{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019471488178025034, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027816411682892906, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Translated and edited by Judith Kovacs

In Vladimir Soloviev's story of the Antichrist, the Redeemer's eschatological opponent recommends himself to believers not least by alluding to the fact that he has been awarded a doctorate in theology at Tübingen and that he has written an exegetical work recognized by experts as groundbreaking. The Antichrist as a famous exegete—it is with this paradox that Soloviev, almost a hundred years ago, drew attention to the ambivalence of modern methods of interpreting the Bible. Today, to speak of the crisis of the historical-critical method has become almost a truism. And yet it had set out with enormous optimism. 1