On the works of Origen in explaining the New Testament books of Holy Scripture

Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, 1861, XX, p. 100–144 Origen was not the first interpreter of St. books of the new testament by time; but the works of his predecessors have not reached us intact and are little known. The church historian Eusebius Pamphilus, surveying the notable church contemporaries of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, mentions Heraclitus, who left explanations “to the Apostles,” and, in addition, about many other ancient church writers, whose names are unknown, but whose Orthodoxy is evidenced by “their explanation of the divine Scriptures” 1. In some cities, in addition to church teachings, public instructions were offered for the understanding of St. books. This was the case in Alexandria, in the local “school of sacred sciences,” where, according to ancient custom, Panten, known for his preaching of the gospel and his learning, explained “the treasures of divine dogmas, in living words and in writing.” But of all the works of church writers of the second century who were engaged in the explanation of St. books, only a few, and not always undoubted, fragments have reached us - namely Melito, Bishop of Sardinia 3, Theophilus of Antioch 4, and Clement, Presbyter of Alexandria 5. In all these interpretations we do not find a consistent explanation of one or another saint. books, but only comments on some places from them - by choice; all of them, with the exception of the allegories of Theophilus, consist of a brief paraphrase of St. text. Continuous interpretations of the New Testament books, or interpretations in the proper sense, as far as we know, were first written by the famous teacher of the Alexandrian school, Origen. According to the testimony of St. Epiphany 6, he explained, with the exception of the Apocalypse, all the books of the New Testament. Blazh. Jerome, having already become friends with Origen’s admirers and himself having changed his view of him in many ways, wrote about him: “He knew the Scriptures by heart, and spent days and nights expounding them. He delivered a thousand or more conversations in church, and wrote countless “volumes” of interpretations. Which of us can read as much as he wrote? who would not marvel at his fiery love for Scripture? 7 Origen himself names his friend Ambrose as the instigator of such works. These motivations consisted not only in the strong requests of Ambrose, but also in the benefits and means that he provided to Origen to carry out such works 9 . In his very interpretations, Origen often turns his speech to Ambrose: from which it is clear, among other things, that he handed over, or forwarded, the final sections of the explanations to Ambrose 10 . On this basis, however, one cannot consider Origen’s interpretations to have been written only for the edification of Ambrose. Origen himself speaks of another, more extensive goal that animated his writings. Justifying his verbosity, condemned in St. Scripture (Eccl. 12:12; Proverbs 10:19), he says among other things: “now that heretics, under the pretext of knowledge (προφάσει γνώσεως), which they allegedly possess, rebel against the Holy. The Church of God, they publish multi-volume works 11, promising in them an explanation of the Gospel and Apostolic commandments - if we now remain silent, without opposing them with sound and right teachings, they will take possession of souls hungry for lack of saving food, inclining them to accept forbidden and unclean foods. Therefore, whoever can, should, in my opinion, stand up for the defense of church teaching, denounce heretics who are carried away by false knowledge and fabrications, and contrast the heights of the Gospel preaching” 12. In his very interpretations, especially on the Gospel of John, Origen often cites and refutes heretical explanations of various places in the New Testament. It must be assumed that Origen did not write his explanations sequentially one after another, but, interrupting one, was busy with another, and thus prepared interpretations for several books at one time. The beginning of his explanatory works coincides with the time of Origen’s return to Alexandria from Antioch 13, where he was summoned by Mammaea, the mother of Emperor Alexander Severus. This happened in the year 219. The Gospel of John Origen calls the 14 “Firstfruits” (ἀπαρχὴ) of the other Gospels, and then of the whole of St. Scripture, as the more mature and perfect fruit of the Spirit: and the explanation of this Gospel was the beginning of its interpretation. Of course, for this reason, his explanation of the Gospel of John is processed with particular care, and can be considered the best of Origen's interpretations. According to Origen himself, 15 the trip to Achaia (228) and then the displeasure that began with the Bishop of Alexandria Demetrius interrupted his explanation of the Gospel in the sixth volume. This very sixth volume, accidentally forgotten in Alexandria 16, he had to write again in Caesarea, probably after the death of Demetrius (232); and the whole interpretation, according to Eusebius 17, was completed long after Maximin’s persecution. Based on some instructions from Origen himself 18, the testimony of the blessed one can be considered more probable. Jerome 19 that Origen wrote a total of 39 volumes on the Gospel of John. But very few of them have survived to this day 20 . Probably, simultaneously with the writing of the first volumes on the Gospel of John, Origen delivered 39 discourses on various passages in the Gospel of Luke. Even in ancient times, 21 they noticed in these conversations a certain youthful playfulness of speech, which is not visible in the later works of Origen. These conversations have come down to us only in a Latin translation, owned by Blessed. Jerome, as can be seen from his preface to these conversations. In addition to the conversations, we are left with several more so-called scholia on different passages of the same Gospel of Luke. According to the testimony of Eusebius 22, the explanation of the Gospel of Matthew was begun by Origen already sixty years old (in 215). Of the 25 volumes written by Origen on this Gospel, the first nine have not reached us, with the exception of small passages; and the rest did not arrive in full form, partly in Greek (T. T. X–XVII.), partly in a faulty Latin translation, without division into known volumes. Just like for the Gospel of Luke, several more scholia have been preserved for this Gospel. At the same time as his explanation of the Gospel of Matthew, Origen also wrote an interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans. Of the 20 volumes, we have only ten in the Latin translation of Rufinus, 23 with obvious insertions and changes on the part of the translator. Of Origen’s other interpretations of the New Testament, only small passages have survived to us in the Philocalia and in the writings of the martyr Pamphilus, Eusebius and Jerome - passages on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews. All these passages, with the exception of the one on Hebrews, are known only in the Latin translation. Origen composed his interpretations in threefold form. For everything St. Scripture, according to the testimony of Blessed. Jerome 24, Origen wrote a) scholia (σχόλια), b) conversations (ὁμιλίαι) and c) volumes (τόμοι). The scholia were probably intended by Origen to guide ordinary believers in the home reading of the word of God, and therefore consist of brief comments on difficult passages of St. text. In conversations, as explanations prepared for church edification, Origen should have primarily paid attention to the moralizing aspects of selected passages of Scripture. Finally, the volumes - in the proper sense of interpretation of the chosen St. books, detailed and continuous; here Origen very often deviates into research into the spiritual and mysterious meaning, and very often engages in refuting incorrect heretical explanations of various passages of the word of God. From the view of St. books explained by Origen, turning to the question of how he explained them, we consider it necessary first of all to note that the interpreters, who preceded Origen in time, in their explanations, as far as one can conclude, were guided by a more direct sense of truth and St. tradition of the Church. Reasons why this or that passage of St. should be explained this way. The Scriptures were not yet understood in an abstract way, the rules of explanation had not been collected. In Origen for the first time we encounter an attempt to draw up these rules, to put the stamp of law on them, to make them a subject of speculation. Merits of Origen for the priest. hermeneutics are very important - and this obliges us to present, as briefly as possible, his general view of the meaning of St. Scripture, and show the methods he uses to determine this meaning in private places of one or another St. books. In everything St. In the Scriptures, Origen saw the exhaustion of God the Word, as if embodied in the insufficient forms of the human word - the exhaustion necessary when descending to the infirmities and needs of man. “Everything,” he says 25, recognized as the word of God, is the revelation of God the Word incarnate, which in the beginning was with God and then emptied itself. Therefore we look upon the Word of God on earth, when it became man, as something human; for the Word in the Scriptures is always made flesh, that it may dwell in us” 26. But “man,” for whose salvation the Word of God was incarnate, “consists of body, soul and spirit” 27 . Hence “St. Scripture, according to Origen, is composed of the visible and the invisible: as if from a certain body, that is, a visible letter, a soul, a meaning understood by it, and a spirit, since it contains something heavenly, serves, according to the word of the Apostle, as the image and wall of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5) 28. Origen does not attach any significance to the letter here, and one might, based on this passage, think that Origen allowed only two meanings, moral and mysterious. But a little lower, 29, he expresses his thought more clearly: “as we have often said, the way of understanding divine Scripture is threefold: historical, moral and mysterious; from here it is clear that there is a body, a soul, and a spirit.” A threefold meaning, according to Origen, exists in Scripture, both to correspond to the constituent parts of human nature, and to satisfy the needs of man at all stages of his spiritual growth. “In the Proverbs of Solomon,” he says 30, the writing of Divine dogmas is commanded as follows: “You write to yourself three times, for advice, meaning and reason... (Proverbs 22:21). So, in three ways one should inscribe the thoughts of the saint in the soul. Scriptures. At the same time, the simpler ones can receive edification as if from the flesh of Scripture, that is, from the directly presented meaning; somewhat increased - as if from his soul; and those who are perfect and like those about whom the Apostle speaks (wisdom is the verb in the perfect 1 Cor. 2:6, 7) - from the spiritual law, which has the shadow of good things to come.” As Origen looked at the direct, immediately presented meaning of St. Scriptures - scholars differ in their opinions about this. Some consider Origen "the father of literal interpretation" 31 ; others 32, following St. Jerome 33, “a constantly allegorical interpreter, everywhere avoiding historical truth.” There is some truth in both judgments. Look with disdain at the literal meaning of St. Origen could not write a text, due to his very reverence for the word of God, in every word of which, as in every object of the visible world, he found traces of Divine wisdom 34. “If in our speeches,” he says 35, every word produces some effect both on ourselves speaking and on those listening; then what is surprising if for one who knows how to use the power of the Scriptures, not a single jot, not a single trait remains ineffective”? “Each herb has its own powers, useful either for bodily health or for something else. But why the herb is useful - however, not everyone knows, but only those who study botany and are knowledgeable in that - when taken, to what part of the body, applied and how prepared, it can provide help to the one who uses it. Likewise, a holy and spiritual man (πνευματιϰὸς) will always and in every iota of Scripture find something useful, but never anything superfluous.” - Considering the literal sense to be the same in Scripture as the body in man, i.e. “a vestment of the spiritual and conceivable” 36, Origen presents it as “not useless, since it can make many better, according to their ability to improve” 37. “That this meaning is useful in itself,” he says a little higher, is evidenced by many people who believe in straightforwardness and simplicity” 38 . “If this meaning did not exist, there would be no satisfaction for ordinary believers” 39. As a consequence of this, condemning those who adhere to one letter, Origen calls the desire of some to understand everything in Scripture spiritually as immoderate extremes 40 . “And for us,” he says, 41 let no one suspect that we generally say that nothing really happened when we assert that nothing else really happened, and that no provisions of the law must be observed to the letter, because they contain things that are incongruous with reason and cannot be fulfilled, or that what is said about Christ is not true in the literal sense. We say directly that in some places history seems true to us... And much more is true historically than what is partly connected with the spiritual. Who will not say that the commandment: Honor your father and your mother (Ex. 20:21) is also useful without higher understanding and must be kept?.. And in the Gospels there are prescribed some commandments, about which there is no need to ask whether they should be kept to the letter or not.” In general, with the exception of some private commands of the Savior to the Apostles, relating to their special purpose 42, all the commandments in Scripture, according to Origen, must be taken literally. “What is the need,” he says 43, to look for allegories in them, when even the letter edifies? Further, in some historical places, according to Origen, the height of Divine wisdom is connected with the literal meaning 44. Here we should also look for the meaning of the mysterious, but in such a way that the historical truth remains inviolable and lies at the basis of the mysterious explanation. “Christ, notes Origen 45, although he always heals the spiritually blind, enlightening minds blinded by ignorance; however, He once miraculously healed a blind man physically.” In his extensive interpretations, citing the text of Scripture, Origen sometimes directly begins to expound the highest mysterious meaning. But in the scholia, if the direct meaning of the words seems too clear to Origen, he always precedes the presentation of the mysterious with remarks like the following: “and this truly happened, and the miracle of transfiguration was accomplished; but if anyone needs a more sublime word, then it was not in vain that “this and that” was said. 46; or immediately after the given text the explanation begins with the words: “and in a more sublime sense” 47 this means the following, etc. By faith in the inspiration of St. Scripture and the meaning of every iota in it, Origen carefully compared the lists of St. books that were in church use in his time. With such a comparison, he found them to disagree with each other in many respects. “Obviously,” he says in one place 48, there is now great disagreement in the lists (of the books of the New Testament), either due to the negligence of the scribes, or from the compilers who added or subtracted something from the Scriptures, either out of wicked impudence, or because it seemed more correct to them. Then Origen notes that he has already found a means to reconcile the contradictions in the copies of the Old Testament, meaning his comparison of the translation of the LXX and other translations with the Hebrew text in his Hexaplas “But I considered it unsafe to do something similar to that with the New Testament copies,” adds after this on behalf of Origen the ancient translator of the passage we cited 49. These words are not in Greek, in the original; nevertheless, one cannot fail to recognize the importance of ancient testimony behind them. Regarding the lists of Origen, which Blessed Jerome consulted 50 , it seems more likely that the assumption 51 was that these were not corrected lists, but only rewritten by the hand of Origen himself. But if Origen did not do anything similar to the Hexapla for the New Testament books, it is at least certain that he paid strict attention to the disagreements in the lists of these books and tried, if possible, to reconcile them. We constantly encounter evidence of this in his very interpretations of the New Testament books. Here he quite often presents St. text discrepancies, which he encountered in the lists of priests at his disposal. books 52. At the same time, he sometimes makes sensible critical remarks. So eg. having said that in almost all copies of the Gospels there are 28 v. 1st chapter The Gospel of John is read: this was in Bethany, - Origen rightly notes that it is more correct to read: in Bethabara, and bases his remark on the fact that Bethany is far from the Jordan, therefore it could not be the place where John baptized 53. The same is true of Origen’s remark that the Savior sent demons into the herd of pigs, who came from a demon-possessed man (Mark 5:1, 13; Luke 8:26, 33, 37) - not in the country of the Gerasenes (Γερασηνῶν), as was stated in most of the lists, namely, the Gadarenes. “Gerasa,” says Origen 54, is a city in Arabia, and there is neither sea nor shore close to it.” But while recognizing the validity of such comments, one cannot, however, completely rely on that reading of the Holy Scriptures. text, as interpreted by Origen. Since childhood, knowing by heart 55 all St. Scripture, he often brought his sayings to memory: but in some cases his memory failed him. From then on, of course, those errors in reading, noticed 56 in the interpretations of Origen, occurred, where various passages were merged into one speech, or a certain passage was taken into account by the wrong sacred. to the writer who actually owns it. Moreover, there are examples of the obvious arbitrariness of Origen's criticism. Eg. the words of the Savior: love your sincere as yourself (Matthew 19:19) Origen 57, without relying on any list of the Gospels, considers included in the sacred. text by someone unskilled in examining the inner meaning of Scripture. He thinks to confirm his thought by the fact that these words are not found in parallel passages in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. But this, of course, is not the basis, and the remark made in general about the malfunction of the lists of priests. books does not justify Origen. With research or criticism of the priest. text in a very close connection is the determination of the meaning and use of words in Scripture, which constitutes something transitional from simple criticism of the text to hermeneutics. Origen considered such a search for the meaning of words so “useful” that he advised not to ignore even the names of persons and geographical names found in St. Scriptures 58. In his interpretations, it seems, he did not leave a single Hebrew name or title without explanation. The blessed one praises him for this. Jerome 59, and testifies that he himself largely followed him in his “book on Jewish names.” But besides his own names, Origen found in the sacred. There are many other words in the text that are explained only from the Hebrew language, or are generally alien to Greek usage. “You need to know,” notes Origen 60, that the word ἐπιούσιος (vital Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3) is not common among the Greeks and is not found either in the writings of philosophers or in simple popular speech, but appears for the first time among the Evangelists. They use it according to Matthew and Luke. Those who translated from Hebrew acted similarly in other cases. For which of the Greeks ever said: ἐνωτίζᴕ, or ἀϰᴕτίσϑητι instead of: ὲις τὰ ὧτα δέξαι and άϰοῦσαι ποίει? The particle before, - dondezhe (ἕως), found in many especially important places of Scripture (for example, Matt. 28:20), according to Origen's remark 61, does not indicate, as one could conclude from ordinary word usage, the limit beyond which the described action can no longer continue; it does not eliminate the continuity of this action. – Among the features of sacred word usage, Origen also considers the fact that in it often one word embraces various objects or concepts. So, according to his explanation 62, the word: law ([νόμος) in the sacred. Scripture denotes 1) the legislation of Moses (Gal.3:10, 19, 24), 2) the famous narratives written by Moses (Gal.4:21), 3) the psalms of David (John 15:25, cf. Ps.68:5), 4) the prophecy of Isaiah (1 Cor.14:21, cf. Is.28:11), 5) the mysterious and spiritual explanation (ἐϰδοχή) of the law (Rom. 7:14), and finally 6) the natural law written on hearts (Rom. 2:14, 5:13, 7:7). This, he says, “confuses those who think that just as there is one word, so there is one meaning, no matter where it appears.” Therefore, adds Origen 63, we need to carefully observe the meaning of words, thereby “protecting ourselves from errors and incorrect interpretations.” Origen presents a means of understanding in such cases the true meaning of the words of Scripture by demolishing similar passages (φωνῶν) 64 . He prescribes comparing and contrasting 65 only those passages that “have a close similarity,” so that through the mouths of two, three, and even many witnesses from Scripture, he can confirm and confirm every word of God. In all the speeches that are given in the Holy. In books, according to Origen, one must pay strict attention to whose speech it is, to whom and when it is delivered. He considers this necessary because the darkness of most of the passages of Scripture, in his opinion, depends on the custom of the priest. writers - imperceptibly replace some speaking and listening persons with others, or introduce completely new ones, while the speeches themselves are everywhere adapted to the properties of these persons 66 . In the tributary image of speech, which is so often found in the Gospels, as Origen noted, it is necessary to follow the main thing, without paying attention to too particular features of the image. “Images,” he says 67, are similarities, but not the most perfect reflections of their prototype.” Some images resemble the object in color, but do not represent concave and convex shapes. Others, while presenting the latter, do not convey the former. Others convey both, but do not express what is inside. “In exactly the same way,” Origen concludes, I think about the parables in the Gospel. The kingdom of heaven, which is likened to something, will not be likened in everything to what it is likened to, but only in some features that are required by the subject in question.” From everything that has been said so far, we can draw the conclusion that Origen was deeply aware of the importance and benefit of finding the original, literal meaning of the sacred. Scriptures. But, although we have indicated the rules for such research, compiled by Origen, and some examples in which these rules were implemented: justice, however, requires that we note that such rules in Origen’s works are scattered as if by chance; and he performs them very rarely; and sometimes the stated rule is immediately forgotten in the very explanation of the place in relation to which it is given. Thus, beginning to explain the Savior’s parable of the net (Matthew 13:47–51), Origen notes 68 that in parables in general one must pay attention to their main idea, and not strictly follow all the particular features of the image indicated in them. It is impossible, he rightly notes, to assert, like some 69, that people are by nature good or evil, on the basis of those words of the Savior that the kingdom of heaven is like a net, from which I gather all kinds. But following the refutation of this false thought, Origen not only does not leave without explanation a single feature of the Savior’s figurative speech; but he also complements the incoming image with his own imagination, and tries to put it in full accordance with the thought it expresses. He seeks the meaning of each individual plexus of the network, and believes that these are the essence of private truths, the varied interconnection of which constitutes a whole mass - the entire word of God. The interweaving of the land was not yet complete until Jesus Christ fulfilled it 70. Some, Origen continues, are now caught in salvation by the concatenation of truths in the Prophet, for example. Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Daniel; others the same - in the law, the Gospels or the apostolic epistles. The words of the parable: extract (net), izbrasha (good), monster (bad) provoke Origen to the question: who exactly controls the net? He assumes that the rulers are the Lord Jesus himself and the Angels who are present and serve Him (Matthew 4:11). The desire to prove the importance of each feature of the image indicated in the parable forces Origen to unfairly assert that it is “not at all strange” that people seem to be caught against their will by the Divine world, and are caught in such a way that “those who are completely enslaved are deprived of the opportunity to escape from it.” The same desire leads him to a strange proof of the superiority of Angels over people on the basis that they catch people, and people are caught by them. Origen could not discover the meaning of only that feature of the tributary image, that for caught fish, separation from water is evil, and that both good and bad fish are equally deprived of life from such removal from their natural element. He was forced to say that one should not look for any meaning at all in these features. From everything it is clear that Origen was not able to adhere to strict rules of literal interpretation; For this, it was more necessary to restrain our imagination, moderate our inquisitiveness, and more accurately understand the purpose of the word of God, given to us as a guide to salvation, and not for communicating secret knowledge about the heavenly worlds. Meanwhile, Origen, according to the testimony of Eusebius 71, even in childhood was not content with the simple and obvious meaning of St. Scripture, but I was always looking for something more in it, and even at that time I embarked on deep contemplation. From explaining the simple meaning of St. Origen allowed himself to evade the Scriptures due to the same principles from which he proved the importance and benefit of such an explanation. Both there and here, the starting point for Origen is the high concept of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. books - the concept of the priest. Scripture, as if about the incarnate word of God. If God is the highest Spirit, then in Scripture, as His revelation, everything must be spiritual 72; if all the treasures of wisdom and reason are hidden in Him, then His word must be full of deep mysterious meaning. “He,” says Origen 73, “Who commanded man: Thou shalt not appear before Me empty (Ex. 34:21), much less can Himself utter anything that is not full of meaning. From this completeness the Prophets borrow everything they say. Therefore, everything in them breathes fullness, and there is nothing, neither in the law, nor in the Gospel, nor in the Apostles, that would not come from this fullness.” “Just as there is a law, he says in another place, 74 containing in itself the shadow of future blessings revealed by the law, truly so-called: so in the same way the Gospel, considered understandable to everyone, teaches only the shadows of the mysteries of Christ.” As in the entire Old Testament, so in the Gospels and in the Apostolic Epistles there is not a single jot or tittle that is devoid of mysterious meaning 75 . Hence, to find out exactly what images of future blessings the Scripture contains, to penetrate into the depth of wisdom hidden in mystery (1 Cor. 2:7.) - this is what should be the goal of every true Christian who strives for the truth 76. Accordingly, Origen himself set the ultimate goal of his explanations as “translating the sensual Gospel into the spiritual” and intelligible 77 . Origen understood that, in striving for such a high goal, the matter must certainly begin from the literal sense, as closer to man clothed in flesh. Therefore, he dwelled on such an explanation in his “conversations” and “scholia”. But he did this not because he considered it more appropriate for the place being explained, but precisely to adapt it to the level of understanding of those people for whom his explanation was intended. Hence the difference between interpretation in volumes, in conversations and in scholia. So eg. in volumes 78 he denies, as impossible, the story of the temptation of the Savior in the desert; and in conversations and scholia 79 he pays attention only to the moral application of this story; He seemed to have forgotten about the difficulties in admitting her here, or knew nothing at all. On the other hand, he dwells on the literal meaning very briefly, considering it only a transitional stage, and a shell of another higher meaning. But stopping at the shell for herself would be unwise and unsafe. To strive from the sensual in Scripture to the spiritual, according to Origen, we are encouraged, in addition to the innate and, of course, not in vain desire for truth 80, and the incarnate Word of God itself. It encourages us to test the Scripture (John 5:39) 81 - through the mouth of the Apostle (2 Cor. 3:6) it asserts that the letter kills everyone 82 who, in the spirit of the Jews, deprives the Scripture of its mysterious meaning; and it represents Christians themselves as ministers not of writing, but of the spirit. But in order to more arouse people who are always committed to the external to the same goal, it took the trouble to introduce into Scripture stones of stumbling and temptation (σϰάνδαλα ϰαὶ προσϰόμματα) 83 . For this reason, the letter of Scripture can easily lead unwary readers into error and error, just as the flesh, with its desires, often leads even pious but weak people astray from the path of righteousness. By accepting everything in the word of God as it is written, we will accept, according to Origen, something contrary to the principles of a sound mind. Thus, the story of the temptation of the Savior in the desert seemed literally impossible to Origen, because from any mountain, no matter how high, one cannot see with bodily eyes all the kingdoms of the earth 84 . The literal understanding of the Savior’s commandments also seemed incompatible with the requirements of common sense: kiss no one on the way (Luke 10:4). “And when, he writes 85, it is said about one who strikes the right cheek (Matthew 5:39), then something completely incredible is said, because everyone who only owns his right hand strikes with it on the left cheek.” “Many things like this,” he notes in general 86, can be discovered by an attentive reader of the Gospels; in them, with the true stories, there is also something mixed in that did not actually happen.” By accepting everything as it is written, we will fall into hopeless contradictions; The gospel story would be full of them. Eg. according to the story of the first three Gospels (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4), Jesus Christ, immediately after the baptism of John, spent forty days in the desert, fasted and was tempted by Satan, went from the desert to Galilee and, leaving Nazareth, moved to Capernaum. The evangelists Matthew and Luke indicate the reason why the Savior went from the desert to Galilee. This is precisely the imprisonment of John the Baptist. But according to the Gospel of John, on the third day after baptism (?), the Savior was in Cana of Galilee, from where through Capernaum he arrived at Easter in Jerusalem and drove the sheep and oxen out of the church here (John 2:13), - which the other Gospels mention much later (Matt. 21; Mark 11; Luke 19). From Jerusalem, as the Evangelist John represents, Jesus Christ set out to preach throughout the land of Judea, and at this time John the Baptist was still baptizing those who came to him in Ennon. Having indicated what, apparently, contradictions are contained in the said Gospel legends, Origen says 87: “if someone carefully considers the many other disagreements in the Gospel history, then, struck by them, he will either cease to affirm the truth of the Gospels and will adhere to the choice of one Gospel, not daring to completely fall away from the faith in our Lord, - or, admitting the four Gospels, he will believe the truth of it not in external images. “The truth of all such narratives,” he says, 88 “should be sought in what is intelligible.” Indeed, in the interpretations of Origen, as far as we know, there is not a single remarkable reconciliation of the apparent differences between the Evangelists. If he points to them, it is only as a reason to seek spiritual, mysterious meaning. In general, he seems to have considered the reconciliation of differences, in the historical sense, not worth the trouble. This is evident from his general view of historical truth in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture. Origen's thoughts on this subject are presented 89 at great length; Let's present them briefly. In the Gospels, he thought, we are talking about the deeds and appearance on earth of the invisible God, God the Spirit. But the Lord is above space and time, and both serve as necessary conditions for our thought about each subject. The Lord can appear both sitting and standing at the same time - appearing in different places distant from one another; and this, of course, is impossible for people. Given this attitude of the Lord to space and time, given the impossibility of the divine to become completely human, the Evangelists convey everywhere what is true in essence, and where possible, in form itself. But where this latter turned out to be impossible, there they, for the benefit of the truth itself, represent what happened in one place and at a certain time as having happened in another place and at another time; - what they proclaimed in a certain way is betrayed with some change, thus preserving the spiritual truth, so to speak, in the materially false 90. After this, it was natural to tell Origen 91 that there are passages of Scripture in which there is nothing external and carnal, that sometimes one needs to look for in Scripture, as if one soul and spirit. One cannot help but see that here Origen is inclined to what he himself calls an immoderate extreme. He recognizes his own, literal meaning as important and truly existing in Scripture: but at the same time he admits the idea that it is not true in places. Where is it true and where is it not? This is what Origen says, 93 it is up to the attentive reader to determine for himself how much truth there is in what the letter says; and if there turns out to be something that reason cannot agree on, then try, through comparison of similar places, to discover the meaning hidden here. The insight of reason 94, a certain divine feeling 95 innate to us (intuitus mentis, ἄισϑησις ϑειоτέρα) - these are man’s natural means of distinguishing truth. But doesn’t this mean making a person a judge over the word of God, doesn’t it mean opening up a wide path for personal arbitrariness in the matter of explaining the word of God? Even the very difficulties that Origen found in the Gospel history were obviously more invented by Origen himself than they actually existed, and depended on Origen’s disrespect and inattention to the means that the very word of God provides for the understanding of what at first may seem dark and incomprehensible. It is clear that Origen’s distrust of historical truth was supposed to expand for him the area of ​​​​mysterious meaning in Scripture. Indeed, in his opinion, she embraces the entire spiritual world - heavenly and earthly. By this latter he means the Church of Christ on earth, which is the adornment of the world 96; By the heavenly world he means the heavenly Church. “Besides this visible world,” he says 97, there is another invisible world, the intelligible world. The beauty of this world is enjoyed only by the pure in heart, who, after preliminary preparation, achieve contemplation of this world and even a vision of God, as far as the nature of the Divine can be visible.” The heavenly and earthly, in the spiritual world, according to Origen, are in strict accordance with each other. The Apostle Paul, speaking about Israel according to the flesh (1 Cor. 10:18), necessarily forces us to assume Israel according to the spirit; mentioning the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal.4:26) and Zion (Heb.12:12), leads to the idea of ​​the existence of heavenly Judea and other countries corresponding to earthly countries and cities 98. Therefore, by the way, the atoning sacrifice, according to Origen 99, was offered by the Savior not only for the earthly spiritual world, but also for the heavenly world (Col. 1:20). From such a harmonious unity of the earthly and heavenly spiritual kingdoms, Origen derives the following rule of interpretation: everything that Scripture says about earthly countries, peoples, kings and events - all this should be attributed to the state and history of the spiritual world and its inhabitants, meaning by these latter the spirits and souls of the dead 100. And he follows this rule quite often. In this he was especially helped by the Hebrew names of cities and people, for the most part taken from some object, or expressing some abstract concept. Eg. According to the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 21:1-3), Jesus Christ, before the solemn entry into Jerusalem, came to Visphagia to the Mount of Olives, from where he sent two disciples to the nearest one, saying: Abi will find a donkey tied and casting lots with him, having abandoned himself, he will bring Mi. Origen first of all notes that, according to the legend of the Evangelist Mark (Mark 11:1), Jesus Christ came not to Visphagia, but to Bethany 101; according to the Gospel of Luke (Luke 19:29) to Visphagia and Bethany. Leaving this disagreement without reconciliation, Origen directly proceeds to explain the spiritual meaning of the indicated passage. For this purpose, he draws attention to the meaning of the names of the mentioned areas. Bethany, according to him, translated means: house of obedience, and Visphagia - house of jaws (οἶϰον σιαγόνων). Taking into account the place in the book of Judges (Judg. 15:19), which speaks of a spring from the jaw that gave water to the thirsty Samson, and perhaps the Savior’s commandment to the one striking the cheek (σιαγόνα) to convert the other one, Origen notes: Visphagia can be considered a symbol of patience. So, he says, those who are to be allowed are brought first to the house of obedience and patience. According to Origen, the name of the two disciples sent to set aside the donkey and the lot with it refers to the Apostles Peter and Paul. They are one another's right hands for fellowship (Gal. 2:9), so that one may go to circumcision, i.e. to those under the law, and to the other in the tongues, as if he were young and had not worn the saddle of a lot, to go in order to free both of them from the bonds of sin and bring them to Jesus. However, according to Origen, by the two disciples, in the anagogical sense, one can understand the two Angels who ruled the Jews and the pagans: but to reveal this meaning, Origen leaves it to the more capable, worthy of greater grace than he 102. – And it came to pass when Jesus finished these sayings... (Matthew 19:1). Origen here considered it necessary to dwell on the word: end (ἐτέλεσεν), which he found completely applicable only to Jesus Christ, who perfected and fulfilled the law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:33 et seq.; Mark 14:49), and then through His disciples he told people the secrets of the Father, - since τελετὴ (from τελέω) means precisely initiation into the mysteries 103. – There is no need to give more similar examples. And from the above it is already clear that Origen’s concept of the literal meaning of Scripture, as the vestment of the spiritual meaning, was not only an abstract concept; he tried to justify it in its very application to the matter of interpretation. Hence, all the aids that could serve to clarify one’s own meaning, such as. analysis of the meaning of words, comparison of similar passages, and the like, served as a means for him to discover the mysterious meaning in Scripture. At the same time, it is impossible not to notice that Origen demolishes places not significantly, but only accidentally similar ones - although he himself, as was said above, considered such a demolition to be incorrect. It remains to say a few words about the so-called moral sense that Origen found in St. Scripture. He represented this meaning, as was said, as something corresponding to the soul in man - necessary for people who have risen above simple believers, but have not yet reached the height of spiritual understanding of the word of God. Although aware in the abstract of the importance of this meaning, Origen rarely dwells on it in his interpretations. The main purpose of Scripture, in his opinion, is purely contemplative, consisting in expanding our abstract ideas about God, the world and man himself. As for the sanctification, rebirth and ennoblement of man, this should come of itself, with his striving for contemplation. The beginning of the path of goodness is to do righteous work (Proverbs 16:6), notes Origen 104; but beginning with practical activity, this path leads to a theoretical goal; This long path ends with contemplation, since, after the resurrection, people who have returned to God through the Word will have only one occupation - contemplation of God. The word of truth, he says in another place 105, is followed one after another by virtues, essentially contained in Christ, so that he who has one has everything, he who does not have one has none: for Christ Himself is indivisible. – In Origen’s conversations, where it would be most natural to expect something edifying, we find almost nothing but simple instructions to ministers on what to do and what to avoid. In the 25th conversation on the Gospel of Luke, having spoken about the blind love of the Jews for John the Baptist, according to which they accepted him not for the Forerunner, which he was, but for the Savior, which he was not, in the appendix Origen briefly notes that one should not love one’s teachers and Angels to the detriment of love for Christ, and adds a strange remark that out of love for Christ one should not forget God. In the twenty-sixth conversation on the same Gospel, regarding the text: he has a shovel in his hand, etc. (Luke 3:17), Origen says that temptations are sent by God to separate those who are strong in the faith from those who waver and are weak. Then he moves on to the idea that only buildings founded on shaky ground are overthrown by storms. “Therefore,” he concludes, before bad weather sets in, before the winds rage and the rivers swell—while there is still silence everywhere—we must direct all our efforts to the foundations of buildings; We must build our house from various strong stones of the commandments of God, so that when persecution against Christians rages and a cruel storm begins, our building will be found to be on the rock of Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 10:4). Origen considered the moral meaning, just like the mysterious one, to be diffused throughout St. Scripture. He found it even in such words of the Gospel as: Jesus departed for the countries of Tire and Sidon; and behold, a woman of Canaanite went out from the border of those and cried to Him, etc. (Matthew 15:21, 22). Tire and Sidon, in his opinion, generally mean the kingdom of sin. He bases his opinion on the fact that Tire in translation - crowdedness, indicates the heavy domination of passions, and Sidon - catchers - means unclean forces with their machinations. On this basis, in the passage cited, he finds the following moral meaning: each of us who sins remains within the borders of Tire and Sidon, and turning from vice to virtue, passes from these borders to the inheritance of Israel; The Savior meets the one who is passing over within the boundaries of the sinful kingdom; finally, glory and exaltation await only the righteous, and humiliation and shame await the wicked - since the Canaanite woman, who was within the boundaries of Tire and Sidon, in translation means precisely: prepared for humiliation 106. From the examples given, one can see that the so-called moral meaning, if such a name deserves, is the same allegorical meaning both in its essence and in the very method of extracting it from the letter of St. text. It differs from the allegorical only in its greater proximity to the simple and proper meaning in St. Scripture. Origen’s desire to transform most of the historical legends in the word of God into something intelligible, undoubtedly does not deserve praise, but should not be strictly condemned. In the very works of Origen one can find many indications that the contemplative direction, the desire for the mysterious in general was in the spirit of his time; such a desire, when it does not go beyond the limits of moderation, has a beneficial effect on all the activities of a Christian. It could have provided such benefits even in those days. Then in the pagan and Jewish world all the corruption of religious and moral life was revealed; the unsatisfactory nature of popular religions was quite clearly recognized by the majority. But instead of everyone turning from the bottom of their hearts to faith in Christ, in the shameless aspiration of complete satisfaction of their spiritual needs, both among the pagans (Neoplatonists) and among the Jews (Philo and others), people appeared, either out of proud conceit or self-delusion, who decided to revive their ancient beliefs at any cost. To this end, they tried to assimilate the external and sensual rites of the religion of their people into an internal, mysterious meaning that they did not have - they wanted to elevate ancient beliefs by their philosophical disclosure, giving myths a moral and reasonable meaning through their mysterious explanation. At the same time, especially pagan philosophers intensified, in the eyes of the people who trusted them, to humiliate the newly emerged Christian faith; they represented it as a carnal faith, and the Christians themselves were accused of crude sensual concepts. These accusations were not completely unfair to the heretics who called themselves Christians. According to Origen himself, the Judaizing 107 and Gnostic 108 heretics of his time persisted in their “false, impious and absurd ideas about God,” precisely because they “understood the Scriptures not by the spirit, but by the letter” 109 . Perverse heretical opinions did not remain without influence on some true Christians. According to Origen, even among simple, therefore rather carried away, believers, such opinions about God were in circulation that were indecent even when applied to the most cruel and wicked person 110. - In this state of affairs, Origen, in his work directed against the pagans 111, writes something like an apology for the allegorical meaning in the word of God; and in his explanations of it, directed against heretical reinterpretations, he everywhere seeks a higher, spiritual meaning. At the same time, he often goes to extremes. His inclination towards contemplation, acquaintance with the works of ancient and new pagan philosophers, and polemics against another, perhaps even more dangerous extreme: all this did not allow him to clearly see with what caution he should follow the path that he had chosen. But, it seems, we can say that it was not the vain desire to show off his wit that carried Origen to such extremes, but the desire to discover in the words of Scripture, according to human understanding, the meaning most worthy of the infinitely wise God. “How I would like,” he says in one of his teachings 112, “how I would like now to express some high and worthy thought of the Supreme High Priest, so that from everything that we say and teach, something good would be found, pleasing to the Supreme Priest, which the Angel, the Primate of the Church, could, instead of the first fruits, from the small field of our heart, present to the Lord. But I know that I don’t deserve it - I realize that such a thought will not be found in me... And oh, if only something worthy of condemnation had not been revealed in our words and teachings!” We have noticed in Origen's interpretations a lack of attention to historical difficulties. This deficiency was subsequently undertaken, although partially, to be filled by an admirer of Origen, who, together with the martyr Pamphilus, wrote an apology in favor of Origen, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. His own interpretations of some Old Testament books show great respect for the interpretations of Origen. As for the books of the New Testament, only fragments of interpretation of the Gospel have reached us. According to some signs, they can be recognized as remnants of the interpretation of the Gospel of Luke 113. But our attention is more drawn to his questions and answers, representing the experience of reconciling some disagreements between the narratives of the Evangelists, and the historical explanation of other difficulties. As far as we know, none of the interpreters who preceded Origen in time paid attention to such imaginary disagreements in the Gospels; Eusebius’s work was completely new: why do we allow ourselves to say a few words about it here. Eusebius wrote three books in the form of questions and answers relating to the history of the Gospels (ζητημάτων ϰαὶ λύσεων) 114 . The first two were written for a certain Stephen and contain, as is now known, the solution to sixteen questions borrowed from the first chapters of the Evangelists Matthew and Luke. The third book was compiled for Marin, with the same purpose of resolving issues related to the history of the resurrection of Christ the Savior; there are four in total. These books, in their complete form, only under the title: “about the imaginary disagreement of the Gospels” (περὶ τῆς τῶν Εὐαγγελίων διαφωνίας), were known to the bl. Jerome 115 and Nikephoros Callistus 116. But now there are 117 only a small number of excerpts from these books. The questions that are resolved in the passages that have come down to us are indeed quite important, for example. Why does the Evangelist count fourteen generations from Jehoiachin to Joseph, when he himself listed only twelve? why did the Evangelist call Joachim Jehoiachin? Why is Tamar mentioned in the genealogy when more glorious women in life are not named? etc. To judge how Eusebius resolved such issues, let us give several examples. Thus, regarding the time of the resurrection of Christ the Savior, the Evangelist Matthew (Matthew 28:1) narrates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the tomb on Saturday evening (ὀψὲ σαββάτων) and found it already empty. The Evangelist John (John 20:1) says that Mary came alone from the Sabbath morning (πρωὶ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων). There is no contradiction, notes Eusebius 118, in these gospel sayings, you just need to take them in a broader meaning. Both Evangelists, according to Eusebius, indicate a late time of night, close to midnight. Evangelist John, having said: in the morning, immediately adds: still existing darkness, so that no one would think about the time of sunrise; and the Evangelist Matthew, having said “on the Sabbath evening,” immediately explained himself with the words: “knit together in one from the Sabbath.” Eusebius reinforces his thought with the custom of the Church to celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord not from Saturday evening, but from midnight, or at dawn the next day, and also with the consideration that if, with such amazing signs, the resurrection of the Savior took place early in the evening or late in the morning, then the news of the miracle would immediately spread throughout the city, and slander against the Apostles would be impossible. – Further, according to the Gospel of Matthew, two Marys came to the tomb and both, seeing the Savior, ate His nose (Matthew 28:9); and according to the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene came alone, and the Savior did not allow her to touch Him (John 20:17). Eusebius reconciles this apparent contradiction in this way: Mary Magdalene, partly in fear of the miracle, partly in delight at what had happened, several times hastily came to the tomb and left it, converged with the other Mary and the Apostles, and again dispersed. Both Evangelists convey what really happened, only at different times. The idea of ​​making it easier to review the Gospel narratives, in order to supplement and explain one another, prompted Eusebius to compile the so-called canons, or tables 120. For this purpose, he first noticed everything that was consistent in the narrative of all the Evangelists, as well as what was special and distinctive in each Evangelist, and he divided all four Gospels into their own sections. Then, based on these markings and as an index to them, I especially wrote ten tables. In the first of them he indicated what was similar in all four Gospels, - in the next three - what was consonant between one or another three Gospels, - in five tables - what was consonant alternately between any two Evangelists, - finally, in the last table the characteristics of each Evangelist were indicated. This work, however, was not completely new, as Eusebius himself testifies in a letter to Carpian 121. From this letter we learn that even before him, a certain Ammonius of Alexandria (who probably lived in the middle of the 3rd century) formed one whole from all four Gospels, noting in the Gospel of Matthew the parallel passages of the other Gospels and adding to it from these latter what was missing in it. Such a set of Gospel stories, as Eusebius rightly notes, was good for understanding the entire Gospel history in general, in the sequential order of the events presented in it, but from it it was impossible to learn the characteristics of each Evangelist, and many particulars probably eluded the attention of the reader. Eusebius, leaving the text of each Gospel untouched in his canons, also eliminated the deficiency noticed in the work of Ammonius 122. Returning from these works again to Origen, it is impossible not to mention here even more important shortcomings in his interpretations. Let us understand some of his false dogmatic opinions found in his interpretative works. Such are his false wisdom about the Son of God, as God not consubstantial with the Father, about the non-eternity of torment, etc. For such opinions, Origen was rightly condemned by St. Church, as an unjust thinker. “But, for the sake of the teachings of Origen, let us say in the words of Blessed. Jerome, one should not accept his wrong dogmas, and for the sake of the wrongness of his dogmas one should not completely turn away from his useful interpretations of Holy Scripture. I think the blessed one continues. Jerome that Origen should be read in the same way as Tertullian and some other church writers of Greek and Latin, choosing the good and abandoning the bad, according to the word of the Apostle: “Hold what is good, whatever is tempting” (1 Thess. 5:21) 123. This is how, indeed, they knew how to read Origen’s interpretations, and this is how St. Vasily V. and Gregory the Theologian, who left us the fruit of their common studies with Origen’s works, in their “Philocalia”. This whole book is a collection of various passages from the works of Origen; Much of it is borrowed from his interpretive works. Histor. Eccles. L. V. c. 27. Ibid. cap. 10. Eusebius L. VI. With. 13. He also says that Clement Alex., a student of Panten, set out the interpretations of his mentor in eight books of “instructions” (ϓποτυπώσεων.): but they have not reached us. Meliton's interpretive work is called the key (Clavis). This name was given to him by Melito (Clavis cap. 9.) because in it he tried to discover the spiritual meaning of various humanoid expressions about the properties of God, which are found in St. books of the old and new testament. A fragment of this work was recently found in a Latin translation by Abbot Pitre and placed in Patrol. Graec. curs. Compl. A. Migne T. V. p. 1223.seqq. But, with greater attention to this ancient monument, it turned out that not everything can be attributed to the time of Meliton. There are many additions to this passage from later writers of the Roman Church. This is clear from the interpretations themselves, which obviously belong to the Latin writer, and not the Greek. Eg. cap. II § 63. Hostia pacifica ideo Hostia apellatur, quod hosti diabolo resistat... cap. 7 § 34 num. 6. Virga, – Virgo Maria. There are passages borrowed from Gregory the Great. St. Theophilus is credited (in Bibliothec. vet. Patr. saecul. secund. T. II. P. II. p. 166–175.) with explanations or allegories on St. The Four Gospels, in Latin translation. In their present form, they also contain a lot of things that clearly bear the stamp of later origin (eg pp. 170. 175.), and could not have been written by a Greek (p. 167.). Still blessed. Jerome, it seems, looked with some distrust at the interpretation that had reached him, with the name of Theophilus (Script, eccl. catal. 9.48.), although I was guided by it in my own explanations of the Gospel, as he himself says in the preface to the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew and in a letter to Algazia (Epist. 151. quaest. 6.). But we cannot be sure that the interpretation of Theophilus known to Jerome is the same as we now have. As for the nature of this interpretation, the desire is obvious everywhere in it - with every letter of St. Scripture to connect some mysterious meaning, even if this completely disrupts the connection and order of the speech of the Gospel (See p. 167. 175.). Clement of Alexandria learns the remarks (adumbrationes) on the conciliar epistles: 1st Peter, Apostle. Jude, first and second John, in a Latin translation supposedly belonging to Cassiodorus. Indeed, Cassiodorus himself testifies (Lib. de instit. divin. litt. cap. 8.) that he read Clement’s explanations in Greek, and then translated them into Latin, excluding some thoughts that seemed to him not entirely correct. But the text of the remarks that has reached our time is a translation of Cassiodorus? They doubt this on the grounds that it contains thoughts that Cassiodorus could not contain (Vid. Adumbr. in Ep. Iudae p. 369. in Patr. curs, compl. T. IX.). Epist. 85 ad Painmach. n. 8. Fragm. T. V. in Ioan. p. 94.in. Patr. curs, compl. T. XIV. Ap. Evceb. Hist. eccl. Lib. VI cap. 23. Comm. in. John. T. IV p. 101. T. X. p. 160. 161. T XIII. p. 212. etc. Information has been preserved about 24 explanatory books on the Gospel, written by Basilides, a Gnostic of the second century (Ar. Evseb. hist. eccl. Lib. IV. cap. VII. ap. Clement. Strom. Lib IV. p. 599. ed. Potler), and about the interpretations of the heretic Heracleon who lived in the same century on the Gospel of Luke (Strom. Lib. IV. cap. 595.) and John. Origen cites many passages from this latter in his explanations of the same Gospel. Fragm. e Tom. V. Comm, in John, p. 99. Præfat. ad Tom. I. Comm. Origen. in Evang. John. p. 4. Præfat. ad Tom. VI. p. 101. Hist. eccl. Lib. VI. cap. 28. In Math. comm, series p. 922 in Patr. With. With. T. XIII. Prolog,interpr. homil. Origen. supra Evang. Lucae in Patr. With. With. T. XVII. cf. Monit. ad Comm. Origen. in John. § 4. Preserved: T. T. I, II, two excerpts from IV and V, then: VI, X, XIII, XIX, XX, XXVIII, XXXII. Hieronym. prolog. in explanat. S. Lucæ ab Orig. Hist. eccl. Lib. VI. cap. 36. Praefat. in explan. Orig. super epist. ad Roman in Patr. With. With. T. XIV. Hieron. Prolog, in. Hom, supra Ezech. ab Origen. p. 353–354 in Patr. With. With. T. XIII. Philocal. cap. 15. Patrolog. curs. T. XIV p. 1313. Ἀεὶ γάρ ὲν ταῖς γραφαῖς δ Λόγος σάρξ γίνεται, ἴνα ϰαταоϰηνώσῃ ἑν ἡμἶν. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 168.in. Patr. With. With. T. XI. Homil. V.in. Levitic. p. 205 in Patr. With. With. T. XII. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 168. I. Aug. Ernesti in opuscul. philologist critic. par. 288.Seqq. Lugd. 1776. Chr. Frider. Mattaei D. Pavli epistol. ad Thessalon. in praefat. p. 4.; partly Ioh. Lavr. Mosheim. in comment de rebus Christian. ante Constantin. Philocal. cap. 2. Patrolog. T. XIV.p. 130. T. XII. p. 1082. Homil. 30. in. Ierem. p. 286. in Patr. c. c. T. XIII. Philocal. cap. 15. Patrolog. T. XIV.p. 1313. De principle. Lib. IV. pag. 173. Contr. Cels. Lib. IV. pag. in Patr. With. With. T. XI. Homil. XI. in Numer. p. 304. in Palrolog. With. With. T. XII. De principle. Lib. IV. pag. 180. Homil. XI. in Numer. p. 305. De principle. Lib. IV, pag. 181. In epist. ad Galat. pag. 691. Patrolog. With. With. T. XIV. Schol. in Luc. cap. IX, v. 28–31. cf. ibid. cap. XIV, v. 12–14. p. 361. in Patr. With. With. T. XVII. Ibid. cap. XX. v. 19–26. p. 369. Comm. in Math. T. XV, p. 671. 672. Vid. ibid. in vet. interpr. § l4. Patrolog. Latin. curs. compl. T.XXVI. p. 199. "Exemplares Adamantii". Vid. Nov. Testam. Graec. Tischendorf. Edit. VIII. 1859. pp. XXVIII, LXVI. Eg. Comm. in Math. T. XIII. p. 588 seqq. Comm. in John. T. VI, p. 126. T. XX. p. 367. Evseh. Hist. eccl. Lib. VI, cap. 2. Huetii notae in comm. ad. Ioan. T.VI. p. 126. T. XX, p. 367. T. XXVIII. p. 389. T. XXXII, p. 431. Comm. in Math. T. XV, p. 670.seqq. Comm. in Ioan. T. VI, p. 140. 142. Patr. Latin. T. XXIII in praefat. ad. libr. de nomin. Hebr. p. 3–14. De oratione p. 245–246. in Patr. With. With. T. XI. Schol. in Luc. cap. IX. v. 27. Philocal. cap. IX. Patrolog. With. With. T. XIV p. 1311 et 1076. et sequ. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 181. Comm. in Math. T. X. pag. 460. Comm. in Ioan. T.VI. p. 110. et Frag, e Tom. in Cantic. p. 11. in curs. compl. T. XIII cf. Comm. in Ioan. T.V.p. 108. 109. 110. Comm. in Math. T. X. pag. 453. Comm. in Math. T. X. pag. 453–458. cf. ib. T. XV. r. 694.seqq. I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17. Hist. eccl. Lib. VI. cap. 2. Comm. in Ioan. T. XIII. p. 266. 267. Philocal. cap. I. Patrolog. With. With. T. XIV. p. 1310. Pracfat. Comm. in Ioan. p. 9. Philocal. cap. I. 1. p. Hom. I. in Exod. vol. 2, 131. Comm. ad. Roman. pag. 548. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 170. Tό ἀισϑητὸν Ἐυαγγέλιоν μεταλαβεῖν ἐις πνευματιϰὸν. Comm. in Ioan. T.I.p. 10. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 175. Comm. in Ioan. T.X.p. 162. Hom. in Luc. XXIX, XXX, XXXI. Schol. in Luc. cap. IV v. 9. De principle. Lib. II. cap. XI § 4. Philocal. cap. I. pag. 15. Hom. II. in Ies. cap. 7. de principle. Lib. IV, p. 181. Comm. in Math. T. XV, pag. 652. De principle. Lib. IV, pag. 175. Comm. in Ioan. T. X. pag. 163. Ibid. pag. 163. 164. seqq. De principle. Lib. IV. pagin. 169. See above passage de princip. Lib. IV. p. 180. C. Cels. Lib. I. cap. 48. Lib. VII. cap. 34. Comm. in Ioan. T. XXXII. p. 448. Comm. in Ioan. T. VI, pag. 153. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 182. 184 Homil in Levit. Pag. 186. De principle. Lib. IV. p. 186.cf. Hom. XI in Numer. pag. 307 in Patr. With. With. T. XII. Origen's reading of this passage does not agree with the generally accepted Greek text. Now it reads: When I drew near to Jerusalem, to Visphagia and Bethany.... Comm. in Math. T. XVI. p. 743. 744. Cf. Comm. in Ioan. T.X.p. 168 et al. loc. Comm. in Math. T. XIV. pag. 634. 635. Comm. in Ioan. T.I.p. 17. Comm. ser. in Math. p. 881. Comm. in Math. T. XI. p. 502. Lib. II. conlr. Cels. pag. 386. Comm. in epist. ad Roman. Lib. II. p. 494. et comm. in Math. T.XV. p. 655. Philocal. cap. 1. Ibid. – Strom. Lib. X, ap. Hieronym. Lib. III, comm. in Galat. cap. V. Tom. I, opp. pag. 41. Philocal. cap. I. pag. 7. Probably, of course, borrowed from the Marcionites, or still surviving from previous, pagan beliefs. S. Cels. Lib. IV. r. 541. Homil. XI in Numer. p. 308. Cf. Epist. ad Gregor, p. 32. in Patr. With. With. T. XI. Vid. in Patr. Gr. With. With. T.XXIV. p. 529. Vid. in Patr. Graec. curs. compl. T. XXII. Epist. ex Quaest. Evangel. ad Marin. p. 938. De script, illustr. cap. 18. Cf. Comm. in Math. I, 16. Vid. in. Patr. Graec. T. XXII, pag. 880–1016 Patr. Graec. Curs. compl. T. XXII, p. 1278–99. The canons of Eusebius are also included in some editions of the New Testament in Greek, printed from the most ancient copies. One can see in these editions the very divisions of each Gospel, which served as the basis for the canons. According to this division, the Gospel of Matthew contains 355 sections, the Gospel of Mark - 236, the Gospel of Luke - 340, the Gospel of John - 232. The canons of Eusebius are also known to us from ancient copies of the Slavic translation of the Gospel. See Description of the Moscow Manuscripts. Synod. Libraries. Department I. p. 209.210. Epist. 62. ad Tranquill. Patrolog. With. With. T. XXII. r. 606.