain barbarian named Reprevos, who "was of a race of dogheads, from the land of cannibals... and could not speak our language"[37]. This barbarian served in the Roman auxiliaries in Africa, witnessed the martyrdom of Christians and converted himself, taking the name Christopher. In order to clearly show the spiritual transformation of the barbarian, God granted him the ability to speak and eventually led him to the crown of martyrdom. The moral of the life is clear: even a Pesyeglavets can become a Christian. However, they do not explain to us what has become of the "dog-headedness" itself. In the Passion of Christopher there is a mention that, after the condescension of grace upon him, people fled in fear at the sight of the saint, and the emperor Decius even fell from his throne in terror — therefore, his appearance did not improve.