§ 175. Златоустый толкователь Нового Завета: общие черты толкований; достоинства частные; его обозрение Свящ. Писания.

2) In the interpretation of the New Testament 1209: a) according to the main character of St. John remains the same as we see him in the interpretation of the Old Testament, i.e. His very first attention is to accurately determining the literal meaning of the text. The fundamental significance of the Greek language, extending to both the spirit and the forms of language, placed St. Chrysostom, with his attention to the meaning of expression, is considered to be the most excellent interpreter of the New Testament; Henceforth he is the leader for lexicographers and for grammarians and for interpreters of all times that followed him. b) Chrysostom borrowed the most accurate knowledge of the meaning of the word of God from the spirit of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. With only knowledge of the language, he certainly would not have been such an excellent interpreter as everyone recognizes him, just as the best modern language experts are too far from perfect in their interpretations, having not internalized the pure spirit of Scripture. Chrysostom himself, knowing the foundations of the pure Greek language, saw and admitted that the language of the New Testament is not pure, processed Greek; and yet he explained the word of Christ as others would like to explain it; explained because he deeply understood the spirit of Christ. To see this last, it is enough to read his first conversation on the Gospel of Matthew and his first two conversations on the Epistle to the Romans. c) In all his interpretations of the New Testament, he is a mentor for interpreters: but the mentor is not always the same, depending on the circumstances of life. Photius noted that Chrysostom, while engaged in the affairs of the shepherd, had the freedom to process his interpretations of the Apostle in the same way as he processed them in Antioch 1210, a fair remark, but not in relation to all the conversations of Constantinople, as well as not in relation to the entire time of Chrysostom’s stay in Antioch. There is no doubt that the very first place among all his interpretative conversations is occupied by the Antiochian conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. These conversations, almost during the lifetime of John Chrysostom himself, were translated into Latin 1211 and Syriac 1212. Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew with a complete and accurate explanation of the words of St. Matthew, also contains the peculiarity that here with the story of St. Matthew's narratives are compared with those of other evangelists; strict attention is paid to the timing and occurrence of events and miracles; doubts about the meaning of the evangelist’s words are raised and verified; We are not talking about the fact that attention is first paid to the literal meaning of words. St. wrote about the conversations on the Epistle to the Romans. Isidore: “mainly in the interpretation of the epistle to the Romans of the wisest John - the treasure of wisdom - I think so (and let no one think that I am saying this for beauty) that if the divine Paul wanted to explain himself in Attic language, he would not have interpreted it differently, as the famous Chrysostom interpreted; so his interpretation shines with enthymemes, grace and precise expressions 1213. Conversations on the Epistle to the Romans, according to the general court, are equal to conversations on the Gospel of Matthew. In terms of the accuracy of the explanation of the apostle’s words, although not the beauty of the language, the explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians ranks high; even more than other interpretations of Chrysostom, it approaches the gravy type of commentary, because it consists primarily of explanations of the words of the apostle, without deviations from moral instructions. After this, the best interpretations of Chrysostom should include the conversations on 1 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Ephesians. In conversations on the Gospel of John Chrysostom pays a lot of attention to the Arian interpretations of the evangelist’s words, and therefore this interpretation was very useful for his contemporaries in terms of dogmatic explanations and moral teachings, however, it was also useful for later times. The least distinguished by external perfection (by syllable) are the conversations in the book. Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Both of them, in their simplicity and artlessness, differ so sharply from all other interpretations of Chrysostom that Erasmus doubted whether they belonged to Chrysostom, although these doubts were in vain 1214. This type of interpretation depended partly on the fact that they were spoken during the troubled time of Chrysostom’s life, partly on the fact that, due to the same vagueness of circumstances, the suffering saint did not have time to carefully review the notes written from his words by others 1215. Conversations on deeds, while inferior to others in the beauty of style and clarity of interpretation, in moral instructions even exceed some of the other interpretive conversations. Let us note another work of Chrysostom related to the study of the Word of God - a review of the Holy. Scriptures. This work remained unfinished after Chrysostom, and, as the content shows, it was written for home use. This type of review subsequently gave some the idea of ​​supplementing the unfinished work of the Great Teacher, and Chrysostom’s review appeared with additions from the so-called Synopsis of Afanasiev 1216. The original work of Chrysostom contains: a) an excellent general overview of the content of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (προθεωρια), b) a particular overview of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings 1217, books of Job 1218, 4 major and 7 minor prophets. The number of Council Epistles is limited to only three, and there is no mention of the Apocalypse. This is likely because they thought so about both subjects in his time in the Syrian Church 1219. However, in his other writings he cites evidence from Peter’s second epistle of 1220. The authenticity of Chrysostom's review is beyond doubt 1221. To interpretive conversations on the New Testament, in addition to the above-mentioned conversations on the Gospel. Matthew and John, on the Acts of the Apostle. and on the 14 epistles of the Apostle Paul (approx. 93–96, 99–101, 104, 128, 140, 142, 150, 152) and in addition to the aforementioned conversations on private passages of the New Testament, spoken at a certain time (approx. 48–52, 80, 82, 84, 87, 89, 90, 105, 111, 125), also include conversations spoken, it is not known when, on Matt. 26, 39, 7, 14). T 3, r. 15, 25 (on Rom. 5, 3, 8, 28 (Vol. 3, p. 140, 150), on 1 Cor. 11, 19 (Vol. 3, 240), on 2 Cor. 11, 1 (Vol. 3, p. 291). In general, private conversations, ed. by Montfaucon in volume 3. But the so-called incomplete work on Matthew (opus imperfectum in Mathaeum. T. 6.) does not belong to St. Chrysostom either in style or in content. It is written in Latin; the texts are given in the Vulgate; at the end of the 5th century he mourned the fall of his Arianism (Hom. 49. dit. lat.). Anian the Deacon of Tseledensky, a contemporary of Blessed. Augustine. See his preface to the translation of Chrysostom's conversations. Ar. Montf. T. 7. Gregory of Trebizond supplemented this translation; in 1181, John Burgundion of Pisan, at the behest of St. Eugene the 3rd, again transferred these conversations, along with the conversations, to John. Mabillonius in Jtinerario Jtat. p. 164. Robertus in continuation. Chronici Sigeberti ad. an. 1180. Xenaias, Syrian writer who lived at the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th century. has already been evidenced by conversations on the gospels of Matthew and John and on the psalms. Assemani Bibl. Or. T. 2, p. 28. Compendium of interpretations on the Gospel. Matthew and John, chosen from Eusebius and Chrysostom, are still in Syria. list 9th century Mai Col. vet. avct. T. 5, cod. syr. 26, p. 11. See note above. 205 and in the same place about the Armenian translation. Epist. lib. 5. er. 32. About the vision of the ap. Paul Chrysostom, who wanted to be sure of the correctness of his interpretations, is told - George Alex., John of Damascus (orat 4. de imagin art. Biblium p. 462), unknown biography, Metaphrastus and imp. Lion. In vain Saville casts suspicion on this narrative by the fact that the best interpretations of the epistles of St. Paul was written by Chrysostom in Antioch, but those written in Constantinople are weak and in many ways insufficient, and therefore the latter’s approval of the apostle would be, he says, unfair. For authenticity, see Deputy. 142. 143. 148. 152. 205. seq. Montfauconii Praes ad. Homil in Actus Apostolorum. As proof of the authenticity of the conversations on the Acts, Saville (Praes. ad Hom. in Actus Ar.) rightly points to Photius (Bibl. cod. 476. p. 386), who repeats the words of 44 demons. (p. 335 ed. Montf.), on Damascene, who (de fide orth 3, 15) quotes the words of the 1st conversation, then the words of the 11th conversation, and 44 demons, where the preacher introduces himself as a contemporary of Julian and Theodosius Vel. to places where he calls himself a bishop. Montfaucon says that the lists of discourses on the Acts of the Apostles, and especially discourses on the Epistle to the Hebrews, differ greatly in particular expressions and arrangement of words, although not in meaning. This, without any doubt, could initially depend only on the fact that Chrysostom himself did not have the free time to review those and other conversations, as he reviewed others. We saw above (note 152) that the conversations on the Epistle to the Hebrews were published from the notes (σημειων) of the presbyter Constantine. The notes, or more precisely, these notes, were the same ones that, as Socrates says (4, 4), were compiled by cursive writers (ταχυγραφοι, οξυγραφοι) during the conversation of the saint. John. Similarly, the words of the Theologian were written down. In Philostratus (іn vita Alexandri p. 3) such cursive writers are called σημειων γραφεις - scribes of notes, ordinary people in public Greek oratorios. As for Constantine in particular, or, as he is called in the letters of Chrysostom and in the special letters of Constantius; then Montfaucon, from various lists of conversations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, learned that in addition to Konstantsieva’s review there were others, and his review was not always faithful in comparison with the notes of others. Constantine’s work took on special importance from the saint’s friendly acquaintance with him. Letters to Constantius 221, 225. Letters to Constantius 237–241. T. 3 Op. Chrys. After St. Flavian Constantius was elected to the throne of Antioch, but the enemies of Chrysostom rejected the election. However, it should also be noted that Montfaucon himself was not only attentive when publishing conversations on the Acts and on the letter to the Jews, but in other cases. Most of the options are the fruit of copyists. T. 6. r. 546. Montfaucon published a review of two copies of Coalenov and Leiden; about the last list, in which Foss did not yet agree to see the works of Chrysostom, he says that it contains a lot of things that are not in Koalenov. Montfaucon passed all this off as the work of Chrysostom. But the additions to the Leiden list cannot be recognized as the work of Chrysostom: since a) the syllable of the additions is completely different from the syllable of the Koalen RKP. the latter bears the stamp of Chrysostom's work; but the same cannot be said about additions; b) the additions to the Leiden list are almost word for word similar to the so-called synopsis of Athanasius; as Montfaucon also notes; c) the similarity of the additions with the synopsis of Athanasius and the difference from the work of Zlatoust is visible in the very image of the review: in the additions and in the synopsis aa) the title of each book is explained, bb) it is said about the writer of the book and its time; this is not in the review according to Koalenov’s list. So, it remains to conclude that the late writer, not finding a review of some books in the Chrysostom review, supplemented his review from Afanasiev’s synopsis. With the exception of the last part of the review of the river. 558, which is taken from the Leiden List; From there the review of the book of Leviticus and Chronicles was taken. With the exception of the first part of the r. 367, which does not belong to Chrysostom either in syllable or in content. The Syrian Church did not read the 4 conciliar epistles in the canon even during the time of Justinian: this is what Cosmas the Indian navigator writes about this (Col. vel. avct. Montfauconii p. 229). For the time of St. John's witness to the same thing is an unknown contemporary of Chrysostom, the Antioch presbyter Op. S. Chrysost T. 6. p. 430 (503). 2. Pet. 3. 10. Hom. 23. in acta Apostol. Duceus points at St. Chrysostom several other places from this epistle; as well as from the Apocalypse, but not entirely certain. Proof of authenticity, in addition to the style and manuscripts, is: a) in the review of Genesis - the thought: “He blessed Shem and Aphet, and cursed Canaan; for his father Ham revealed his father's nakedness. The curse was fulfilled on the Gibeonites, or better, in appearance it was a curse, but in reality it was a prophecy.” This opinion about the fulfillment of the curse pronounced over Canaan belonged to Chrysostom himself, and he expresses it in his explanation of Isaiah 2. 1. T. 6, p. 49. b) in the same review of existence: “Tara the father of Abram took the sons of Abram and Nahor and his grandson Lot and came to Harran.” The word of Nahor “is inserted into the text of Moses against the original and the LXX translation, but such a reading is found only in Chrysostom precisely in 31 demons. on Genesis, p. 304. T. 4. also p. 308; c) the writer of the review often argues with the Jews, as Chrysostom also did in his Antioch conversations: see for example. review Jeremiah. Chrysostom in Antioch. In conversations he often said that ritual instructions should not have been carried out with such literal strictness as the Jews followed and pointed to the example of holy men. See on Isa. 1. r. 9. in Psalm. 43. r. 450. The same thing is often repeated in reviews and especially in reviews of the book of Joshua. You might be interested in: