home

Scud

Search the Bible and its interpretations. Commentary on the New Testament by William Barclay

Biblical exegesis:

Late Antique and Medieval Interpretations of the Bible and
some modern research

You have Javascript disabled. Search and filtering will not work. You can go to the old static version of this page: Exegesis of the Old Testament - Exegesis of the New Testament

This section contains various interpretations of the books of the Old and New Testaments, belonging to both the Fathers - representatives of patristics and modern researchers their creativity. The Byzantine Fathers, the Latin Fathers of the first seven centuries of Christianity, and the Syrian Fathers are predominantly represented.

At the moment, the catalog below appears to be unique in the Russian-language segment of the Internet: it is a selection of interpretations, grouped by the order of the books of the Bible, by the order of chapters and verses - depending on the amount of material covered in the corresponding text. This catalog is obviously far from complete and could be expanded by many materials available on the Internet. We also hope that it will be updated with new publications over time. The team of authors of the site will gratefully accept any suggestions for adding to this catalogue.

For more on patristic exegesis of the Old and New Testaments, see.

When this page is loaded, the main part of the catalog of interpretations of the Old or New Testament is displayed. For convenience, you can use the search form and select the required group of books (for example, only the Pentateuch or only the Gospels), a separate book (click (Select book)) or use the search.

To search, enter the title of the book (common abbreviations as in the references of the Synodal Bible, as well as similar English and Latin: Genesis Gen. Gen...), then separated by a space the chapter number and, if necessary, separated by a colon: verse number. Multiple chapters or verses can be separated by commas or hyphens without spaces.

For example: Gen 1:1-10- the first ten verses of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis; In 1, 3, 5— 1, 3 and 5 chapters of the Gospel of John.

When specifying the number of the verse(s), a list of parallel passages to the verses of the selected fragment will also be displayed, as well as a list of interpretations of the parallel passages themselves. Any of these options can be disabled if desired. All links to Holy Scripture are active and lead to the page with the corresponding chapter of the Bible.

Hello, brother Ivan!

I had the same thing at first. But the more time I devoted to God: the ministry and His Word, the more understandable it became to me. I wrote about this in the chapter “The Bible must be studied” in my book “Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine.” In order to correctly understand the Bible, you need to follow certain rules when interpreting it, which can be read by clicking on the link. However, knowing how important this issue is, we will discuss it a little more.

Bible Interpretation- not a simple matter. Scripture must be analyzed and understood in context. Today, many Christians are accustomed to paying attention to individual verses of the Bible, and even often a doctrine is built on a single text. However, these verses often tell a different story when viewed in the context of surrounding chapters or the message as a whole. Previously, there was no division of texts into verses and chapters; they were read as indivisible books (scrolls). Therefore, emphasis was rarely placed on individual verses without regard to the entire message. Also, when interpreting the Bible, it is necessary to take into account that these words were spoken in a different historical setting. God's messengers spoke not only to future generations, but also directly to those they spoke to. Real people spoke with real people in their language, taking into account their mentality inherent in that time and that area, and naturally understood each other. So, in order to correctly understand (interpret) the Bible, we need to delve into the nuances of their life and everyday life as much as possible. And then many things will become clearer to us.

Therefore, my advice to you is to study the Bible seriously, not forgetting to familiarize yourself with the history of the peoples it tells about. And at the same time, do not “get hung up” on individual texts, but look at them solely taking into account the context. And of course, he prays before reading the Bible, asking God to grant him wisdom to interpret the Bible, understand and remember His Word.

Today, the spiritual authorities of the mainstream churches claim that they alone have the right to interpret the Bible. They say that such an important matter as the understanding of Scripture is possible only within the church by its faithful holy subjects. And of course, each denomination believes that only their spiritual teachers correctly interpret the Bible. The flock of these churches believes their spiritual mentors that they are the ones who correctly understand the Word of God, while other Christian churches are mistaken. It turns out a strange picture: there are many churches, there seem to be a lot of positive “holy” people in them... But they all interpret the Bible differently. One gets the impression that it is impossible to understand the Holy Scriptures at all, since so many educated theologians argue about its texts.

However, it is not. It's all about authority - about setting priorities. It is not for nothing that Jesus warned that believers should consider their true teacher and mentor (see Matthew chapter 23) not to be any person (or group of people), but directly to God - His Word. Then it would be difficult for believers who study the Bible to be led astray, since their authority would not be their spiritual mentors, but the Lord. Meanwhile, “sinful” mortal people took upon themselves the interpretation of the Bible, and other people recognized this right for them. As a result, different teachers led their flocks in different directions. This problem is not new to Christianity; it was also common to the Jews. Remember how Jesus repeatedly rebuked the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people (Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes) for misinterpreting Scripture. Then (and until now) any Jew, expressing his thoughts about the teachings and text of the Holy Scriptures, had to refer to the words of some famous rabbi. Does this remind you of anything? Today, it is also common for mainstream churches to quote the Holy Fathers to support their statements about the teachings of the Bible. So it turns out that people themselves delve little into the essence of the Word of God, but each trusts their spiritual mentors. It is also worth noting that, both earlier and still today, there are many currents in Judaism, each led by its own teachers. The New Testament mentions the Pharisees and Sadducees. Also at that time there were large religious groups of Zealots and Issei. So division into confessions is not new for Christianity.

Meanwhile, both the Old Testament and the New were given not to teachers for teaching and interpretation to the flock, but to ordinary believers. Everyone had to study the Word of God - kings and ordinary people, including women and children. All this is clearly seen from the texts of the Old and New Testaments, which are discussed in the chapter The Word of God needs to be known. How to study the Holy Scriptures of the book "Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine"). Interpretation of the Bible is not magical and esoteric secret knowledge, but the result of simple knowledge of all the books of Scripture and analysis of their texts, taking into account the fact that it is necessary to interpret controversial biblical phrases taking into account the context of the entire message, while understanding that the Bible is one and cannot contradict. That is, when understanding the Holy Scriptures, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that its texts, when interpreted, do not conflict with its other texts. After all, the Bible is whole, and its author is one, “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

Valery Tatarkin

Other

Tags: understanding of the Holy Scriptures, INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE

Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the works of the Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of this author’s works among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on the same level as the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.

Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be assessed as sound. However, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being “a fly in the ointment.” Here is what English Wikipedia writes about his views:

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, “Nowhere identifies Jesus with God”;

faith in universal salvation;

evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from man to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes Jesus a second God, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."

For example, analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking about Christ, Barclay writes - “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much the same as God, in mind, in heart and in being, that in Him we see perfectly what God is,” which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude towards Christ not as one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as an equal to God. This perception of the Gospel sermon gave critics reason to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.

His other statements also encourage a similar perception. For example: “Jesus is the revelation of God” (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: “He speaks of His Ally- The Holy Spirit" (Comments on the Gospel of John).

Biblical commentaries can be roughly divided into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of “pastoral” comments is the sermons of Rev. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” commentaries (for example, the saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In “popular science” commentaries, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are “technical” commentaries, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments – typical example"popular science" comments. He was never a great or great biblical scholar. Just an average professor with good performance. His comments were never particularly popular even among Protestants. And his popularity among us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when in Russia there was nothing at all as “popular science” comments.

***

W. Barclay's commentaries on the Books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament are widely known both in the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the truest guide in the matter of deep understanding of the Gospel. This is difficult to understand, but it is possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical, scientific and linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and undeniable. However, not all of them are like that. A significant drawback of this author’s works is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases, direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barkley's deviation from the purity of the Gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.

One of the most dramatic departures concerns the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barkley does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in reality there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church), in the monopolization of Divine grace.

“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine which declares that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible

It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but cause indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, and, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true one; and it is she who is entrusted with the fullness of saving teaching, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of coexistence of many “saving”, “Christian” “churches”.

Meanwhile, W. Barkley compares God with the Pharisees: “ No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. This was their sin. And is this one driven from the earth if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take his place at the altar? The greatest of heresies is the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gateway to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).

True unity of Christians implies, among other things, unity of doctrine. The Orthodox Church has always professed the doctrine that the apostles entrusted to it, while Protestant communities have professed the doctrine that they inherited from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude towards the truth is assessed by W. Barkley as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic disease. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the distortion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be alive.

“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling indignation against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).

W. Barkley describes steadfastness in upholding the truths of faith as a fossil: “ Very often it actually happened that a person who came with a message from God was met with hatred and enmity fossilized orthodoxy "(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible

By speaking in favor of freethinkers like Protestants (and, of course, in favor of Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that is shown towards them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that the Redeemer Himself warned about this: “ Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).

Let us remember what exactly unites Christ’s disciples, while Protestant communities unite the disciples of their leaders.

Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the teaching of monasticism leads to the separation of “religion from life”, and, therefore, it is false.

Here are his words: “ The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that there is no place for a Christian in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of the monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live a Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You keep them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).

Touching on the issue of a person’s struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of monks as an illustration of a strange and incorrect form of struggle. They say that the monks, without realizing it themselves, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism he did not even spare the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, the outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.

“In history,” he believes, “ there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to free themselves from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went into the Egyptian desert with the idea of living alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights in vigil, and tortured his body. He lived in the desert for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Anthony and his friends. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).

W. Barkley's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks at both monasticism itself and the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of serving God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, monastic life, which involves detachment from worldly pleasures and worldly vanity, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to remember that for many centuries, monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for lay people: monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; Libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in hard times, the monks helped the laity with bread and rubles.

Finally, completely not understanding why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines monastic life as very easy, while designating the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are apart from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. True faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).

In the end, the interpreter seeks to subsume Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian service – this is not the service of liturgy or ritual, it is the service of human need. Christian service is not monastic seclusion, but active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words encourage such an understanding, such as: “ When Slava came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals." Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).

« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he had bound himself, so that through Him man could find the friendship he had lost with God.”(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)

On the other hand, he attributes to the Redeemer such traits as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention “uncertainty” about Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission “which He entrusted to Him.”

“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ And in the act of baptism, Jesus gained double confidence: that He is truly the Chosen One of God and that the path that lay before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to become King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)

“Jesus,” he continues his line, “ went to the desert to be alone. spoke to Him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission he had entrusted to Him. "(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).

Even at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements, one gets the impression that they are on the verge of acceptable and unacceptable theology. The position of the interpreter is revealed more clearly in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, however, explains this Gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. While the Orthodox Church teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One-Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor with the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ arose in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - the coming Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus meant nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent it in the Greek world?... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. In both the Jewish and Greek worldviews there was a concept words. So it could be used in such a way that it would correspond to the worldviews of both the Greek and the Jew. It was something that lay in historical heritage both races; both of them could understand it.”(From Chapter - Barclay's Commentaries - Bible

It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was thought of as One, but not as Trinity. The Word of God was interpreted in their minds as an effective force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). The mentioned Greeks thought something similar about the Logos (Word).

“And so,” he breaks out his thought, “ when John looked for a way to imagine, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea words, a word that in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. And so John says: “If you want to see Word God, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created and who gives light and life to every person, - look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

As if confirming what was said above, Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview there is one more name that we must become familiar with. In Alexandria there lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to studying the wisdom of two worlds: Greek and Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that there was nothing older in the world logos So what logo- this is the instrument through which he created the world. Philo said that logo- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the helmsman of the universe, He holds logo like the helm and directs everything. According to Philo logo imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logo- a mediator between the world and God and that logo- This is the priest who presented the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew everything about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have thought, written and dreamed about logos, about the power that created the world and maintains order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people came into contact with God. Jesus is this Logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh", said John. We can also express it this way: “ The Mind of God Embodied in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Finally, Barclay directly indicates that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much the same as God, in mind, in heart and in being, that in Him we see perfectly what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human nature of Jesus is miraculously proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, the directing Mind of God, which Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how He would live the life we need to live"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)

How does W. Barkley explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to Jesus being unique and most loved by God the Father. This is how he himself talks about it: “ Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the fact is that long before the writing of the fourth Gospel, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special and especially loved, It is quite obvious that the only son occupies a special place in the father’s heart and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The New Testament writers are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can bring God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, “Nowhere identifies Jesus with God”;

faith in universal salvation;

Biblical commentaries can be roughly divided into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of “pastoral” comments is the sermons of Rev. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” commentaries (for example, the saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In “popular science” commentaries, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are “technical” commentaries, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" commentary. He was never a great or great biblical scholar. Just an average professor with good performance. His comments were never particularly popular even among Protestants. And his popularity among us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when in Russia there was nothing at all as “popular science” comments.

***

Let us remember what exactly unites Christ’s disciples, while Protestant communities unite the disciples of their leaders.

W. Barkley's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks at both monasticism itself and the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of serving God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, monastic life, which involves detachment from worldly pleasures and worldly vanity, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to remember that for many centuries, monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for lay people: monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; Libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; Often, in difficult times, monks helped the laity with bread and rubles.

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ arose in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - the coming Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus meant nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent it in the Greek world?... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. In both the Jewish and Greek worldviews there was a concept words. So it could be used in such a way that it would correspond to the worldviews of both the Greek and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical heritage of both races; both of them could understand it.”(From Chapter - Barclay's Commentaries - Bible

Explanatory Bible
New Testament

All these terms, i.e. both the word “testament” itself and its combination with the adjectives “old” and “new” are taken from the Bible itself, in which, in addition to their general meaning, they also have a special meaning, in which we also use them when speaking about known biblical books.

The word “testament” (Heb. - takes, Greek - διαθήκη, Lat. - testamentum) in the language of the Holy Scriptures and biblical usage primarily means the known decree, condition, law, on which two contracting parties converge, and from here - this agreement or union, as well as those external signs that served as his identification, a bond, as if a seal (testamentum). And since the sacred books in which this covenant or union of God with man was described were, of course, one of the best means its certificates and consolidation in the people's memory, then the name “testament” was also transferred to them very early. It already existed in the era of Moses, as can be seen from the book of Exodus (), where the record of the Sinai legislation read by Moses to the Jewish people is called the book of the covenant (“sefer habberit”). Similar expressions, denoting not only the Sinai legislation, but the entire Mosaic Pentateuch, are also found in subsequent Old Testament books (; ; ). The Old Testament also contains the first, still prophetic indication of, namely, in the famous prophecy of Jeremiah: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” ().

Division of New Testament books by content

The historical books are the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels give us a historical image of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles gives us a historical image of the life and work of the apostles who spread Christ throughout the world.

Teaching books are the Apostolic Epistles, which are letters written by the apostles to different Churches. In these letters, the apostles explain various perplexities regarding the Christian faith and life that arose in the Churches, denounce the readers of the Epistles for various disorders they allowed, convince them to stand firmly in the Christian faith betrayed to them and expose the false teachers who were disturbing the peace of the primal Church. In a word, the apostles appear in their Epistles as teachers of the flock of Christ entrusted to their care, being, moreover, often the founders of those Churches to which they address. The latter occurs in relation to almost all of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

There is only one prophetic book in the New Testament - the Apocalypse of the Apostle John the Theologian. It contains various visions and revelations that this apostle was awarded with and in which the future fate of the Church of Christ is foreshadowed before its glorification, i.e. until the kingdom of glory opens on earth.

Since the subject of the Gospels is the life and teaching of the Founder of our faith - the Lord Jesus Christ, and since, undoubtedly, in the Gospel we have the basis for all our faith and life, it is customary to call the four Gospels books legislatively positive. This name shows that the Gospels have the same meaning for Christians as the Law of Moses - the Pentateuch - had for Jews.

A Brief History of the Canon of Holy Books of the New Testament

The word “canon” (κανών) originally meant “cane”, and then began to be used to designate what should serve as a rule, a pattern of life (;). The Church Fathers and Councils used this term to designate a collection of sacred, inspired writings. Therefore, the canon of the New Testament is a collection of the sacred inspired books of the New Testament in its present form.

What was the primacy guided by when accepting this or that sacred New Testament book into the canon? First of all, the so-called historical by legend. They investigated whether this or that book had actually been received directly from an apostle or an apostolic co-worker, and, after a strict study, they included this book among the inspired books. But at the same time, they also paid attention to whether the teaching contained in the book in question was consistent, firstly, with the teaching of the entire Church and, secondly, with the teaching of the apostle whose name this book bore. This is the so-called dogmatic tradition. And it has never happened that, having once recognized a book as canonical, she subsequently changed her view of it and excluded it from the canon. If individual fathers and teachers of the Church even after this still recognized some New Testament writings as inauthentic, then this was only their private view, which should not be confused with the voice of the Church. In the same way, it has never happened that the Church first did not accept any book into the canon, and then included it. If some canonical books are not indicated in the writings of the apostolic men (for example, the Epistle of Jude), this is explained by the fact that the apostolic men had no reason to quote these books.

Order of New Testament books in the canon

The New Testament books found their place in the canon according to their importance and the time of their final recognition. In first place, naturally, were the four Gospels, followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles; The Apocalypse formed the conclusion of the canon. But in some codexes some books do not occupy the same place as they occupy in ours now. Thus, in the Codex Sinaiticus, the book of the Acts of the Apostles comes after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Until the 4th century, the Greek Church placed the Council Epistles after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The very name “conciliar” initially was borne only by the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, and only from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century) did this name begin to be applied to all seven Epistles. Since the time of Athanasius of Alexandria (mid-IV century), the Council Epistles in the Greek Church have taken their present place. Meanwhile, in the West they were still placed after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Even the Apocalypse in some codes is earlier than the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and even earlier than the book of Acts. In particular, the Gospels come in different codes in in different order. Thus, some, undoubtedly putting the apostles in first place, place the Gospels in the following order: Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, or, giving special dignity to the Gospel of John, they put it in first place. Others bet on last place The Gospel of Mark is the shortest. Of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, initially the first place in the canon was occupied by two to the Corinthians, and the last by the Romans (a fragment of Muratorius and Tertullian). Since the time of Eusebius, the Epistle to the Romans has taken first place, both in its volume and in the importance of the Church to which it was written, truly deserving this place. The arrangement of the four private Epistles (1 Tim.; 2 Tim.; Tit.; Phil.) was obviously guided by their volume being approximately the same. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the East was placed 14th, and in the West - 10th in the series of Epistles of the Apostle Paul. It is clear that the Western Church, among the Council Epistles, put the Epistles of the Apostle Peter in first place. The Eastern Church, putting the Epistle of James in first place, was probably guided by the enumeration of the apostles by the Apostle Paul ().

History of the New Testament Canon since the Reformation

During the Middle Ages, the canon remained undeniable, especially since the books of the New Testament were read relatively little by private individuals, and during divine services only certain parts or sections were read from them. The common people were more interested in reading stories about the lives of saints, and the Catholic Church even looked with some suspicion at the interest that certain societies, such as the Waldenses, showed in reading the Bible, sometimes even prohibiting the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. But at the end of the Middle Ages, humanism renewed doubts about the writings of the New Testament, which were the subject of controversy in the first centuries. The Reformation began to raise its voice even more strongly against some of the New Testament writings. Luther, in his translation of the New Testament (1522), in the prefaces to the New Testament books, expressed his view on their dignity. Thus, in his opinion, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by an apostle, just like the Epistle of James. He also does not recognize the authenticity of the Apocalypse and the Epistle of the Apostle Jude. Luther's disciples went even further in the severity with which they treated the various New Testament writings and even began to directly distinguish "apocryphal" writings from the New Testament canon: before early XVII centuries, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse were not even considered canonical in Lutheran bibles. Only later did this distinction of scriptures disappear and the ancient New Testament canon was restored. At the end of the 17th century, however, critical writings about the New Testament canon appeared, in which objections were raised to the authenticity of many New Testament books. The rationalists of the 18th century (Semler, Michaelis, Eichgorm) wrote in the same spirit, and in the 19th century. Schleiermacher expressed doubts about the authenticity of some of Paul's Epistles, De Wette rejected the authenticity of five of them, and F.X. Of the entire New Testament, Baur recognized only the four main Epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse as truly apostolic.

Thus, in the West, Protestantism again came to the same point that the Christian Church experienced in the first centuries, when some books were recognized as genuine apostolic works, others as controversial. The view has already been established that it represents only a collection of literary works of early Christianity. At the same time, the followers of F.X. Baur - B. Bauer, Lohmann and Steck - no longer found it possible to recognize any of the New Testament books as a truly apostolic work... But the best minds of Protestantism saw the depth of the abyss into which Baur's school, or Tübingen, was taking Protestantism, and opposed its provisions with valid objections. Thus, Ritschl refuted the main thesis of the Tübingen school about the development of early Christianity from the struggle of Petrinism and Paulinism, and Harnack proved that the New Testament books should be looked at as truly apostolic works. Scientists B. Weiss, Godet and T. Tsang did even more to restore the meaning of the New Testament books in the minds of Protestants. “Thanks to these theologians,” says Barth, “no one can now take away from the New Testament the advantage that in it and in it alone we have messages about Jesus and about the revelation of God in Him” (“Introduction,” 1908, p. 400). Barth finds that at this time, when such confusion prevails in the minds, it is especially important for Protestants to have a “canon” as a guide given by God for faith and life, “and,” he concludes, “we have it in the New Testament” (There same).

Indeed, the New Testament canon has enormous, one might say, incomparable significance for the Christian Church. In it we find, first of all, such writings as represent in its relation to the Jewish people (the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of the Apostle James and the Epistle to the Hebrews), to the pagan world (1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Corinthians ). Further, we have in the New Testament canon writings that are intended to eliminate the dangers that threatened Christianity from the Jewish understanding of Christianity (Epistle to the Galatians), from Judeo-legalistic asceticism (Epistle to the Colossians), from the pagan desire to understand religious society as a private circle , in which one can live separately from the church community (Ephesians). The book of Romans indicates the worldwide purpose of Christianity, while the book of Acts indicates how this purpose was realized in history. In short, the books of the New Testament canon give us a complete picture of the primacy of the Church, depicting life and its tasks from all sides. If, as a test, we wanted to take away any book from the canon of the New Testament, for example the Epistle to the Romans or Galatians, we would thereby cause significant harm to the whole. It is clear that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the gradual establishment of the composition of the canon, so that the Church introduced into it truly apostolic works, which in their existence were caused by the most essential needs of the Church.

In what language are the holy books of the New Testament written?

Throughout the Roman Empire, during the time of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles, Greek was the dominant language, it was understood everywhere and spoken almost everywhere. It is clear that the writings of the New Testament, which were intended by the Providence of God to be distributed throughout all churches, also appeared in Greek, although almost all of their writers, with the exception of St. Luke, were Jews. This is also evidenced by some internal signs of these writings: a play on words possible only in the Greek language, a free, independent attitude to the translation of the Seventy, when Old Testament passages are cited - all this undoubtedly indicates that they were written in Greek and intended for readers who know Greek.

However, the Greek language in which the books of the New Testament were written is not the classical Greek language in which Greek writers wrote during the heyday of Greek literature. This is the so-called κοινὴ διάλεκτος , i.e. close to the ancient Attic dialect, but not too different from other dialects. In addition, it included many Aramaisms and other alien words. Finally, special New Testament concepts were introduced into this language, for the expression of which, however, they used old Greek words that received a special new meaning through this (for example, the word χάρις - “pleasantness”, in the sacred New Testament language came to mean “grace”). For more information about this, see the article by Prof. S.I. Sobolevsky " Κοινὴ διάλεκτος ", placed in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 10.

Text of the New Testament

All the originals of the New Testament books were lost, but copies were made from them long ago (ἀντίγραφα). Most often the Gospels were copied and least often the Apocalypse. They wrote with reed (κάλαμος) and ink (μέλαν) and more - in the first centuries - on papyrus, so Right side Each papyrus sheet was glued to the left side of the next sheet. From here a strip of greater or lesser length was obtained, which was then rolled onto a rolling pin. This is how a scroll (τόμος) arose, which was stored in a special box (φαινόλης). Since reading these strips, written only on the front side, was inconvenient and the material was fragile, from the 3rd century New Testament books began to be copied on leather or parchment. Since parchment was expensive, many used the ancient manuscripts on parchment that they had, erasing and scraping out what was written on them and placing some other work there. This is how palimpsests were formed. Paper came into use only in the 8th century.

Words in the manuscripts of the New Testament were written without accents, without breaths, without punctuation marks, and, moreover, with abbreviations (for example, IC instead of Ἰησοῦς, RNB instead of πνεῦμα), so it was very difficult to read these manuscripts. In the first six centuries, only capital letters were used (uncial manuscripts from “uncia” - inch). From the 7th century, and some say from the 9th century, manuscripts of ordinary cursive writing appeared. Then the letters became smaller, but abbreviations became more frequent. On the other hand, accents and breathing were added. There are 130 of the first manuscripts, and 3,700 of the last (according to von Soden’s account). In addition, there are so-called lectionaries, containing either the Gospel or the Apostolic readings for use in worship (Evangeliary and Praxapostolic). There are about 1300 of them, and the oldest of them date back in origin to the 6th century.

In addition to the text, manuscripts usually contain introductions and afterwords with indications of the writer, time and place of writing the book. To familiarize yourself with the contents of the book in manuscripts divided into chapters (κεφάλαια), before these chapters, designations of the contents of each chapter are placed (τίτλα, αργυμεντα). The chapters are divided into parts (ὑποδιαιρέσεις) or departments, and these latter into verses (κῶλα, στίχοι). The size of the book and its selling price were determined by the number of verses. This processing of the text is usually attributed to Bishop Euphalios of Sardinia (7th century), but in fact all these divisions took place much earlier. For interpretive purposes, Ammonius (3rd century) added parallel passages from other Gospels to the text of the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century) compiled ten canons or parallel tables, the first of which contained designations of sections from the Gospel common to all four evangelists, the second - designations (in numbers) - common to three, etc. to the tenth, where the stories contained in only one evangelist are indicated. In the text of the Gospel it was marked with a red number which canon this or that section belongs to. Our present division of the text into chapters was made first by the Englishman Stephen Langton (in the 13th century), and the division into verses by Robert Stephen (in the 16th century).

Since the 18th century uncial manuscripts began to be designated in capital letters Latin alphabet, and italics - numbers. The most important uncial manuscripts are the following:

N – Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf in 1856 in the Sinai monastery of St. Catherine. It contains the whole, together with the epistle of Barnabas and a large part of the “Shepherd” of Hermas, as well as the canons of Eusebius. It shows proofs of seven different hands. It was written in the 4th or 5th century. Kept in the St. Petersburg Public Library (now kept in the British Museum. - Note ed.). Photographs were taken from it.

A – Alexandria, located in London. The New Testament is not included here in its entirety, along with the 1st and part of the 2nd Epistle of Clement of Rome. Written in the 5th century in Egypt or Palestine.

B - Vatican, concluded by the 14th verse of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was probably written by one of the persons close to Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century. Kept in Rome.

S – Efremov. This is a palimpsest, so named because the treatise of Ephraim the Syrian was subsequently written on the biblical text. It contains only portions of the New Testament. Its origin is Egyptian, dating back to the 5th century. Stored in Paris.

A list of other manuscripts of later origin can be seen in the 8th edition of Tischendorf's New Testament.

Translations and quotations

Along with the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, translations of the sacred books of the New Testament, which began to appear already in the 2nd century, are also very important as sources for establishing the text of the New Testament. The first place among them belongs to the Syriac translations, both in their antiquity and in their language, which approaches the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ and the apostles. The Diatessaron (set of 4 Gospels) of Tatian (circa 175) is believed to have been the first Syriac translation of the New Testament. Next comes the Codex Syro-Sinai (SS), discovered in 1892 at Sinai by Mrs. A. Lewis. Also important is the translation known as Peshitta (simple), dating back to the 2nd century; however, some scientists date it back to the 5th century and recognize it as the work of the Edessa bishop Rabbula (411–435). Of great importance are also the Egyptian translations (Saidian, Fayyum, Bohairic), Ethiopian, Armenian, Gothic and Old Latin, subsequently corrected by Blessed Jerome and recognized in Catholic Church self-authentic (Vulgate).

Quotations from the New Testament available from the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church and church writers are also of considerable importance for establishing the text. A collection of these quotes (texts) was published by T. Tsang.

The Slavic translation of the New Testament from the Greek text was made by Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century and, together with Christianity, came to us in Russia under the holy noble prince Vladimir. Of the copies of this translation that have survived, the Ostromir Gospel, written in the middle of the 11th century for the mayor Ostromir, is especially remarkable. Then in the 14th century. Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow, made a translation of the holy books of the New Testament, while Saint Alexy was in Constantinople. This translation is kept in the Moscow Synodal Library in the 90s of the 19th century. published phototypically. In 1499, along with all biblical books, it was corrected and published by Metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod. Separately, the entire New Testament was first printed in Slavic in Vilna in 1623. Then it, like other biblical books, was corrected in Moscow at the synodal printing house and, finally, published together with the Old Testament under Empress Elizabeth in 1751. First of all, the Gospel was translated into Russian in 1819, and the entire New Testament appeared in Russian in 1822, and in 1860 it was published in a revised form. In addition to the Synodal translation into Russian, there are also Russian translations of the New Testament, published in London and Vienna. In Russia their use is prohibited.

The fate of the New Testament text

b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His Apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God (),

c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, first of all the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ (), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events ().

d) Being actually the news of what he has done for our salvation and good, the Gospel at the same time calls people to repentance, faith and changing their sinful lives for a better one (; ).

e) Finally, the word “Gospel” is sometimes used to designate the very process of preaching Christian teaching ().

Sometimes the word “Gospel” is accompanied by a designation and its content. There are, for example, phrases: Gospel of the kingdom (), i.e. the joyful news of the Kingdom of God, the Gospel of peace (), i.e. about peace, the Gospel of salvation (), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive case following the word “Gospel” means the author or source of the good news (; ; ) or the person of the preacher ().

For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself did not leave any records of His speeches and deeds. Likewise, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unbookish and simple people”(), although literate. Among Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few "wise according to the flesh, strong" and “noble” (), and for the majority of believers, oral stories about Christ were of much greater importance than written ones. Thus, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι) stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) - but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about students of rabbinical schools, but with all my soul, as if something living and life-giving. But this period of oral tradition was soon to end. On the one hand, Christians should have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as we know, denied the reality of Christ’s miracles and even argued that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ from those persons who were either among His apostles or who were in close communication with eyewitnesses of the deeds of Christ. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses to the miracles of Christ were thinning. Therefore, it was necessary to secure in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His entire speeches, as well as the stories of the apostles about Him. It was then that separate records began to appear here and there of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ. Most carefully recorded words Christ's, which contained the rules of Christian life, and were much more free about the transfer of different events from the life of Christ, preserving only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial recordings did not think about the completeness of the story. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John (), did not intend to report all the speeches and deeds of Christ. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that they do not contain, for example, the following saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive”(). The Evangelist Luke reports about such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compile narratives about the life of Christ, but that they lacked proper completeness and that therefore they did not provide sufficient “affirmation” in the faith ().

Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three Gospels are usually called in biblical scholarship synoptic, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives are without a lot of work can be viewed at one time and combined into one coherent narrative ( weather forecasters– from Greek – looking together). They began to be called Gospels individually, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name began to be given to the entire composition of the Gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “Gospel of Matthew”, “Gospel of Mark”, etc., it would be more correct to translate these very ancient names from Greek as follows: “Gospel according to Matthew”, “Gospel according to Mark” ( κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον ). By this I wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is unified the Christian gospel of Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another to Mark, etc.

Four Gospels

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a lot of them. Some things are reported by only two evangelists, others even by one. Thus, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ and report the story of the birth and first years of Christ’s life. Luke alone speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Some things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as are the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the Synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to think that our three evangelists shared a common verbal source for his narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in a more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer to those who entered. Thus, a well-known specific type was formed oral gospel, and it is this type that we have in written form in our Synoptic Gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the purpose that this or that evangelist had, his Gospel took on some special features, only to his work characteristic features. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. Moreover, the difference between the weather forecasters should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel.

As we have already said, the Synoptic Gospels differ in very many ways from the Gospel of John the Theologian. So they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In terms of content, the Synoptic Gospels also differ significantly from the Gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external life, the works and teachings of Christ and from the speeches of Christ are given only those that were accessible to the understanding of all the people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot from the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the Synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the Kingdom of God and therefore direct the attention of their readers to the Kingdom founded by Him, John draws our attention to the central point of this Kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the Kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John portrays as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John primarily spiritual (πνευματικόν) in contrast to the synoptic ones, as depicting predominantly the human side in the person of Christ ( εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν ), i.e. The gospel is physical.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that just as the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea (;), so John has indications of the long activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, the weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity (), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man (etc.; etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ.

The Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and in Lately these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they break down at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics. Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only talk about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see)?

Bibliography of foreign works on the Four Gospels

Bengel – Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860.

Blass, Gram. – Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1911.

Westcott – The New Testament in Original Greek the text rev. by Brooke Foss Westcott. New York, 1882.

B. Weiss – Weiss B. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Gottingen, 1901.

Yog. Weiss (1907) – Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei älteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. . 2. Aufl. Gottingen, 1907.

Godet – Godet F. Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Johannes. Hanover, 1903.

De Wette – De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857.

Keil (1879) – Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879.

Keil (1881) – Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881.

Klostermann – Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Gottingen, 1867.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.

Lagrange – Lagrange M.-J. Etudes bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.

Lange – Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861.

Loisy (1903) – Loisy A.F. Le quatrième èvangile. Paris, 1903.

Loisy (1907–1908) – Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1–2. : Ceffonds, près Montier-en-Der, 1907–1908.

Luthardt – Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876.

Meyer (1864) – Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Gottingen, 1864.

Meyer (1885) – Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) – Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes-Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Gottingen, 1902.

Merx (1902) – Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.

Merx (1905) – Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905.

Morison – Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. London, 1902.

Stanton – Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Tholuck (1856) – Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.

Tholuck (1857) – Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.

Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907).

Holtzmann (1901) – Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901.

Holtzmann (1908) – Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius etc. Bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908.

Zahn (1905) – Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905.

Zahn (1908) – Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908.

Schanz (1881) – Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881.

Schanz (1885) – Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885.

Schlatter – Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903.

Schürer, Geschichte – Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 1–4. Leipzig, 1901–1911.

Edersheim (1901) – Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901.

Ellen – Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907.

Alford - Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863. The Church, which treated the apostles, and, in particular, the Apostle Paul with such respect, could completely lose any of the apostolic works.

According to the view of some Protestant theologians, the New Testament canon is something accidental. Some writings, even non-apostolic ones, were simply lucky enough to end up in the canon, since for some reason they came into use in worship. And the canon itself, according to the majority of Protestant theologians, is nothing more than a simple catalog or list of books used in worship. On the contrary, Orthodox theologians see in the canon nothing more than the composition of the sacred New Testament books, faithful to the apostolic successive generations of Christians, already recognized at that time. These books, according to Orthodox theologians, were not known to all Churches, perhaps because they had either too specific a purpose (for example, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of the Apostle John), or too general (Epistle to the Hebrews), so it was unknown which Church to turn to for information regarding the name of the author of one or another such message. But there is no doubt that these were books that truly belonged to those persons whose names they bore on them. The Church did not accidentally accept them into the canon, but quite consciously, giving them the meaning that they actually had.

The Jews had the word “ganuz”, which corresponds in meaning to the word “apocryphal” (from ἀποκρύπτειν - “to hide”) and was used in the synagogue to designate books that should not have been used during worship. However, this term did not contain any censure. But later, when the Gnostics and other heretics began to boast that they had “hidden” books, which supposedly contained the true apostolic teaching, which the apostles did not want to make available to the crowd, those who collected the canon reacted with condemnation to these “hidden” ones. books and began to look at them as “false, heretical, counterfeit” (decree of Pope Gelasius). Currently, 7 apocryphal Gospels are known, of which 6 are supplemented with different decorations the story of the origin, birth and childhood of Jesus Christ, and the seventh - the story of His condemnation. The oldest and most remarkable of them is the First Gospel of James, the brother of the Lord, then come: the Greek Gospel of Thomas, the Greek Gospel of Nicodemus, the Arabic story of Joseph the treemaker, the Arabic Gospel of the Savior's childhood and, finally, the Latin Gospel of the Birth of Christ from St. Mary and the story of the birth of Mary of the Lord and the childhood of the Savior. These apocryphal Gospels were translated into Russian by Archpriest. P.A. Preobrazhensky. In addition, some fragmentary apocryphal tales about the life of Christ are known (for example, Pilate’s letter to Tiberius about Christ).

In ancient times, it should be noted, in addition to the apocryphal ones, there were also non-canonical Gospels that have not reached our time. They, in all likelihood, contained the same thing that is contained in our canonical Gospels, from which they took information. These were: the Gospel of the Jews - in all likelihood, the corrupted Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, the apostolic memorial records of Justin the Martyr, Tatian's Gospel in four ("Diatessaron" - a set of Gospels), the Gospel of Marcion - a distorted Gospel of Luke.

Of the recently discovered legends about the life and teachings of Christ, worthy of attention is “Λόγια”, or the words of Christ, a passage found in Egypt. This passage contains brief sayings of Christ with a brief opening formula: “Jesus says.” This is a fragment of extreme antiquity. From the history of the apostles, the recently discovered “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” deserves attention, the existence of which was already known to ancient church writers and which has now been translated into Russian. In 1886, 34 verses of the Apocalypse of Peter, which was known to Saint Clement of Alexandria, were found.

It is also necessary to mention the various “acts” of the apostles, for example Peter, John, Thomas, etc., where information about the preaching works of these apostles was reported. These works undoubtedly belong to the category of so-called “pseudo-epigraphs”, i.e. classified as counterfeit. However, these “acts” were highly respected among ordinary pious Christians and were very common. Some of them were included, after a certain alteration, in the so-called “Acts of the Saints”, processed by the Bollandists, and from there Saint Demetrius of Rostov transferred them to our Lives of the Saints (Cheti Menaion). This can be said about the life and preaching activity of the Apostle Thomas.

Sections