Предмет и задача изучения Священного писания Нового завета

The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament studies the canonical monuments of the sacred New Testament writing 65. Here is a formula that is amazingly simple in its simplicity and at once gives all the predicates necessary for our purposes. First of all, these are “canonical” monuments; This means that their volume and composition have already been strictly established and do not allow any doubts, hesitations or testing studies. This sets a firm limit for us, and we are locked in advance into a certain framework, directly depriving ourselves of the right to somehow and ever leave them. If for a secular observer every line that appears in print is valuable, and every sheet of a newly opened charter claims his attention with equal right, then for us all this is completely uninteresting, because it should not take place. This, undoubtedly, binds our freedom, but it also gives a considerable advantage, since he always remains in uncertainty that he fully embraces his subject and understands it in its proper sense, since he is in danger that an unexpected accident will expand his horizon and suddenly shatter all his constructions and overthrow the venerable idols of theory. We are forever guaranteed against such fluctuations and instability, since we exclude all apocryphal writing and take only 27 books that are precisely known to us from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. But in any case, these are “literary” monuments, and here our task coincides with the goals of any historian of any literature. By saying this, we thereby free ourselves from the obligation to dwell on this point for a long time. We recall only the essential provisions developed by science on this issue. We, obviously, must present the literary history of the works under consideration, that is, after revealing the conditions and circumstances of the origin of New Testament writing in general, we should indicate the writer, the place and time of writing and find out the main idea, the distinctive character and meaning of this document, and from the side of the content - consciously assimilate it with such clarity, to such a degree and degree that not a single jot or feature remains dark. This view is considered a generally accepted axiom, but it requires some important limitations and justifications in our case. Every rule changes depending on its application to particular concrete facts - this principle should be obligatory for us as well. The ordinary history of literature, as we know, is always and certainly at the same time a criticism, subjecting its material to all kinds of operations in order to scientifically determine its qualities and merits. She acts here completely freely and manages completely independently, which is why the material itself is completely subordinate to the critical insight of the scientist, subjected to analysis that decomposes it. The author of the ancient monument is “X” for him, his originality is the sought-after value, quality and dignity - something that must be deduced after a strict assessment of ideas, when their relationship to previous literary development and to modern reality is carefully established, when it is precisely understood whether they are original and whether they bring something new, whether they deserve approval in terms of their significance, whether they correctly reproduce modernity and whether they give it true illumination and direction for the future. The basic principle of such a history of literature is “dubito” [I doubt] in the strictest sense, and the personal “cogito” [I think] is the necessary criterion by which the selected work is measured. Here the authorship of a well-known person of the document under study, its relationship and connection with previous homogeneous phenomena and its importance from the literary point of view and the quality of the content must be proven. The question is: is it possible for us to accept all these schemes in all their spontaneity and is this yardstick really suitable for our subject? A positive and categorical “yes” is the unanimous answer of exegetical science, which has filled the entire world and from which no corner of the universe can be hidden. We mean the learned West and predominantly Protestant in all its forms and with all its shades - orthodoxy, mystical pietism and rationalism, diverse in its ramifications. I believe that, to a greater or lesser extent, everyone is well aware of the state of Protestant exegesis since the end of the last century, and therefore I will only briefly note its features in the question of the subject of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. In general, it very accurately reflects the characteristic features of the secular history of literature, and criticism dominates in it as despotically as has never happened either in life or in science, where such a yoke would have long ago been overthrown in the most decisive manner. Therefore, every “learned exegete” considers it his indispensable duty to show his critical insight and, not agreeing with all his ancestors, to utter his own new word. Fathers and sons there are never in solidarity; the latter do not continue or develop the former, but destroy and deny them. And the result is a brilliant illustration of the absurd motto: “quot capita, tot sensus” [as many heads, so many minds]. What has been achieved by all the efforts of the “free mind” and the extreme tension of “unpreoccupied thought”? On the literary side, most of the works of New Testament writing turn out to be allegedly inauthentic, falsely bearing the names of persons familiar to us and, in terms of literary merit, far from perfect, often crudely compilative, a composition of different fragments stitched together with white thread. The conclusion is no less sad in relation to the content. All ideas seem to be borrowed from different places - from Judaism and philosophy: they seem to have grown on this soil and in their essence are entirely explained as a heritage of the past and its modification. The Savior Himself is only an ordinary rabbi, although He surpassed others in strength of spirit, breadth of outlook and freedom of views, since He renounced the national particularism of the Pharisees and rejected the extreme licentiousness of Sadducean rationalistic universalism. He is a simple reformer and in this capacity is subject to the judgment of posterity along with Buddha, Socrates, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and all other famous historical figures. Naturally, He, being only a bold reorganizer of the modern system, aroused fierce opposition from inveterate conservatives, short-sighted and short-sighted guardians of fatherly traditions, and with his “impolitical” insistence brought Himself to a bloody catastrophe - like Giordano Bruno or Galileo 66. It is also clear that His supporters looked at Him from different angles and gave different assessments of His activities in our Gospels. It is not surprising that they did not agree on the ideals He proclaimed - and therefore only after a long mutual struggle of opposing elements could they create a more or less strong and definite organization, as is depicted in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, from which it is supposedly clear that the Christian community grew and developed in the same way as all other sects of all times and all directions. But if so, then it should necessarily follow that the views themselves received different colors among individual bearers and exponents of the Christian principle and resulted in an established form only in a long and painful process of collision, smoothing, reconciliation and unification. We find this in the apostolic epistles, conciliar and Pauline, where all the moments and shades of gradual comprehension, “recognition” of Christian doctrine by various prominent members of the early Christian community are revealed. But Christ, with His heroic determination, mysterious speeches full of half-reproaches and half-hints, vague promises of unearthly, “unusual” glory and greatness, could easily inflame an ardent heart to dreamy enthusiasm and lead it to the fantastic illusions of a clairvoyant. The Apocalypse testifies to how this possibility was actually realized. Here, in brief words, is the general summary of Protestant exegesis, which is often expressed with all repulsive frankness and peremptoryness and always, even among the most moderate commentators, makes itself felt to a very sensitive degree. The extremes in its development clearly show that the formulation of the matter adopted there is incorrect, that the root of the evil is in the initial point of view itself. With her, all such abnormalities are natural; since in essence they cannot be tolerated, like any exclusivity and sharp one-sidedness, then it is obvious that this point of view itself must be rejected or changed. We know that for her the Holy Scripture of the New Testament is simply part of the history of ancient literature and all the requirements that are obligatory for the latter are attached to it. But if this were true, German exegesis would have developed something solid, unshakable and lasting scientific heritage - its right hand would know what its left was doing, and would not destroy today what was built yesterday. It is clear that some important point has been omitted here at the most basic and imprecise beginning, and that the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament are undoubtedly literature, but a very unique one, significantly different from all others. And the reason for this is that although written monuments are also subject to our consideration, they are sacred - this is literature, but no longer profana [profane], but sacra [sacred]. Therefore, it goes beyond the limits of our judgment and above human criticism, for it is the subject of reverent worship of people striving for the most correct understanding of it and the most complete and comprehensive assimilation. On this basis, the literary history of “such” writings is completely different, and the task of science, recognizing their divinely inspired origin, is to restore its [history. -Ed.] based on surviving news, in order to make the monuments themselves more accessible to human perception, accustomed to known requirements. As for the content, our task in this case is even narrower and more specific. We must only, to the extent possible, comprehend the thought of the sacred “writer,” approach it and grasp it in all its original purity, without introducing the slightest overtone on our part. With this position we gain firm support for clarifying our relationship to Protestant exegesis, which has seized a monopoly, and for establishing principles in carrying out our task. Protestant exegesis proceeds from a false and one-sided beginning, which is why its method and conclusions cannot be binding on us in the slightest degree. These scientists, in the words of the Apostle John, “went out from us, but were not ours” (1 John 2:19) - and their works have significance only insofar as they help achieve our goal. We wish to accurately understand the teaching and deeds of Christ the Savior and His apostles, but all this is known to us not directly, but through the written word in which it is contained. That is why all works that restore the original form of this word and its immediate meaning are important and valuable for us. So, mainly and sometimes exclusively in the philological-literary sense and in the study of the original text, Protestant commentators can be useful to us, when in the latter case they do not break a single step from historical facts and do not break or reinterpret them for the sake of their favorite trends. In all other respects, we must, following the commandment of the Savior, “leave the dead to bury their dead” (Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60), which they do with impeccable service when they bury all their ancestors every day, in order to be subjected to the same sad fate every other day. We will never understand each other and, with the best and most peaceful intentions, we will speak about the same thing in other languages, because our points of departure do not coincide and cannot coincide, since they lie on different planes. Therefore, we decisively eliminate from ourselves the systematic polemics that Russian exegesis once distinguished (and sometimes still differs from) and cede it to the share of practical-utilitarian science - apologetics; With us, this polemic is tolerable only for the consideration that, due to the special properties of the human mind, every quality becomes clearer when compared with its opposite, and that only thanks to the mistakes of others we gradually approach the truth, according to the ancient rule: “erroribus discimus” [we learn from mistakes]. This has nothing to do with the essence of the matter and does not reveal it, since the truth cannot become clear only because a lie is exposed. I will also say in the words of a modern Catholic exeget: what is the interest in tinkering with theories that were once expressed and now consigned to oblivion - those that are proclaimed today and will be destroyed tomorrow? 67 By rejecting Protestant exegetical principles, we will also avoid systematic polemics. We study the sacred books, the Word of God, and accept this as an axiom that requires neither justification nor explanation. It is clear that our criterion must be completely different compared to Protestant exegesis, and it is already given in this very definition. Holy Scripture is the Word of God and, as such, can only be understood by one who is born of God. “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, because he considers them foolishness; and cannot understand, because this must be judged spiritually” (1 Cor. 2:14). And this is completely natural. “Bodily eyes,” says the blessed one. Theodoret, - were created in order to be judges of appearance and colors, and when they are healthy, they judge correctly and very faithfully, but in a sick state they sin against their duty and in many ways violate justice, because they either do not see at all, or, seeing in one another, they do not discern the property of the visible correctly. The soul's vision, as it imparts to the bodily eyes the effectiveness we have said, so it received from the Creator another power, by which it not only distinguishes external appearance, color, smell, taste and other similar qualities, but judges words and thoughts, distinguishes the wicked from the pious, recognizes the difference between the divine and the human and, briefly, according to the word of the wise Solomon, understands the parable and the dark word, and the sayings of the wise and fortune-telling (Prov. 1, 6). But all this distinguishes when it is well-ordered and free from unbelief; when it is darkened by such a fog, the same thing happens to it as with the bodily eyes - and it sees one thing instead of the other or does not see at all, due to the overpowering passion” 68 . Thus, “those who examine (the Scriptures) need illumination from above in order to both find what they are looking for and preserve what they have found” 69 - they need purity of the spiritual eye to comprehend the gospel-apostolic history. Hence, the basic rule of interpretation of the sacred books in general and the New Testament in particular should be the recognition that what is communicated from God can only be revealed by God; the exegete comprehends only to the extent and strength that the Lord gives him, so knowledge of Scripture is actually a gift of the Trinity 70 . In these words of the famous church writer of the 5th century. a simple and reasonable rule has been expressed that for the correct comprehension of any subject, the corresponding strengths and abilities, some spiritual affinity are required, for a spiritual person does not accept even the Spirit of God, and only the spiritual one strives for everything. But now, in relation to our subject, the apostolic question arises again: who understands the mind of the Lord, who will explain it? - only we don’t have the courage to answer together with St. ap. Paul: we are the imams of Christ (1 Cor. 2:14-16). In such a hopeless situation, we can only turn to where it - this mind - is located, that is, to the Church in which Christ Himself lives and will, according to the promise, live until the end of the age. She - for that very reason - knows what she has accepted as sacred monuments of her faith and how they need to be understood so as not to move away from their immediate meaning and not to introduce something of her own. Therefore, if the Protestant West says: “Personal freedom and subjective criticism are greater than all and exclusively,” then we, coming from the essence of the matter, must say: “The voice of the universal Church and the authority of church patristic tradition are greater and higher than all.” If our subject deals with sacred literary monuments, then they must be understood in this quality; we cannot apply the principle of ordinary literary criticism to them everywhere, not always, and not to the full extent. And they received such a character through the authority of the Church; This means that we must look for the key to their true understanding in it. Reducing everything stated above to unity, we get the following as a result. The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament studies the literary canonical monuments of the sacred New Testament writing. From this side - partly and in an improper sense - our subject can be called “the history of sacred New Testament writing,” but with the indispensable and obligatory limitation that its only essential goal is to accurately clarify its content and make the latter accessible to rational perception; criticism in it is inappropriate, and the historical research itself has a service-additional significance, accordingly and in accordance with the main task, because the monuments in question are sacred. Therefore, the first question in relation to it [the subject being studied. -Ed.] – what is the sacredness of these writings; from here we get an introductory propaedeutic section devoted to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures, with their respective divisions into the two periods—Old and New Testament—and showing their mutual relations. Then: these are canonical monuments and their scope is established once and for all. We are subject to only 27 specific books, and only to them should our attention be directed. The question arises: when, how and why exactly such a composition was formed; and this is answered by the history of the canon, which follows the gradual formation of this collection and determines the principles by which it was given a sacred character. Here we have “verbs of the eternal life,” but they reach us only through the medium of the word and, therefore, can only be learned when it reproduces them correctly. So the task arises before us - to establish the sacred text on the basis of manuscripts, translations, and printed publications. This is the history of the text and the Bible in general. But, as sacred writing, New Testament literature does not fit the usual standard of secular literary criticism; it is understandable only where it occurred [i.e. e. in the Church. -Ed.], – and here are ways to understand it correctly. Now we have a new section - the history of exegesis, mainly patristic, with the aim of accurately determining the principles of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures. In addition, a review of further interpretative and scientific works can be added in order to protect with this critical study the only significance of Orthodox Church exegesis and to eliminate in advance rationalist-Protestant methodological methods and the like, as not corresponding to the essence of the subject. All these parts constitute one section of a general introduction to the sacred New Testament books, preparing for a detailed examination of each separately, and the literary history of all works should be restored according to the usual method and with the usual headings (division of books, their name, “writer”, time, place, purpose of writing, authenticity). This introduction is private. Only now follows an explanation of each work on the basis of paternal interpretations and with the aid of all the scientific means necessary for such work: of these, we can note the most particular divisions of a) sacred philology and β) Evangelical and Apostolic chronology, which must precede the interpretation itself (a - follows II as an addition 71; β - breaks down into two paragraphs, of which one precedes the exegesis of the “Gospel”, the other is “Apostle”). Regarding these sections, the following remarks will suffice. The historical-literary method, applied in its entirety and in its true meaning, aims to illuminate the New Testament writings from the historical side so that both their historical dignity and their divine content are clearly visible. Therefore, all those auxiliary aids that contribute to a more accurate and detailed historical understanding of the Holy Scriptures are important here. New Testament books. This includes, first of all, 1) works on the “history of New Testament times” by prof. A. Hausrata, prof. Emil Schürer and Prof. Oscar Holtzman 72. In these works, from different angles, a sufficient understanding is given regarding the external historical situation of New Testament events. More special attention deserves 2) geography (Raumer, Neubauer, Robinson, Smith - for Palestine in general and the atlases of Kiepert and Rees, as well as the work of Ramsey - for Asia Minor 73) and 3) chronology: a) in the sense of synopsis and β) relative (Ideler, Clinton, Levin, Wieseler 74). Through all these and similar aids, we will come to the New Testament writings as literary monuments in which we must find the closest and most immediate meaning. This is a strictly philological task, and to complete it a certain understanding of the New Testament Greek language is necessary. What is it? The original dialectical differences began to be smoothed out already by the era of the political dominance of Attica, and, in fact, after the dominance of the Macedonian dynasty, the common Greek literary language began. The two main dialectical types (Eolodoric and Ionoattic) are gradually moving closer together until the Attic dialect gains dominance. The latter, having suffered a lot in its individuality and original purity, becomes the language of literature and the exponent of the Greek spirit, which is why it becomes the most important in all Greek tribes, receiving the meaning and dignity of ἡ κοινὴ or Ἑ λληνικὴ διάλεκτος [universal dialect, Greek speech] (from Aristotle). In this form, it was spread in the world of that time by Alexander the Great and in its further historical course it perceives the influence of new elements affecting its lexical composition and grammatical organization. But it turns out to be the language of divine revelation only through the translation of the seventy (in Alexandria, from Ptolemy Philadelphus to Ptolemy III Euergetes, between 285-221 BC), where it is significantly Hebraized, although it does not break the closest ties with the literary accepted speech of its time. In this form, it had a strong impact on the New Testament writers, but, of course, was not their exclusive source, if only because they must assume an independent knowledge of the Greek language. From this side, the New Testament language is a purely historical phenomenon in the life of the Greek language in general, but one cannot (together with Deisman) decisively deny that it can also be considered special, strictly New Testament, different even from the seventy [i.e. e. from the Septuagint. -Ed.], since he a) materially transforms the concepts themselves and b) uses his own grammatical combinations to express them. Therefore, for example, contrary to Deisman, who sees only purely epistolographic works in Pavlov’s epistles, 75 Johannes Weiss, not without right, constructs even the rhetoric of St. ap. Pavel. The most important manuals for 4) sacred New Testament philology: a) grammatical Wiener-Schmiedel and F. Blass, β) lexicological Grimm (and English, trans. Thayer), γ) lexical-subject G. Kremer and synonyms of Tittmann and Trench, and for comparative clarification of concepts useful δ) concordances א) to seventy Hatch-Redpath; for the New Testament ב ) Greek Bruder, U F. Multon and A. S. Geden and ג ) for Slavic P. A. Hiltebrandt 76 . For further details see Deisman-Glubokovsky 77 . With the indicated means, we achieve the closest historical and grammatical understanding of the New Testament writings, but they require further penetration into the content for the mere fact that they are sacred. This means that they are divinely inspired, infallible and obligatory. And since “every man is a lie” (Rom. 3:4), it follows that here we have the Word of God in the strictest sense. In this respect, the New Testament writings are placed on a par with the Old Testament ones already in 2 Pet. 3, 15–16, where the author mentions that the ignorant transform the epistles of Paul, like other scriptures. And about the Old Testament it is said that π ᾶ σα γραφὴ θε ό πνευστος [all Scripture is inspired by God] (2 Tim. 3:16). It is clear that the material comes entirely from God and does not depend on the original creativity of man, no less than in οἱ ὄνεροι o ἱ θεόπνευστοι [divinely inspired dreams] 78 . In this case, there cannot be unlimited arbitrariness in form. On the contrary, ap. Peter testifies: “Every prophecy in a book does not exist according to its own telling. It was not by the will of man that prophecy came into being, but by the Holy Spirit, the holy men of God were enlightened” (2 Pet. 1:20-21 ). This clearly expresses that even with the external discovery of inspired content, the guidance of the Spirit of God invariably accompanies it, which is why the form always corresponds to its object and brings it intact to the consciousness of those who perceive. But the very concept of leadership certifies that in this case there is no absolute dependence and each sacred author appears as a “scribal scribbler’s reed” in the hands of God only as a suitable executor of the inspiring will. For these reasons, inspirationem litteralem [inspiration at the level of writing] should not be allowed. On the contrary, all sacred writers sufficiently retain their individual typicality and, trying to establish divine truths in the minds and hearts of readers, naturally adapt to the usual means of assimilation. This is the human element, inevitable in God’s providence for man. Here space opens up for scientific testing and here important perplexities are resolved. For example, regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews - without diminishing its canonical dignity - the ancients could have thought that in it only τὰ νοήματα [thoughts] belonged to St. ap. Paul, and according to τὴν φράσιν καὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν [expressions and composition] it comes from his student; we, based on our attention to the gradual formulation of Pavlov’s dogmatic language, decide with no less right to assert that from this side this scripture does not contradict the recognition of him for the work of the apostle of languages ​​79 . The presented considerations require and explain that not only individual sacred writers, but even one at different times and under different conditions, could concentrate on different aspects of the subject, especially put forward and illuminate particular points, outline them in new combinations, etc. From here, different types of dogmatic revelation of truth are obtained, which should be composed of their totality. The study of the New Testament writings from this side is the task of biblical theology. It takes a certain range of ideas and tries to trace their formation and correlation in all stages and in all forms. As a result, a clear understanding of the origin of these ideas is given in the sense that they either arose naturally from the elements of the existing worldview 80, or they require something higher. Then, in the future, it will be revealed whether there is an internal material connection between the individual types or whether they are disparate and therefore some of them are exposed in their human randomness as external and unrelated borrowings, individual deviations due to lack of insight and logical rigor, etc. Tested in this way, all the particulars will naturally and scientifically compulsorily be combined into a holistic image of a single dogmatic truth, revealed to us by the divinely enlightened thought of the sacred writers. In this form, biblical theology, serving for the historical clarification and protection of Christian teaching, is a necessary and productive preparation for dogmatic generalizations and, in simply literary monuments, shows us divinely inspired writings. Now you just need to establish their true appearance in terms of content and volume. The history of the text answers the necessary question, the importance of which is clear to us already because no news has survived to us that any of the historical witnesses saw the sacred autographs 81. For this reason, we must give our reconstruction, possibly reliable, for which we must show a) how and to what extent damage is permissible; b) how much remediation material is available and c) what remediation methods are most reliable. The answer to the first point is sufficiently outlined by the conditions of ancient scripture 82. Regarding his material, Pliny says: “antea non fuisse chartarum usum: in palmarum foliis primo scriptitatum, dein quarundam arborum libris” [papyrus was not used before; At first they used to write on palm leaves, later on the bark of some trees] 83. But in addition to tree leaves and tree bark (liber) - especially linden (φιλύρα, tilia) - they also used linen (liber vetus linteus [ancient linen book] 84), clay, walls (covered with writing, graffiti 85), stone tiles, rocks, metals: wine (μόλυβδος ), bronze, wooden tablets (σανίδες), mostly waxed 86, double, triple and more (δί -, τρί -, πολύπτυχα), found even in the 5th century. 87 Much more important is the papyrus from Cyperus papyrus, widely cultivated in the Egyptian delta, although it also grew in Syria, 88 on the Niger and Euphrates, 89 and is now found in Nubia and Abyssinia. In Greek it was called πάπυρος, but Herodotus constantly uses the term βίβλος. Papyrus made for writing purposes was called χάρτης, charta (cf. 2 Ezra 15:2; Tov. 7:14; 2 John 1:12 90). During the period of the empire it was in general use, so that its lack under Tiberius almost caused a popular rebellion. It was manufactured in Egypt, although, for example, charta Fanniana was probably a processing of imported 91. There were attempts to breed similar varieties of the plant later (in Sicily and the environs of Syracuse). Written papyrus was prepared (according to Pliny) in this way: the core of the trunk, using an acus [needle], was disassembled lengthwise into thin layers (philyrae), which were folded vertically into schedae [strips of papyrus]; across them was a layer of shorter plates intertwined (texitur) with the first. This is plagula, or crates. Adhesives were probably also used, with which several sheets (usually no more than twenty) were joined into a scroll - scapus 92. The first of them was marked by the Romans as coming largitionum [authorized dignitary] and factory-chronological dates and was called πρωτόκολλον 93, and the last - ἐσχατοκόλλιον. Width – 6, 9, 11 and even 14 inches. Various genera: charta hieratica (later Augusta), Livia (after Augusta’s wife), amphitheatritica, Fanniana, Saitica, Taeniotica, emporetica; Corneliana, Claudia and wide (about 18 inches) macrocollum 94 are also mentioned. Production began to decline after the Arab conquest of Egypt in 638 and ceased around the half of the 10th century. The oldest papyrus in Paris is no later than 2500 BC. 95 There is no doubt that many of the New Testament writings appeared originally on papyrus, but only a few fragments have survived to this day 96. In its widespread dominance among Christians lies the reason that we do not have copies of the New Testament earlier than the second quarter of the 4th century, for this material is very fragile 97 . More comfortable were leathers (διφθέραι), which were used in Egypt already under Cheops (IV dynasty); the oldest example in the British Museum from 2000 BC. Their special predominance is associated with the name of the Pergamon king Eumenes II (197 - 158 BC). He wanted to increase his library, but Ptolemy, out of envy, forbade the export of papyrus, so he had to turn to leather - διφθέραι, membranae (cf. 2 Tim. 4, 13: μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας [especially leather (books)]). In any case, Pergamon was the center of production; hence the name membrana (charta) Pergamena (first in the edict of Diocletian of 301 98). In Rome, parchment existed even during the republic, but did not gain complete dominance at the beginning of the empire and owes it most of all to the influence of the Christian church. Thus, Constantine the Great ordered “πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις” [fifty writings on leathers] 99, and they also replaced damaged copies in the Caesarea Pamphilus library 100. Parchment was made from the thin skins of young calves, sheep and goats, and the best (calf) was called vellum (ielin) 101. The oldest (from the 40th century - 40th century) is finer and purer, the later one is coarser. For example, א from the skins of antelopes, and only two leaves were produced from one skin, and N (codex purpureus) of the 6th century. so delicate that some mistook it for Egyptian papyrus. Sometimes the parchment was painted, usually purple: membrana purpurea 102, πορφυρ ᾶ δ ᾿ ἔκτοσθεν ἡ διφθέρα [skin, purple on the outside] (Lucian) 103, richly ornamented with various decorations and was even written in gold or silver (Jerome) 104. The strength of the material led to the appearance of codices rescripti, or παλίμψηστα [manuscripts written anew; palimpsests], although this term is first found in Catullus for papyrus 105. This method for Greek manuscripts is prohibited by the synodal definition of 691. 106 Samples: C, in Paris, containing fragments of the Old and New Testaments from the 5th century. under the later text of the Greek works of Ephraim the Syrian, and the codex Nitriensis in the British Museum with fragments of the Gospel of Luke in the 6th century. under the Syrian treatise of Severus of Antioch against Grammar, as well as the codex Syrus Lewisianus. The safest remedy is ammonium sulfur-hydrogen salt 107. The oldest form is a scroll (βίβλος liber, βιβλίον, volumen), a long ribbon (of papyrus or leather), at the end screwed onto a stick with heads or horns (ὀμφαλός with κεφαλὶς βιβλίου or umbilicus). Such bundles, covered with charta emporetica or leather on top (φαινόλης, φαιλόνης, paenula), were kept in special storage facilities (κίστη, κιβωτός, capsa, cista, forulus, nidus, puteus, scrinium), why does Xenophon mention books ἐν ξυλίνοις τεύχεσι [in wooden chests] 108. They wrote in columns (σελίς, σελίδιον, καταβατόν, pagina), the lines of which usually ran parallel along the length of the scroll. The reader unfolded it (ἐξειλεῖν, ἀνειλεῖν, ἀνελίσσειν, ἐλίσσειν, εἴλειν, εἰλεῖν, e-, re-volvere, explicare 109) with his right hand, and with his left he rolled up (plicare) what he had read. Therefore, “explicitus usque ad sua cornua” or “ad umbilicum” 110 read to the end, where the title was. This form was completely abandoned only in the Middle Ages. It is inconvenient for writing, because it was not always easy to fit the entire work on one scroll (μονόβιβλος, – ν), but divided into several (τεῦχος, πανδέκτης, pandectes, bibliotheca) into volumes ( τόμος), it was in danger of being fragmented; if there were two or three treatises on one, it was difficult to find them. To make it easier, a leather tag with an index of contents was attached to the scrolls folded in boxes (σίλλυβος, σίττυβος, πιττάκιον, γλῶσσα, γλωσσάριον, titulus, index), but even in this case, confusion was always possible. The use of leather, naturally, led to the development of a book format in imitation of the folds of waxed tables, from which the very name codex (caudex 111, first found in the African writer, poet Commodian (c. 250) 112 was transferred. It was used occasionally in antiquity (especially for legislative collections), but most of all it was patronized by the Church in terms of ease of use and compactness of biblical books. However, Here a stubborn struggle dragged on. According to the monuments of Christian art, the following emerges: 1) in the pre-Constantinian era (III century) a scroll always appears, and only in the image of arcosolium 113 in the Coemeterium Ostrianum is Christ with an unfolded codex in his right hand; 2) in the 4th century. the scroll predominates, which, without a doubt, was dominant in domestic use and in most churches - with the exception of a few, the most prominent and rich (for example, those of Constantinople); the codex is found infrequently (for example, four Gospel codes are depicted above the grave of the Christian Vitalia); 3) from the 5th century. a codex is put forward, and the transition to it is marked by a mosaic in the apse of St. Pudentians in Rome from the time of Pope Sirius (384–398), where Christ, seated on a throne among the apostles, holds an open book in his left hand; nevertheless, the scroll was not superseded even in the 6th century, judging by the Ravenna mosaics of St. Vitaliy (547), on which there are boxes with bundles at the feet of the evangelists, and according to the miniatures in the Gospel of Rabbi 586. 114 Codex most closely resembles our book and usually consists of not too large square quarters. Usually a notebook (τετράς, τετράδιον, quaternio) was made from four unfolded sheets (χαρτίον, φύλλον, folium), but there were three, five, six and even ten (cod. Vaticanus) 115 sheets - sometimes with notes on the bottom margin of the first (cod. Alexandrinus) 116 or last page. There are more two columns (A), but in B there are three, in א there are four. On papyrus they wrote with a cane (3 John 1, 13: κάλαμος; also canna), and on parchment they wrote with a stilus [pointed stick] made of metal or bone, as well as an acus [needle], which was used to mark the sheets (on one side) along columns and rows, but there could also be bird feathers. These details are important for the history of the text. The dimensions of the scroll greatly constrained the authors, and they often had to adapt to them 117. Hence, some explain, not without plausibility, the features of the third Gospel and the book of Acts, that a) in them the ends are presented in an extremely abbreviated manner and b) at the beginning of the second [i.e. e. the book of Acts. -Ed.] the story is conveyed in summary after the resurrection of Christ 118. The scrolls could not be joined together, hence the fragmentation of individual New Testament books and the instability in their order. Thus, for the Gospels from works of art we have the following combinations: 1) John-Mk.-Matt.-(Luke); 2) Luke-John-Mk.-Matthew; 3) Mark-Luke-Matthew-John; 4) Mark-Matt.-Luke-John; 5) Luke – John-Matt.-Mk.; 6) Matthew-John-Luke-Mark; 7) Matt.-Mk.-John-Lk; and by symbols: a) man-leo-taurus-eagle; b) (man-Taurus)-leo-eagle; c) Taurus-Leo-Eagle-Man and d) Taurus-Man-Leo-Eagle 119 . The Code contributed to the unification and ordering of the generally accepted church collection, which is why Tsang rightly notes that codification was at the same time canonization. Other writing materials are not so important for our subject. Cotton paper mixed with flax and hemp (charta bombycina), also called charta Damascena in the center of production, was manufactured from the 8th-9th centuries. and was introduced into Europe by the Moors and Arabs, and the rag (actually charta) has been known since 1242; however, they were rarely used for biblical manuscripts before the 13th century. and did not completely supplant parchment even around 1450 - at the time of the invention of printing. Paints for writing are different, in ancient times from cuttlefish (according to Pliny - with an admixture of soot and gum), later - ink nuts and metal ingredients, and in the Middle Ages - vitriol. The most common color is black ink (2 John 1, 12: μέλαν, atramentum), in early [manuscripts. -Ed.] either purely black or brownish. Other colors - red (μελάνιον κόκκινον, minium, rubrica), purple (κινάβαρις, vermilion, sacrum incaustum, in Byzantium only for the use of emperors), - silver, gold were used to decorate “capital” letters, marks of departments, etc. All these compositions are bad because they easily oxidized and, eating through the sheets, spoiled them irrevocably. In the nature of writing there were no less dangers for the safety of the letter. A distinction is made between majuscule and minuscule, or uncial (apparently from uncia inch) and italic. Their peculiarity is not so much in size as in their properties. In the first, the letters are more bookishly square, not connected in words that are not separated from each other (scriptio continua). The oldest example is the Rosetta Stone, found in Egypt in 1799, now in the British Museum, about the events of 196 BC during the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes; being a trilingual (hieroglyphs, demotic and Greek), he helped Jung and the Champollions a lot in deciphering hieroglyphs. In cursive or cursive writing, the letters are less carefully drawn and closely connected; They usually have punctuation too. For New Testament Greek manuscripts, the era of uncials is from the 4th to the 10th centuries. and even (in liturgical books) until the 11th century, italics have dominated since the 19th century. before printing: the earliest of them with a date is the Gospel of May 7, 835 from the collection of Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) in the St. Petersburg Public Library 120. Iota was first adscriptum [adscribed; written to the right of the vowel], falls out of use before the Christian era, does not appear to be found in B and א and generally disappears in uncial manuscripts, appears again in italic ones, and is then replaced by subscriptum [signature; written under a vowel] (from the 10th century). Breathing and stress were not regularly used before the 7th century, although the “invention” of them and dots is attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, keeper of the famous Library of Alexandria under Ptolemy Euergetes, c. 240 BC. However, in ancient manuscripts, where they were not prima manu [(written) by the first hand], they were introduced later, but in A for the book of Genesis (in the top four red lines of both columns of the first page) 121, perhaps initially. The oldest sign is spiritus asper [thick aspiration] from ita ├, lenis [thin aspiration] ˧, however, even under Augustine (354–430) it was not easy to understand these marks. Even in the VIII-IX centuries. All accents are not placed regularly and not always correctly. Of the punctuations, the oldest is the dot (in א and В), usually in the middle of the height of the letters 122; different combinations – ::. (dot); :: (semicolon); question (;) from the 9th century, a comma later, and for a colon - a dot at the top 123. The apostrophe is ancient, but inappropriate and rare for elision. To designate numbers, the following were used: 1) the Greek system α) Herodian (named Grammar of Herodian) through the initial letters of the name (P 5, Δ 10, N 100, X 1000, M 10000) and β) ordinary (for 6 digamma in the forms ϝ, Y, ς, koppa Ϟ 90, sampi ϡ 900); 2) Roman, displaced; 3) Arabic, which is found in European manuscripts from the 12th century, and from the 14th century. becomes generally accepted. Abbreviations of words (abbreviations) and compendia scribendi [abbreviations of letters, combinations of letters] were often allowed. Capital letters themselves are found early, and their absence would be an indicator of extreme antiquity, but in biblical manuscripts they are present, sometimes placed outside the line and even in the middle of the word 124. The issue of stichometry is important for the text. The Greeks and Romans artificially measured their manuscripts by lines (ἔπος, then στίχος) of 15–16 syllables or 34–38 letters, and this could lead to incorrect divisions of the text 125 . As a result, we have: if the material of ancient writing led to the destruction or damage of manuscripts, then the method of writing it. -Ed.], being extremely difficult 126, inevitably caused all sorts of textual errors. True, the copyists themselves or the reviewers (ὁ διορθῶν, ὁ διορθωτής) tried to ensure correctness by checking (ἀντιβάλλειν, διορθοῦν) with the closest copy and other authoritative manuscripts, but there were few guarantees for the safety and accuracy of the text. This includes the distribution of the Gospels into small groups (already in B); κεφάλαια majora [large chapters] breves and τίτλοι (supposedly from Tatian); κεφάλαια minora [small chapters] (1165 in total) [compiled] by Ammonius of Alexandria (c. 220) - it seems for harmonistic purposes (for the synopsis of Mark, Luke, John with Matt.) 127 ; Euphalius of Alexandria (who lived before 396) and who wrote after Eusebius) to organize the Acts and Epistles made (about 350) a) ἀνακεφαλαίωσις τῶν ἀναγνώσεων [collection of readings], b) a table of Old Testament quotations and c) ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων [chapter outline], using preparatory materials 128; Andrew, Archbishop of Cappadocia (at the end of the 5th century), divided the Apocalypse into 24 λόγοι [words], of which each was divided into 3 more κεφάλαια [chapters]. All these operations were useful for ensuring the integrity of the text 129, but did not in any way guarantee its correctness, which is why textual criticism in the interests of restoring the most correct type 130 is the very first and main task of the science of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. The means for its implementation are primarily A) Greek manuscripts are unical and italic, and in them it is necessary to distinguish between prima manu readings [(written) by the first hand] and later proofs. Chronologically the first [i.e. e. uncials. -Ed.] are determined only by paleographic characteristics, secondly [italics. -Ed.] there are also dates. To understand the latter, you need to remember the calculation according to indicts at 15 years. Constantinople begins with September 1, 312, and to find it, 3 is added to the year taken, and the sum is divided by 15. The uncials are different [i.e. e. are designated. -Ed.] in capital letters 131, in italics - in numbers 132. The most important uncials: א – codex Sinaiticus [Codex Sinaiticus] IV40; – early 5th century. in the St. Petersburg Public Library 133. Part of it with Old Testament fragments (codex Friderico-Augustanus [Frideric-Augustinian Codex]) was discovered in the Sinai Monastery of St. Catherine K. Tischendorf in 1844 and published in 1846, the rest (including the letter of Barnabas and an excerpt from the Shepherd of Hermas) was discovered on February 4, 1859, then presented by the monks to Alexander II and, at his expense, published photographically in 1862, for the thousand-year anniversary of Russia 134. The entire New Testament A, codex Alexandrinus [Alexandrian Codex], presented in 1628 by Patriarch Cyril Lucaris to King Charles I of England and now in the British Museum; published autotypically in 1879–1883. 135 Mid or late 5th century, contains the entire New Testament (except folio 31) with the epistles of Clement of Rome. B – codex Vaticanus [Vatican Code] (No. 1209); 31†20 sheets are lost from the Old Testament, and the New Testament breaks off at Heb. 9, 14 (on the word καθα // ίρει). The latest photographic edition of 1889 (New Testament) and 1890 (Old Testament, in 3 volumes) 136. Some consider it almost the oldest, while others 137 find in it traces of the review of the Egyptian bishop and martyr Hesychius. C – codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus [codex of Ephraemi the Syrian; palimpsest] in the Paris National Library (No. 9) with a biblical text of the 5th century. (and of Egyptian origin?) under the 38 treatises of Ephraim the Syrian (d. 373) from the 12th century. Disassembled published by Tischendorf in 1843 and 1845. 138 D – codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis graeco-latinus [Greco-Latin Cambridge Codex Beza] of the early 6th century, donated in 1581 by a named friend of Calvin [i.e. e. Theodor Beza. -Ed.] Cambridge University. Published by Scrivener 139 . According to Scrivener-Miller's account, there are now 140 Greek manuscripts: Gospels – 73 (74?) (101) 141 Acts and conciliar messages – 19 (22) Pauline Epistles – 28 (27) Total: 127 (128) (156, and since some manuscripts are mentioned separately in each group, this figure should be lowered to 129) Acts and conciliar messages – 422 (450) Pauline Epistles – 497 (520) Apocalypses – 184 (194) Evangelistariev 142 – 980 (?) (1072 (?)) Total – 3829 [Counting 12 papyri, the total is from 4124 to 3221] 143 C) Translations are the second most important tool of textual criticism, since they are (often) older in origin compared to existing Greek manuscripts and are easily determined topographically. The most ancient ones are the following: 1. Syriac, rightly called "the king among biblical translations." It first became known and accessible to European science in the form α) Peshitto in the editio princeps [first edition] in Vienna 1555 (on some copies 1562), made by Chancellor Johann Albert Widmanstadt at the expense of King Ferdinand I and with the assistance of the Syrian Jacobite Moses of Mardin, legate of the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to the Pope Julius III (1550–1555). Of the later editions, J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (Leyden, 1708-1709, with a new title page of 1717) and Lee (1816), and the fullest is expected from G. H. Gwilliam 144 . β) In 1858, William Cureton released a new Syriac (fragmentary) text of the Gospels based on one of the manuscripts brought in 1842 from the Nitrian monastery of St. Our Lady by Archdeacon Thattam and received by the British Museum; in 1885 they were translated into Greek by F. Batten 145, γ) Two English sisters A. S. Lewis and M. D. Gibson in 1892 opened St. Catherine's Syrian palimpsest of the Gospels, deciphered in 1893 by prof. R. L. Bensly, F. S. Burkitt and J. Rendel Harris and published by them in 1894 with a preface by A. S. Lewis, who in 1896 issued a supplement with an English translation of the whole 146 . δ) In 819 era of Alexander (counted from 312 BC), or 508 AD, the chorebishop Polycarp made a new, [as] literal Syrian translation as possible from the Greek New Testament and Psalter for Xenaia (Philoxenus), bishop (488-518) 147 Mabuga (Greek Hierapolis, now Menbidsch on Euphrates). In 927–928 (616–617 AD), this edition was collated in Alexandria with two or three Greek manuscripts in the interests of scrupulous accuracy by Thomas of Harkel, or Heraclean, then [became] a Monophysite bishop. Mabugsky 148 why the entire translation is called Syrus Harklensis 149. ε) In 1861, Count Miniscalchi Erizzo published the Syrian Evangelium of the Vatican Library 1030 (Syrus Hierosolymitanus), verified by R. de Lagarde with the St. Petersburg manuscript 150; then two more manuscripts were found in Sinai, as well as fragments of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles. Some believe that this Syriac language, deviating from the usual one, is closest to the one in which Jesus Christ spoke with His disciples 151, ζ) Bargebreus (Bar-Evraia) mentions 152 a new Syriac translation of Carcafath (either in the sense of versio montana [mountain version], as used by the mountaineers, or from Carcuf - a city in Mesopotamia). The first manuscript was found in the Vatican by Cardinal Wiseman 153, and then others were found. It turned out that this is not actually a translation, but a kind of Syrian Masorah in order to preserve the best traditions of spelling and pronunciation of the most important and difficult passages of the Syrian Bible. There are two types - Nestorian and Jacobite. As we can see, the history of Syriac translation is long and complex. Unfortunately, not much is known from it. Local legend recognizes the beginning of this work by St. Thaddeus, who arrived in Edessa to see King Abgar Uhama (black) 154, in other news the names of Haggai and the Evangelist Mark are found. However, the first definite information is given only by Eusebius that Igisippus (c. 160–180) borrowed something from the Syrian Gospel 155, and around 170 Melito (to Gen. 22, 13) directly quotes ό Σύρος [Syriac] 156. The publication of the Diatessaron by Tatian, which has not survived in the original, dates back to the same time; The Latin edition has long been known, to which in 1888, thanks to the publication of Ciasca, was added the Arabic adaptation of Ibn al-Tabib (d. 1043) 157; more faithful echoes are thought to be found in the Armenian translation of the commentary of Ephraim the Syrian (ed. 1836, in Latin Aucher-Mösinger, 1876) 158 and in the Syrian homilies of Aphraates, who wrote between 337–345. This harmony was in use among the Syrians until the 5th century: Theodoret of Cyrrhus destroyed up to 200 copies in his diocese. 159, and Rabbi Rabbula of Edessa (412–435) ordered that “The Gospel divided and isolated” be read in churches (which note is found in the codex Lewisianus, as well as in the Curetonianus under Matt.). However, this attempt did not supplant the common Syriac church translation, which in 616 is called “ancient” by Thomas of Heracles and from the time of Bar-Gebreus (1226–1286) received the name Peshitto, or “simple”. In what relation do the main of these types stand to it is a difficult and unresolved question. Nowadays, many scientists are inclined to consider the text of Cureton or Lewis to be the oldest exponent, but, in our opinion, it has not yet been refuted in the slightest that the Peshitto tradition is older and more accurate, closer to the church, the general Syrian, and everything else is a variation 160. 2. Latin translation in two formations, α) Pre-Jeronimus, which existed, according to Augustine (354–430), from very ancient times. Previously, the prevailing belief was that he was of Italo-Roman origin (hence the Augustinian name Itala 161). But Cardinal Wiseman said that his homeland was Africa 162. Recently, this judgment has also been questioned, because African readings are not so topographically stable. Therefore, groups are now distinguished: א ) African (in Tertullian and Cyprian), ב ) European (probably independent of the first) and ג ) Italic, although Burkitt sees in Augustine’s Itala only Jerome’s revision of the Gospels 163, β) By the time of Jerome there was extreme diversity in Latin translations: tot sunt exemplaria rene, quot codices [almost as many samples as there are codices] 164, why in 382 Pope Damasus ordered him to make a thorough revision. By 384 Jerome had completed the Gospels, and by 385, it seems, the entire New Testament. This is not a new translation, but a systematic correction of the former according to the best Greek manuscripts. Jerome's edition, from the 13th century. (by Roger Bacon) known under the name "Vulgata", became widespread and in the fourth meeting of the Council of Trent, April 8, 1546, was declared editio authentica [authentic edition]. The first authorized edition (with the Constitutio aeternus ille of March 1, 1589 165) is the Sistine one (of Pope Sixtus V), the second, accepted to this day, is of Clement VIII with the Constitutio cum sacrorum of November 5, 1592 166, and the critical one for the Gospels is suggested in the “Oxford Vulgate” of Bishop. Wordsworth and White 167. 3. Egyptian translations: α) Bohairica (bohairica, not bahirica, as was pronounced before) in the dialect as spoken in Bohaira 168, by the sea, therefore in Lower Egypt, near Alexandria. Since this was the main dialect, which became the church language for the entire country, the translation itself was previously incorrectly called (Tischendorf and others) Coptic (not from the city of Koptos, but from the abbreviated Arabic pronunciation “E-gipt”). Others preferred the name “Memphite” (Lightfoot), but patriarchy only in the 11th century. transferred to the Memphis region, to Cairo, and in ancient times its own dialect dominated there 169, β) Saidic in the dialect of Upper Egypt (sometimes - and also not entirely accurately - called Thebaid). γ) Translations in the Middle Egyptian dialect, which coincides with the Bashmurian dialect, mentioned (along with two others) by the Coptic bishop Athanasius in the 11th century. Translations differ here: א ) Fayum - in the language of the region southwest of the delta in the oasis connected to the Nile valley by the Joseph Canal 170; ב) actually Middle Egyptian, or Lower Nasaid, - in the dialect in the area of ​​​​ancient Memphis; ג ) Akmin 171 – in the dialect in which the ancient Egyptian language in its oldest form is best preserved. All these translations have not been sufficiently studied and reconstructed from manuscripts (usually dated according to the “years of the martyrs” from August or September 284 BC), but they are very important for criticism of the text. The Bogair type known to us, some assimilate the activities of the Nitrian monks IV40;-V40; centuries, however, Christianity spread very early in the vicinity of Alexandria 172 and for a long time they demanded the translation of the New Testament into the local dialect, perhaps already in the 2nd century. 173 The peculiarity of this edition is that it reproduces the pure Greek text, free from Western additions, with strict literalness 174. Said's translation is much rougher than Bogair's, younger and contains many “Western” readings; there was also an apocalypse in it 175. Of the rest, Fayum and Akmin seem to represent the oldest tradition of Saidic translation, and Middle Egyptian is its variety 176. 4. The Gothic translation was made by the Cappadocian Ulphilas or Vulfilas (Wölflin; 310–380, other dates: 311, 313, 318–381, 383, 388), an Arian bishop who succeeded the first Gothic bishop Theophilus from 340. Having invented the alphabet for his people, who then settled in the Crimea, he gave a translation of the Old Testament according to the review of Lucian (d. 311), and Latin influence is noticeable in the New Testament 177. 5. The Ethiopian translation, according to the tradition of the Abyssinian church, according to Dillman, was completed earlier than the 5th century. from Greek, according to Guidi - at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century, according to Gildemeisterʼy - in the period from the 6th to the 7th centuries. and under the influence of the Syrian Monophysites, and in later times was corrected according to Arabic or “Coptic” texts 178. 6. The Berlin librarian La Croze places the Armenian translation above all others, but unclear traditions do not justify this opinion. According to some news, it was made by two disciples of Mesrob, who, upon returning from the Council of Ephesus, brought the Greek Bible from Constantinople; others assimilate it to St. Sahaku (390–428) around 406. These testimonies agree with the assumption that the first [translation] was made from Greek, the second from Syriac 179 . Of the manuscripts, the Etchmiadzin 989 has recently attracted special attention, where at the end of the Gospel of Mark there is a note “presbyter Ariston” 180. 7. Georgian translation V40;-V40;I v. directly from Greek (although Armenian writers trace it back to Mesrob), but, it seems, even before the 10th century. was audited. 8. There were Arabic translations in the pre-Muhhamedan era, but the oldest manuscript, the Sinai, was only in the 9th century. 9 . Slavic translation from the 9th century. through St. Cyril and Methodius. 10. Anglo-Saxon translation (Gospel) appears to be from southwest England from the last quarter of the 10th century. 11. The Frankish translation of the Gospel of Matthew, known from manuscripts of the 9th century, seems to be from Latin. 12. Persian translation: α) in Walton's polyglot 181 (according to a 14th century manuscript) from Peshitto and β) the latest (14th century?) from Greek. C) In many respects, quotations from church writers (and partly from pagan writers) are no less important, because they are often older than existing codices and represent a convenient means for topographical and chronological orientation. This subject is particularly emphasized by J. W. Burgeon 182 . Based on these materials from the 16th century. experiments begin to restore the New Testament text. These are the following: Complutence (Complutum, now Alcalá de Henares, - place of printing) polyglot under the leadership of Cardinal Francis Jimenez de Cisneros (1437-1517), Archbishop of Toledo and Regent of Castile (1506-1517), and with the main participation of Jacob Lopez de Stunic. The New Testament (in the fifth volume) was printed as early as January 10, 1514, but the entire edition, published in 600 copies, was authorized by Pope Leo X only on March 22, 1520 183, and parts of it became known to Erasmus no earlier than 1522. Editions of the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1469–1536) 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535, Aldine in Venice 1518 and Paris Colineum 1534, Stephen's (Robert Estienne, 1503–1559) 1546, 1549, 1550 (this is the textus receptus in England) and 1551, ten of Theodor Beza (1519–1605) and the Leiden printers brothers Bonaventure and Abram Elzevir of 1624 and 1633. (European textus receptus) 184. The polyglot editions of Antwerp (volumes 5–6, 1571), Paris (volume 5, parts 1–2, 1630–1633) and London (volume 5, 1657) by Briand Valiton (1600–1661), later bishop, are more critical. Chestersky; [editions] of the Arminian Stephen Courcelles (de Courcelles, 1586–1659) in Antwerp 1658, Oxford 1675 John Fell (1625–1686), another in the same place 1707 John Mill (1645–1707), Ludolf Küster 1710, Gerhard 1711, Bengel (1687–1752) 1734, Wettstein (1693–1754) 1751–1752, Matthaei (1744–1811) 1782–1788 and 1803–1807, Altera 1786–1787, Birha 1788, 1798, 1801 185 But the actual critical development of the New Testament text was initiated by the Gallic prof. John Jacob Griesbach (1745–1812), who edited two editions 1774–1777. and 1796–1807 186 Adhering to the views of Bengel and his teacher Zemler, he was the first to express and scientifically substantiate the critical methods of textual reconstruction. All material was first divided into 5-6 names 187, but then reduced to three groups of reviews: Alexandrian (in Origen, in A B C L and the Egyptian translation), Western (in D, Old Latin, Vulgate, in the Latin Fathers) and Byzantine (19-20 minuscules and almost all other authorities). The first and, by agreement with her, the second were decisive for him, and the third was completely eliminated. This theory met with fierce opposition from Mattei, but found support in the person of the Roman Catholic dean of theology at the University of Bonn, John Martin Augustin Scholz (1794–1852), who published the New Testament in 1830–1836. 188 Having initially accepted 5 types, he then combined both main Griesbach reviews and formed two, Alexandrian and Constantinople, and ranked the latter higher due to the internal superiority of its readings and the ecclesiastical authority of the text. The Berlin professor and famous philologist Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) went even further, especially in the edition of 1842–1850. 189 He tried to restore the text of the 4th century. (c. 380) solely based on documentary data, without paying attention to the meaning. His main principle was antiquity, the evidence of which he divided into 6 classes, giving primacy to the majority of consonant votes from members of different categories. Naturally, he had to throw most of the material overboard and, for example, in Matt. 6, 20 - Matt. 8, 5 and 165 verses (out of 405) of the Apocalypse is limited to only one list. The tireless researcher and happy discoverer Konstantin Tischendorf (01/18/1815–12/07/1874) is known for eight editions of the New Testament (1840, 1842, 1843, 1849, 1855, 1858, 1859, 1865–1872); of these the latter is accompanied by a third volume, in three parts, containing the Prolegomena [introduction] of Abbott and Gregory 190 . But he had no critical compass - except for admiration for the authority of antiquity, either the Vatican Codex or the Codex Sinaiticus, why, for the sake of the second, in the eighth edition he deviates from the seventh in no less than 3572 places and in 595 returns to the fourth [edition] of 1849. English Quaker Samuel Prideaux Trigelis 191 (01/30/1813–04/24/1875) its edition 1857–1872. with Appendix [appendix] Horta 192 builds exclusively from ancient authorities [from ancient witnesses] in the spirit of Lachman on the basis of uncial manuscripts. The completion of all works is the publication of 1881 by Cambridge professors Brooke Foss Westcott (born 01/12/1825, now Bishop of Durham 193 ) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (04/23/1828–11/30/1892) with an “Introduction and Appendix” [introduction and appendix], written in Hort's hand 194 . Some of the more recent works include the works of Prof. B. Weiss 195, who devoted the rest of his life to a critical revision of the available material, and a new edition is being undertaken by the Berlin professor von Soden 196. From the presented brief overview it is clear that two fundamental thoughts dominate critical works on the restoration of the Greek New Testament text; these are 1) the classification of manuscripts by reviews and 2) the predominant importance of uncials. With their help, science hopes to get out of the helpless situation into which the abundance of options puts it - according to Mill at 30 thousand, according to Scrivener up to 120 thousand and according to Schaff about 150 thousand, and according to Hort about 1/8 of the text turns out to be controversial 197 - and “we live on a volcano, from which we are separated by a not very thick layer of earth” 198. From this side, the merit of these principles is undoubted, but their actual importance requires special assessment. The theory of review reached its highest and best conclusion in the Westcott-Hort system. Their views can be formulated in the following points: a) All manuscripts fall into two classes - revised (majority) and unrevised (minority) manuscripts, of which the latter should be preferred. b) A careful examination of the text leads to a further division into three groups: α) the smallest of B, א, L, the few italics (33 Gospels, 61 Acts) and the Memphis (Bogairian) and Thebaid (Said) translations, β) the largest of D, the Old Latin and Old Syriac translations, [minuscules] 13, 69; [total] 81 Gospels, 180 Acts and 39 evangelarii and γ) the most extensive of A, C, later uncials, the entire mass of italics and other translations, c) Their closest relationship is clarified by the so-called “summary readings”. For example, in Lk. 24, 53 in א В С L, Memphis, Syriac “blessing God”; in D and other Latin "glorifying God"; and in A, twelve uncials, italics, Vulgate, and other translations, “glorifying and blessing God,” as a combination of the first two. Obviously, the consolidated texts are later. But d) they are found among the Antiochene-Syrian patriotic authorities and, therefore, represent the “Syrian” type. Since they are not found among writers until the half of the 3rd century. (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian), then it must be assumed that at the end of the 3rd century. a grandiose ecclesiastical revision was carried out in or near Antioch, giving us the Syriac text, which gained wide ascendancy through Constantinople. Despite all this, due to the renovation, it does not deserve trust, which is why the largest percentage of manuscripts (mainly church ones) fall out of the critical apparatus, f) Another group, according to the place of its dominance, is designated by the term “Western”. It is distinguished by additions, free distribution, which refer us to that era when they cared not so much about accuracy as about edification. Its homeland was, of course, the east and most likely Asia Minor, because the operations noted were unthinkable either in Antioch or in Alexandria. At its core, the “Western readings” are older than the “Syriac” ones, but additional layers in most cases must be completely eliminated. f) Quotes from the Alexandrian fathers (Clement, Origen, etc.) and the “Memphite” translation, not coinciding with the two previous types, are an echo of the “Alexandrian” text, which is distinguished by its predominantly puristic correctness of style. There is less material damage here, but there is no strictly accurate and original integrity either. g) The manuscripts left aside from these manipulations contain “neutral” text, untouched by later proofreads. Initially it belonged to the whole Christian East and lasted longest in Alexandria; its best example is in the Vatican Code (B) and partly in א. This type will be the New Testament original for us, the only authoritative one, because it is impossible to dream of an authentic apostolic text. The conclusion would be indisputable given the certainty of the premises, but they raise great bewilderments. Westcott-Hort in their classification rightly put forward the task of finding genetic continuity in handwritten textual tradition, but they hardly successfully achieve their goal, since their formulated groups are not mutually derived from each other, but are completely isolated for various hypothetical reasons. The genetic chain is seen with clarity only in manuscripts of the “Sir” type and directly speaks in its favor, forcing us to assume the continuity of the textual flow in the earlier ones. The conjecture about a grandiose church-textual revision in Antioch is not in the slightest degree supported by documents; Likewise, the relationship with other groups does not indicate it, if only because the “Sir” text cannot be derived from them 199 . Therefore α ) it is impossible to artificially eliminate textual material, but it is necessary to take it in its entirety and β ) subject it to genealogical interpretation in order to reach the original source through consistent ascent. What should guide us in these operations? - the generally accepted answer to this question categorically states that the truest scale is the antiquity of the manuscripts, guaranteed by the uncial character of the letter. This thesis is no less doubtful, as see N. Glubokovsky in his study of the Greek Evangelical 200. The meaning of the history of the canon and its overview for the apostolic period The New Testament canon, in the technical sense, is a collection of New Testament writings of a strictly defined composition and authoritative binding nature. From this side, he apparently completely excludes any further (even historical) research and, in any case, reduces it to a very low level of simple curiosity, devoid of objective value and sometimes downright dangerous. However, the facts tell us something different. First of all, there is no doubt that most of the New Testament writings had a private purpose and therefore did not have the general church authority of canonicity, so that the very word κανών [canon] was first applied to them to indicate the official church catalog only around the middle of the 4th century. 201 It is clear that in the history of canonization we must find an answer regarding the reasons and grounds for this expansion of the authority of the New Testament writings. And this is required all the more so since genuine apostolic works were exposed to the natural danger of loss and damage and could be supplanted or replaced by forged ones that appeared from a very early time. At this point, historical research turns out to be a most necessary task for science and faith, which equally strive to penetrate into all the details of the critical work of the Church in order to secure for themselves the true word of life. Canonization is a process that reached completion no earlier than VI in 202, and we will not rationally understand the final result unless we trace all the intermediary links. Among them, the apostolic age was the first and to some extent fundamental. What does he testify to us on the subject under consideration? Turning to the New Testament books themselves, we come across a note that St. Paul instructs his disciple Timothy to take the books left in Troas - in the faithful hands of Carp - books, especially leather ones (2 Tim. 4:13). What kind of works these were, we, of course, do not know; but in any case, undoubtedly from here, as then, at the beginning of the Christian era, such things were valued. If so, then it should naturally follow from this fact that Christians had to observe the more diligently and the more carefully preserve the written apostolic monuments (ἀπομνημονεύματα [memoirs] of St. Justin 203) of the works and teachings of Christ the Savior and the instructions of His disciples: on this, after all, their faith rested, this was what determined everything they being. And we see, indeed, that at the very emergence of the Holy. writing - all such experiments found a fairly rapid spread and considerable fame, even if they did not differ in the necessary qualities of literary processing and historical accuracy. The Evangelist Luke already had at hand the narrative attempts of many on the gospel history (Lk. 1, 1–4), which, therefore, got the move, despite all their shortcomings, which, among other things, prompted Pavlov’s companion to take up the work. It is hardly necessary to prove how to an immeasurably greater extent the apostolic writings themselves were ensured of such success (so to speak), how carefully they had to be preserved and how diligently collected together - both for private personal edification and for public and church use. In addition to theoretical considerations, in support of this idea we can also refer to direct historical information in this sense. In conclusion of his instructions to the Colossians, St. Paul commands them: “When this epistle has been read among you, then cause it to be read also in the Laodicean church; and that which is from Laodicea, read ye also” (Col. 4:16). It is clear that - both according to the commandment of the apostles and the natural need to have a written “model of sound words” - the distribution and collection of sacred works in the Church of Christ had to begin very early - immediately as they themselves came into being. This natural consideration is supported by the exact testimony of St. Petra. Warning readers against false teachers who abused the fact of the “slowness” of the revelation of the kingdom of glory, he continues: “And count the longsuffering of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, just as he speaks about this in all his epistles” (2 Pet. 3, 15–16: καθ ὼ ς καὶ ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν , ὡ ς καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς λάλῶν ἐν αὐταῖς περὶ τούτων ). Thus, already in the 60-70s of the first century there was a considerable collection of Paul’s letters, and, moreover, from a person for whom they were never intended. Then it should be mentioned that those who distorted Paul’s epistles acted in this case according to their characteristic custom: in the same way, says St. ap. Peter, they turn other scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16: ὡ ς καὶ τὰς λοιπάς γραφάς). Two conclusions follow from this note. First: ap. Peter - in addition to what is undoubtedly understood in the epistles of Paul (Eph., Col., Gal., Thess., 1 Tim.) - was also aware of his other works, which are approved along with those. Second - and more probable: λοιπαὶ γραφαί [other scriptures] are meant to mean the Old Testament books, for this is the terminus technicus [terminological definition] when quoting them (1 Pet. 2:6: “it is written in the Scriptures”, ἐν γραφ ῇ, - and further cited Isa. 28:16), and Paul's writings are compared to them in their dignity, placed alongside them as equivalent to them. This fact, it seems, has not yet received due attention, but it has a value of immeasurable importance, showing us that already in such an early era the monuments of New Testament literature were not only united, but immediately - according to the most indisputable judgment - received a canonical-sacred character, on a par with the Old Testament inspired Word of God; if the latter is from the Spirit, then both are the fruit of wisdom given from above, and not simple samples of a weak human pen. The conclusion from these comparisons is absolutely clear: the collection of apostolic works dates back to the very first times of Christianity and increased as they multiplied, when their “writers” and other authorities were alive who could verify the authenticity of known writings or irrefutably testify to their falsification. Under such circumstances, it was absolutely unthinkable that the name of the apostles would be accepted by the Church for counterfeits, literary forgeries, or the actual apostolic works would remain in oblivion. To put it briefly: the books recognized at that time were undoubtedly authentic. Many other observations convince us of this - and, first of all, the fact that this meeting was not conducted by chance, but with strict critical analysis, and everything that was counterfeit was eliminated by itself and as a result one reliable thing was obtained. The reason for such caution was given by the early appearance of various false teachings and false teachers and their desire to introduce their heretical views into Christian communities under the guise of their title of apostles. But it is clear without reasoning that the more energetic the activity of such scribblers, the more vigilant Christians should have become, according to the apostolic commandment: keep everything that tempts, keep what is good (1 Thess. 5:21). In turn, the apostles, of course, could not leave believers without sufficient instructions on how to distinguish truth from lies, if they wanted them not to deviate into another gospel (Gal. 1:6), and this latter is an undeniable fact of the entire apostolic history. Therefore, when any confusion arose about the works of one student, the other immediately hastened to dispel it. Let us now turn to St. ap. Petru. Having heard that some ignorant and unconvinced people began to turn Paul’s epistles to their own destruction, for there was something difficult to understand in them (2 Pet. 3:16), he immediately protects their dignity with his approving and decisive word as the fruit of the wisdom given to his great brother (2 Pet. 3:15). Likewise, Paul himself was aware of the dishonest abuse of his literary name in the form of “an epistle as if sent by him,” and he categorically warns the Thessalonians: let no one deceive you according to any image (2 Thess. 2:2-3). Not only that: he once and for all indicates the correct criterion for the authenticity of his letters: “Greetings with my Pauline hand,” he writes at the end, “which serves as a sign in every letter: I write like this: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" (2 Thess. 3:17-18). Of course, even this did not completely eliminate the possibility of literary counterfeits, since there was no guarantee that heretics would not maliciously use this instruction to exalt their literary works - and the apostles clearly foresaw such an eventuality. Yes, St. ap. John, who devoted so much work to the fight against the false teachers of Asia Minor, persistently commands: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but tempt the spirits if they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world. But how can this be achieved? Of this, says the apostle, know the spirit of God and the spirit of deceit: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ in the flesh is from God. And every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh is not from God: and this one is the Antichrist, who you have heard is coming and is now already in the world (1 John 4:1-3). This provided a solid basis for distinguishing true from false not only for the present, but also for the future - for all future times. And if so, then we must also assume the same attentiveness and prudence in collecting, preserving and evaluating the apostolic works, examples of which we gave above. The general result of all that has been said will be the following: a) the apostolic writings began to be united at their very appearance, and therefore they could not get lost; β) this work was carried out during the life of the priest. writers and in front of the other apostles; therefore, something counterfeit could not be accepted. Finally, γ) when compiling the code of sacred monuments of New Testament writing, strict caution was observed and a careful separation of the authentic from the counterfeit was made, so that no base falsification could slip into the canon. The collectors acted with appropriate criticality and were guided by strong principles of undeniable validity. And if we can be, or rather will be, embarrassed by the indication of the early appearance of heretical works with titles that do not belong to them, then all the more unshakable confidence in the dignity of the New Testament canon should instill in us critical care in its formation. We know that there was a forged letter of Paul to the Thessalonians, this is a fact, but it is equally true that it was soon debunked and consigned to oblivion and we have only real letters from the Apostle of Languages ​​to the Thessalonian community: this is no less certain. This means that the collectors were not deceived by the false stamp and were able to recognize the treacherous hand of the forger. This was the case in one case - the same must be assumed in all others, for we do not have the slightest evidence of a contrary nature. The apostolic works could not be lost, and the forged ones could not acquire their authority, because the Church collected the first ones from the very moment of their appearance and was systematically guided by solid objective criteria: this is the scientific result of the data that has been preserved to us from the first Christian generation. But maybe in the Church itself the apostolic writings underwent some changes and came to us not in their original form, but with distortions, additions and deletions? Such a “posse” [zl.: “maybe”] is a vain questioning of an idle mind and is intolerable when it comes to historical phenomena, where facts are required first of all, and in the case under consideration there are none. If a well-known Christian society accepted this work out of reverent respect for the written apostolic word and kept it as a sacred rule of faith and life, then for the same reason it should have refrained from any attempt on its content in any respect and from any side. The first is indisputable, and therefore the second is equally reliable. Otherwise, there was no need to accept the apostolic writings, since the Christians considered themselves competent to correct their mentors, based on the conviction of the imperfection of their teaching. Moreover, the priests themselves. writers warned against such attempts, and the Seer imposed a terrible oath protecting the inviolability of his “Revelation.” And I also testify,” he writes, “to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away anything from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the book of life and from the holy city and from what is written in this book (Rev. 22:18-19). Anyone who held the Apocalypse dear as the sacred testament of the Lord’s beloved disciple and as a mysterious foreshadowing of the future destinies of the Church of Christ, had to honor every letter of it and guard every line. In general, since the apostolic writings were precious to believers, they kept them with sacred attention. Thus, it is necessary to imagine the matter of collecting, authorizing and approbating the New Testament books, according to the undoubted information preserved in them, for the very first time of the emergence and spread of apostolic writing; it was no different, of course, in subsequent centuries, for the basic principles of this work, approved by the “secular witnesses and servants of the Word” 204, continued to have their binding force. This is natural and according to the general concept of the course and development of church life in the post-apostolic period, which was entirely based on the apostolic period; The history of the canon also convinces us of this. There is no need to go into all the details of this complex subject; for our purpose it is sufficient to reveal two thoughts: 1) the collection of the New Testament writings was carried out under the control of unquestionable authorities and 2) was conducted with no less strict legibility. The apostles, after their death, were replaced by companions and collaborators who were supposed to continue their work in exactly the same spirit and direction, and in particular to preserve the purity of the Gospel truth intact. The whole significance of these persons lay in the fact that they knew perfectly all the apostolic traditions and correctly understood their meaning. I pray you,” the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, “be like me, even as I am Christ: for this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who will remember my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach everywhere and in all the church (1 Cor. 4:16-17). Hence: if the apostles were a living image of Christ the Savior, then their disciples mediocrely reflected the Lord in word and deed; This means that their authority is equally unshakable. But this same thing inspires us that - both to fulfill their mission and to preserve their dignity - they themselves had to observe the apostolic norm and recommend it to others as an unconditionally binding rule. I begged you, - reminds St. ap. Paul to Timothy, “remain in Ephesus, and command some to teach nothing else: pay attention to fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:3-4). And this could only be achieved by strict agreement with the apostolic preaching. Abide, in them you have been taught ecu and the essence has been entrusted to you, you who know from whom you learned ecu (2 Tim. 3:14). Have the example of sound words; you heard them from me (2 Tim. 1:13). But after the death of the apostles, such a “model” could only be their written works, and therefore their successors had to collect them to strengthen themselves and to guide all believers. Of such persons, first of all, one should name Timothy, who was the most active collaborator of the Apostle of Languages ​​in all his exploits and whose name is inextricably linked with the literary activities of his teacher. The first is known to everyone; the second is also justified by the facts themselves. When St. ap. Paul was in Corinth, Timothy came to him from Thessalonica and, along with good testimonies, reported to the evangelist about alarming perplexities. And so the apostle sends written instructions and explanations to the Christians there, and at the head of them - along with himself and Silvanus (Silas) - he brings Timothy. Likewise, later, when the members of the same Thessalonian community demanded the revelation of the correct teaching about the second coming of Christ, at the beginning of this letter to them we again meet Timothy. The apostle bestowed such a great honor on only a few - and it is clear that the latter highly valued it and had to keep those works in which such flattering confidence and such significant respect from the teacher were expressed to them. In the same way, in the first letter to the Corinthians, St. ap. Paul points out in Timothy an equal worker (“and he does the work of the Lord, just as I do”) and commands them to watch over him, so that he may be with them without fear, and to conduct [him] in peace (1 Cor. 16:10-11), and the second he writes jointly both from himself and from Timothy. Warning the Romans about his desire to visit them, the apostle sends them greetings, again from Timothy, as his collaborator (Rom. 16:21). Soon Paul's wish was fulfilled - and, by order of Festus, he was sent in chains from Caesarea to the capital of the world. Here we again find Timothy with him, and his name is read in the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, and the “Jews” are deliberately conveyed the joyful news of the liberation of this “brother” (Heb. 13:23). Thus, Timothy was allowed by the apostle to closely participate in his literary activity and, naturally, had to treasure those monuments of it, where the glorious mentor showed him exceptional distinction. There can hardly be any doubt that he had faithful copies of these writings and kept them. Therefore, Timothy must have had at least nine Pauline epistles in his hands (two to the Thessalonians † two to Corinthians † to the Romans † to the Jews † to the Philippians † to the Colossians † to Philemon). To them it is necessary to add two more letters personally addressed to him and a letter to the Ephesians, which, of course, was known to him as the primate of the Church of Ephesus. Galatia lay not far from Ephesus and, probably, was not slow in sharing the apostolic writings with him, and the letter to Titus could easily have come here due to the similarity of its contents with the letters to Timothy. As a result, it turns out that in the center of Asia Minor a collection of all Paul’s works had to be compiled, and their authenticity was most firmly verified by the voice of the local bishop, who was the apostle’s constant assistant in his preaching and literary activities. Having begun here, this meeting continued here under the equally faithful control of the Apostle John, who, according to undoubted tradition, lived for a long time in Ephesus and died in this city 205. Irenaeus reports that our fourth Gospel was written there, and other news - Eusebius and Theodore of Mopsuestia 206 - indicate that its purpose, in addition to countering the heresy of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthus, was also the writer’s intention to confirm the truth of the synoptic narratives and fill them with personal memories - and this opinion is supported by sufficient scientific data. This means that, with the exception of Paul’s epistles, there were four Gospels in Ephesus. There is no need to prove that other works of the Apostle John were and preserved in this church. One apocalyptic letter was addressed to her (Rev. 2:1), and the first letter is inextricably linked with the Gospel, which is why it is sometimes considered even an introduction to it, while the other two were apparently sent to members of the Ephesian community and could easily have become known in it in the originals. All we have to do is take one step from here to a very plausible probability, and we have a whole canon of New Testament books. The Acts of the Apostles, as a second and additional work of Luke, naturally spread along with his Gospel, the epistles of James, Peter and Jude denounce the false teachings prevalent mainly in Asia Minor, the capital of which was Ephesus. Moreover, Petrovo’s first letter was addressed, among other things, to the newcomers of Asia, the second sanctioned the authority of Paul’s epistles and soon, of course, joined them, and Judino was in close relation to the latter and closely coincides with it in its content. From what has been said it is clear what importance for the canonization of the New Testament writings the involvement of St. John the Theologian, for it at once certifies both the integrity and authenticity of the constituent parts of the church collection of “apostolic memoirs.” In view of the extreme significance of this fact, it is worth noting the following. This idea was first expressed decisively and revealed with artistic solidity in Russia, 207 but it is now accepted by many Western scientists. Yes, Prof. V. Busse says: “It seems to me not incredible that the collection of the canon of the Gospels took place in the Johannine circles of Asia Minor and, perhaps, simultaneously with the publication of the Gospel of John (die Sammlung des Evangeliencanons in Johanneisch-kleinasiatischen Kreisen, - vielleicht zugleich mit der Veroffentlichung des Johannesevangeliums, - erfolgt ist); this is indicated by the only news (in Acta Timothei; ed. Usener) about this event” 208. Another authoritative specialist, prof. F. Godet, in his detailed research, categorically testifies to the inviolability of the formulated position for our Gospels 209, and from them there is only one step to all other New Testament writings. Then for the latter we receive an indisputable guarantee from the beloved disciple of Christ. But even if we do not recognize Ephesus as the place of the initial formation of our canon 210 and its completion is not attributed to such an early moment, the conclusion that even after the times of the apostles the collection of sacred monuments of New Testament writing was carried out under competent control will forever remain a solid scientific heritage: the names of Timothy and John, who undoubtedly took an active part in it, vouch for this. In view of this, there are no reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity, integrity and authenticity of this collection. And all this gives us firm confidence that in this work all the requirements of sound criticism were met. This idea follows naturally from the previous one and is justified by it, but for its complete thoroughness we will give a few more considerations. Considering the history of the canon of New Testament writings, we cannot help but notice the phenomenon that not all of them everywhere and immediately acquired equal recognition - and private churches hesitated for a long time regarding some books, although they were known to them. What does it mean? Where did this fluctuation come from? The only reason for this could be the desire of each Christian community to have only genuine apostolic writings, the dignity of which has been certified to the point of irresistibility - careful precautions not to include anything falsified. Therefore, if a given local church did not quickly recognize this or that message, then we should have all the more confidence in its testimony when it finally included it in its canon, because this could not have happened without completely indisputable and objectively unshakable grounds. To illustrate this, it is enough to point out a few familiar examples. Thus, Eusebius of Caesarea, a great authority of his time, writes: “One epistle of Peter, called the first, is recognized by all. The ancient presbyters cite it in their writings as beyond doubt. But the second epistle known by his name, according to the traditions that have reached us, was not accepted in the Testament, although many recognized it as useful and zealously read it along with other scriptures. Others rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, citing the Roman Church, which disputed that it was Paul’s” 211 . Likewise, the learned critic Origen notes about the same apostle: “ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν ( ἐπιστολὴν αυτοῦ ) · ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ (107)" [let us also accept the second (his epistle), although there are doubts about it] - and when listing John's epistles, the following reservation is made: "ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ( ἐπιστολήν )· ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶ γνησίους ε ἶ ναι ταύτας "[let's take, perhaps, both the second and third (messages), although not everyone considers them authentic] 212. It is easy to see now that when compiling the canon, critical prudence, a strict separation of the true from the impure, was always and steadily at work, even if for some time it was necessary to put the former along with the latter. All this will be clearer to us when we remember that the principle in determining authenticity was the testimony of those Christian societies that received these writings from the hands of the apostles themselves and could not be mistaken about their authenticity. “Do this,” advises Tertullian, resort to the apostolic churches, where the very pulpits of the apostles still stand in their places, where their authentic writings (authenticae litterae) are read. Is Achaia close to you? - you have Corinth. If you are close to Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can reach out to Asia, you have Ephesus. If you reach Italy, you have Rome” 213. “If it is true that it is more correct that before; t ό before that from the beginning; From the beginning, that from the apostles, it is equally true that it was handed down by the apostles, which is recognized as sacred in the apostolic churches. We can see what milk the Corinthians were given to drink from Paul, what rule of faith the Galatians returned to, what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read. Although Marcion rejected the Apocalypse of John, a number of bishops, taken back to the beginning, will stop at John as a writer. In the same way, the authenticity of other scriptures is known. Therefore I say that not only in the apostolic, but also in all churches, from the beginning of publication, it is precisely the Gospel of Luke, which we defend, that is preserved, and Marcion’s is unknown to very many. The same authority of the apostolic churches also protects the other Gospels that we have from them and through them, that is, John and Matthew, as well as that which Mark published and Peter approved, of which he was the interpreter." 214 And the testimony of such keepers of the apostolic traditions should have been completely firm, like the testimony of sons and daughters about their parents, who revealed and entrusted to them all their secrets. That is why the unanimus consensus of the entire universe, the most important guiding principle of canonical education, in this case is equal to the certification of the sacred writers themselves. And if our collection received the name “ὁμολογούμενα” - books that are recognized by everyone as both the truth and original purity (“generositas” of Tertullian in the 1st chapter of Adversus Magsionem 215) of which the whole Church affirms - then this means that we have before us the living voice of the apostles themselves, writers giving direct testimony about their books. Obviously, it is impossible to wish for anything more. In conclusion, we formulate our reasoning in the following brief statements: 1. The collection of New Testament scriptures dates back to the very moment of their appearance; therefore, they could not get lost, and therefore, the search for some new originals of the apostolic works, which Protestant exegesis is so diligently doing, is at least a futile effort. 2. This meeting was conducted under the direct supervision of the apostles themselves and their closest disciples and for this reason alone should have contained only authentic monuments, well known to the leaders of this matter and certified by them 216. Because of this, any suspicions regarding our canonical works, for which the rationalistic West has become so notorious, are completely inappropriate and inconsistent with established scientific rules 217. All our sacred books are attested to their authenticity by such competent authorities that, doubting this point, we will be forced to extend similar skepticism to all other historical sciences and decisively and irrevocably put an end to them. Exegetical rationalism mercilessly destroys itself when it inevitably reaches such absurdities as were predicted earlier. Ignatius: “He who does not believe the Gospel does not believe everything at all” 218. 3. The collection of the New Testament writings was not done by chance, by mechanically sewing one folio to another, but deliberately and with careful legibility, according to purely objective principles of undeniable scientific significance, and therefore in each line it is verified in the most durable way. Hence: the assumption of an unconscious mythological process to explain the origin of New Testament writing - by analogy with folk sagas and legends that know neither the beginning nor the end of their existence - is not justified by the facts and is an idle fantasy of the mind, a sin against history, which is always punished by history. This time. Then: all our sacred books have withstood severe critical scrutiny and were accepted into the canon after careful critical examination in a strictly objective way, so that their authenticity is most indubitable. In this case, there is no sufficient motive, why else is there a need for specially suspicious criticism, which Protestant exegetical science sets itself as its primary duty? Doesn’t this reflect the willfulness of thought, which wants not to study, but to create facts, when we know that the collection of sacred books was inseparable from a critical assessment of their qualities and merits using an impartial method? Would it not, on the contrary, be fairer and more consistent with the title of true science to carefully follow this critical work of the ancient Church, if our wavering mind is ready to drown in the sea of ​​unbelief and, like the Apostle Peter, needs a saving hand? Then we will be freed from subjectivism and arbitrariness and freed from the fatal need to destroy what our ancestors created - with the sad hope that our descendants will treat us just as mercilessly. Only in this case can the matter itself be moved forward by the joint efforts of learned workers towards the only legitimate goal, so that faith is finally resolved into certainty. It is precisely this kind of support that the history of the canon gives us in the sense that we can without hesitation begin to study the sacred monuments as truly apostolic, besides which no others exist 220. Here the author, the teacher, means the subject being studied - “The Holy Scriptures of the New Testament.” “A special special discipline,” he adds in Glubokovsky-1907. -Ed. Glubokovsky mentions Galileo Galilei, of course, only as an example of a person who found himself in conflict with church authorities: unlike Bruno, the scientist was not executed. -Ed. Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 21. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Commentarius in Ezechielem, praefatio, PG 81, 808. In the book below by Glubokovsky the source of this quote is given: Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Commentarii in Psalmos, in 118, 34, PG 80, 1832. -Ed. Glubokovsky N. H. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity. M., 1890. T. 2. pp. 44–45. So in Glubokovsky’s editions of 1899 and 1907. Perhaps the author uses the Roman “II” to designate the second section in the structure of the subject he is studying – the section “History of the Text and the Bible.” -Ed. Hausrath A. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Teil 1–4. Heidelberg, 2 1873–1877, 3 1879 (Teil 1); Schürer E. Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 1–2. Leipzig, 2 1886–1890; Bd. 2–3. Leipzig, 3 1898; Holtzmann O. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Freiburg im Breisgau-Leipzig, 1895. Probably the following studies are meant: Rauter, K. G. von. Palästina. Leipzig, 4 1860; Neubauer A. La géographic du Talmud. Paris, 1868; Robinson E., Smith E. Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions. Vol. 1–3. Boston, 1856; Smith G. A. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, especially in Relation to the History of Israel and of the Early Church. London, 2 1894. Kiepert N. Atlas antiquus. Berlin, 3 1863; Riess, R. von. Bibel-Atlas in Zehn Karten. Freiburg im Breisgau, 3 1895; Ramsay W. M. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor. London, 1890; Idem. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Being an Essay of the Local History of Phrygia from the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest. Vol. 1–2. Oxford, 1895– 1897. -Ed. Glubokovsky cites specific works of the last autopä Wieseler K. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg, 1843; Idem. Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters bis zum Tode der Apostel Paulus und Petrus. Gottingen, 1848. As for other scientists, apparently, the works are meant: Ideler L. Handbuch der matematischen und technischen Chronologie. Bd. 1–2. Berlin, 1825–1826; Clinton H. F. Fasti hellenici. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Greece, from the Earliest Accounts to the Death of Augustus. Vol. 1–3. Oxford, 1834; Idem. Fasti romani. The Civil and Literary Chronology of Rome and Constantinopole, from the Death of Augustus to the Death of Juistin II. Vol. 1–2. Oxford, 1845–1850; Lewin Th. An Essay on the Chronology of the New Testament. Oxford, 1854. -Ed. Wed. Harris J. R. // Expositor. 1898. Vol. 9. This refers to the works of: Winer G. V. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms / Neu bearbeitet von R W Schmiedel. Leipzig, 8 1894–1898; Blass F Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen, 1896; Grimm C. L W Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in libros Novi Testamenti. Lipsiae, 3 1888; Idem. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament / Translated, revised and enlarged by J. H. Thayer. Edinburgh, 4 1898; Cremer H. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gracitat. Gotha, 8 1895; Tittmann J. A. H. De synonymis in novo testamento. Vol. 1–2. Lipsiae, 1829–1832; Trench R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament. London, 9 1880; Hatch E., Redpath H. A. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1897; Bruder S. H. Concordandae omnium vocum Novi Testamenti Graeci. Lipsiae, 4 1888; Moulton W F, Geden A. S. A Concordance to the Greek Testament According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers. Edinburgh-New York, 1897; Giltebrandt P. A. Reference and explanatory dictionary for the New Testament. T. 1–6. St. Petersburg, 1882–1885. -Ed. Deisman G. A. Current state and further tasks of studying the Greek Bible in philological terms / Preface, trans. and approx. N. N. Glubokovsky // Christian reading. 1898. No. 9 (September). pp. 365–400. [In Glubokovsky-1907 there is also a link to the article: Glubokovsky Ya. Ya. The Greek language of the Bible - especially in the New Testament - according to the current state of science // Christian Reading. 1902. No. 7 (July). pp. 3–36. -Ed.] Plutarchus. Placita philosophorum V, 2 (904f). Wed. in Glubokovsky’s note about Adams’ brochure: Glubokovsky N. N. Dictionary of New Testament words // Christian reading. 1896. No. 4 (July-August). pp. 198–200. For Judaism, an indispensable manual in the work of Ferdinand Weber: Weber F W. System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologië aus Targum, Midrash und Talmud. Leipzig, 1880; second edition entitled: Idem. Jüdische Theologie auf Grand des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. Leipzig, 1897. The news was not justified in this sense; for example, around 480 it was claimed that the original Gospel of Matthew was found in the tomb of Barnabas in Cyprus. Wed. Nestle E. Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament. Gottingen, 1897. S. 20–21. Thompson, p. 12 ss.; Scrivener I, p. 22 ss. Plinius Major. Naturalis historia XIII, 11 (69). Titus Livius. Ab urbe condita X, 38. This is not a Latin, but an English word of Italian origin, and therefore is not found in the literature of the classical period. Goes back to the Latin graphium and the Greek γραφεῖον - “writing instrument”. Here Glubokovsky is probably simply repeating Thompson's Antian term: cf. Thompson, p. 15. -Ed. They were covered with κηρός (cera) [wax], μάλθη (μάλθα) [a mixture of wax and resin] and were called πίναξ, πινακίς, δέλτος, δελτίον, πυκτίον, πυξίον, γραμματεῖον, cerae, tabulae, tabellae, and in correspondence for short letters - codicilli or pugillares; the smallest love ones are Vitelliani (Marcus Valerius Martialis. Epigrammata XIV, 8–9). See Augustinus Aurelius. Epistula 15, 1, PL 33, 80–81; Hilarius Arelatensis. Sermo de vita S. Honorati, 22, PL 50, 1261. See Theophrastus Philosophus. Historia plantarum IV, 8, 4. See Plinius Major. Naturalis historia V, 8 (44); Ibid. XIII, 11 (73). The first two references refer to the text of the Old Latin (pre-Jerome) translation of the Bible, as Scrivener explains (Serivener I, p. 24). -Ed. This refers to the processing in Rome itself of papyrus brought there: see Thompson, p. 29. -Ed. Plinius Major. Op. cit. XIII, 12 (74–77). During the era of Arab rule, it was, of course, Arabic, as we see in the Paris National Library on the bull of Pope John VIII of 876. All types of papyri are listed in Pliny: Op. cit. XIII, 12 (74–80). The exception is charta Corneliana, which is mentioned by Isidore of Seville: Isidorus Hispalensis. Etymologiarum VI, cap. 10, PL 82, 240. – Ed. For a condensed overview of the Greek papyri and their literature, see: Wilcken U. Die griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Ein Vortrag gehalten auf der XLIV. Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Dresden am 30. September 1897. Berlin, 1897. In Glubokovsky-1907 there is a footnote “until twelve”, with an illegible bibliographic reference. Modern sources speak of 96 cataloged papyri Metzger B. M. Textology of the New Testament. M., 1996. P. 262). -Ed. Considering the current Second Epistle to the Corinthians to be a composition of several epistles, some explain this by saying that the papyrus autographs deteriorated and were then incorrectly joined together. See Kennedy J. N. Are There Two Epistles in 2Corinthians? // The Expositor. 1897. Vol. 10. P. 236–237. Thompson, on whom Glubokovsky relies in this section, refers to the edict “De pretiis rerum” VII, 38 (Thompson, p. 36). – Ed. Cm. Eusebius Caesariensis. De vita Constantini IV, 36, PG 20, 1185. -Ed. Hieronymus speaks about the replacement of damaged volumes in the Pamphilus Library with parchment books: Hieronymus Stridonensis. Epistula 34, ad Marcellam, 1, PL 22, 448. – Ed. The term is not from Latin. The English “vellum” and the French “iélin” are late (not earlier than the 13th century) formations and come from the Old French “eeee”. The latter, in turn, goes back to the Latin “vitellus”, “calf”. -Ed. See, for example, Hieronymus Stridonensis. Praefatio in libram Job, PL 28, 1083; Isidorus hispalensis. Etymologiarum VI, cap. 11, PL 82, 240. -Ed. Cm. Lucianus Sophista. De mercedi conductis, 41. -Ed. See Hieronymus stridonensis. Epistula 22, ad Eustochium, 32, PL 22, 418; Idem. Epistula 107, ad Laetam, 12, PL 22, 876; Idem. Praefatio in librum Job, PL 28, 1083. – Ed. See Gaius Valerius Catullus. Carmina, 22. – Ed. Council of Trullo, 68th canon. [Cm. Mansi 11, 973; also the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 291. -Ed.] We are talking about the composition with which scientists restore the original text of the palimpsest. See Thompson, p. 76. -Ed. Xenophon. Anabasis VII, 5.14. Hence the medieval explicit, “end”, as opposed to incipit, “beginning”. Marcus Valerius Martialis. Epigrammata XI, 107; Ibid. IV40;, 89; Quintus Horatius Flaccus. Epodi XIV, 8. Lucius Annaeus Seneca. De brevitate vitae, 13, 4: “plurium tabularum contextus caudex apud antiquos vocabatur; unde publicae tabulae codices dicuntur" [the ancients called the fastened boards "caudex", from which state acts are called "codices"]. See Commodianus. Carmen apologeticum, 11, CSEL 15, 116. -Ed. From Latin "arcus", "vault", and "solium", "throne, throne". One of the types of burial in the Roman catacombs. -Ed. Schultze V. Rolle und Codex // Greifswalder Studien: Theologische Abhandlungen Hermann Cremer zum 25-jährigen Professorenjubiläum dargebracht. Gütersloh, 1895. S. 149–158. Glubokovsky is inaccurate. The Vatican Codex is made of ten sheets folded, that is, five “unfolded”. See Thompson, p. 62; and Scrivener I, p. 28. -Ed. Indeed, in the Codex Alexandrinus the inscriptions are on the first pages of the “notebooks”. However, not at the bottom, but in the center of the top field. See Thompson, p. 62. -Ed. See Rüegg A. Die Lukasschriftenund der Raumzwang des antiken Buchwesens // Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1896. S. 94–101. No. 481 Scrivener (Scrivener I, p. 245), No. 461 Gregory. [We are talking about different systems of classification of New Testament manuscripts - F. Scrivener and K. Gregory. The currently accepted method of dividing and designating manuscripts goes back to the latter (finally formalized in the book: Gregory S. R. Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1908). -Ed.] The bracket is given according to Glubokovsky-1907, since there was an inaccuracy in the 1899 edition. It should also be made clear that by “red” here we simply mean the first four lines of each of the two columns of the first page of the Codex Alexandrinus. They are written in red ink. See Scrivener I, p. 100. -Ed. Neither Thompson nor Scrivener mention the predominant prevalence of the “midpoint”. As for Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus specifically, Scrivener definitely says that the irregular dot there is located at the level of the upper edge of the letters (Scrivener I, p. 48). -Ed. The author lists punctuation marks too quickly, which partly leads to a confusion of eras. For a more detailed analysis, with a breakdown of periods and codes, see, for example, Scrivener: Scrivener I, p. 48–49. -Ed. This refers to the fact that the first letter of the first full line of a new “paragraph”, “paragraph” became “capital”, however, the paragraph was not specifically started from a new line. And if the beginning of the paragraph did not coincide with the beginning of the line, then the first letter of the next line was capitalized (and not the first letter of the new paragraph). Thus, the letter in the middle of a word could become capitalized: the division into lines did not coincide with the division into words (see Thompson, pp. 68–69). Note also that in B and א the “capital” letters do not differ in size. They are, however, slightly offset from the line (see Scrivener I, p. 51). This is what Glubokovsky means when he says “placed outside the line.” -Ed. Separate maxims are almost no different from στίχοι ῥ ήματα, or ῥ ήσεις. On στίχοι, see especially Harris J. R. Stichometry // The American Journal of Philology. Vol. 4 (1883). No. 2. P. 133–157; No. 3. P. 309–331. Eey. 560 (XI century) in Scrivener: “ὡ ς ἡδύς τοῖς πλέσυσιν ὁ ε ὔ διος λιμήν · ο ὕ τως καὶ "[as a quiet harbor is pleasant to sailors, so the last verse is sweet to scribes] (Scrivener I, p. 255); Wed at V. Gardthausen, b. 277, No. 102, 231, 321, 802, 940, 1204 [here, perhaps, the catalog is meant: Gardthausen V. E. Catalogus codicum Graecorum Sinaiticorum. Oxonii, 1886. -Ed.]: “ὥ σπερ ξένοι χαίρουσι , πατρίδα βλέπειν · ο ὕ τως καὶ τοῖς κάμνουσιν βιβλίου τέλος » [as glad as travelers are to see their homeland again, so are those who labored as a scroll]. Based on them, Eusebius of Caesarea compiled ten so-called canons to indicate parallel or similar places in the Gospels. See Burgon J. W The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark, Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors. Oxford-London, 1871, pp. 125–132, 245–312. Robinson J. A. Euthaliana (Texts and Studies III, 3). Cambridge, 1895; and cp. Rez.: Bousset W. // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1897. No. 2. S. 44–48. Also: Dobschütz, E. von. Euthaliusstudien // Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte. Vol. 19 (1899). No. 2. S. 107–154, calling Euphaly “Hauptmasoret” [lit., “chief Masoret”] (S. 108). For further illustration, we point out that in B, when dividing the text, the epistles of Paul are considered one book and the epistle to the Hebrews is included in it as if it were between Gal. and Eph., although it actually follows 2 Thess. From this it is clear that for a long time there has been a complete collection of the messages of St. ap. Paul together with Heb. - in equal dignity with others. [As Metzger writes in detail, in the Vatican Codex Gal. ends with chapter number 58, and the next one is Eph. starts from chapter 70. The numbering is then kept sequential for Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., after which the epistle to the Hebrews is placed, beginning with the 59th chapter. This means that the older manuscript from which B was compiled contained Heb. between Gal. and Eph. and the copyist mechanically reproduced the previous numbering (see Metzger B.M. Textology of the New Testament. M., 1996. P. 46). Glubokovsky draws attention to the fact that Heb., thus, cannot be considered a later “postscript” to the corpus of messages, referring to their current relative position. -Ed.] Let us note, by the way, that, according to Archbishop Trench, the term “authentic” means writing or reading that undoubtedly came from a famous author, and “authentic” is called only what is true and intact, even if not actually the author’s (as some think of Hebrews and the story of the wife in adultery). See Trench R. C. A Select Glossary of English Words Used Formerly in Senses Different from Their Present. London, 1890. P. 15; Hammond S. E. Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament. Oxford, 5 1890. P. 105 ss. With them, an asterisk * (for example, B*) means the reading of the first scribe, and small numbers or letters (B 1, B 2, B a, B b, B c) mean the proofs of the first, second, etc. hand. In italic manuscripts, codices [codes] are distinguished: 1) etustissimi [the most ancient] (from the 9th to the half of the 10th century); 2) vetusti [ancient] (until the half of the 13th century); 3) recentiores [newer] (until the half of the 15th century) and 4) novelli [new] (latest). Since 1933 - in the British Museum. -Ed. This refers to the publications: Codex Friderico-Augustanus, sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo / Ed. C. Tischendorf. Lipsiae, 1846; Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus petropolitanus / Ed. C. Tischendorf. T. 1–4. Petropoli, 1862. -Ed. See: Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus / Ed. Thompson: E. M. V40;ol. 1–4. London, 1879–1883. The New Testament with the Epistles of Clement of Rome was published in the fourth volume in 1879. It should be clarified that the Codex Alexandrinus, in addition to the New Testament, contains almost the entire Old Testament. -Ed. See: Sacrorum Bibliorum Vetus et Novum Testamentum e codice Vaticano 1209 phototypice repraesentatum / Ed. G. Cozza-Luzi. T. 1–5. Roma, 1889–1890. -Ed. Bousset W. Die Recension des Hesychius // Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (TU 11/4). Leipzig, 1894. S. 74–110, esp. S. 96 and loc. cit. supra [what the second reference refers to is unclear: in Busse’s previously cited review of Robinson’s book, the name Hesychius is not mentioned. -Ed.]. See: Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus sive fragmenta utriusque testamenti / Ed. C. Tischendorf. T. 1–2. Lipsiae, 1843–1845. – Ed. See: Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis / Ed. F. H. A. Scrivener. Cambridge, 1864. In Glubokovsky-1907, the author also indicates a later phototypic edition: Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis quattuor Evangelia et Actus Apostolorum complectens Graece et Latine sumptibus Academiae phototypice repraesentatus. T. 1–2. Cantabrigiae, 1899. -Ed. This refers to the already repeatedly cited work of Scrivener, the fourth edition of which was prepared by Edward Miller. The first volume includes a catalog of all Greek manuscripts known at the time of publication. Data on their number, reproduced here by Glubokovsky, are placed in the appendix to the first volume: Scrivener I, p. 397 (Appendix F). -Ed. Here and below we indicate in square brackets the figures given by Glubokovsky in the 1907 edition (the changes reflect new data from biblical scholarship at that time). For comparison, see the modern information provided by Metzger: 96 papyri, 299 uncials, 2812 minuscules, 2281 lectionaries (5488 in total). Nevertheless, some of the manuscripts were subject to double registration for various reasons, and some were lost. Therefore, the exact number of manuscripts differs to a lesser extent and is about 5000. See Metzger B. M. Cited. op. pp. 262–263; For data used by Metzger, see: Aland K., Aland V. The Text of the New Testament: an Introduction to Critical Edition and to the Theory and Practice of Modem Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids-Leiden, 2 1989. P. 74. These [refer to the evangelists and apostles. -Ed.] so-called “lectionaries”, which are important in that they indicate the (general) church use and, therefore, the canonical dignity of the New Testament readings. The antiquity of their testimony cannot be weakened by a hypothetical guess (Hammond S. E. Op. cit. P. 29) that the 4th century. was a period of great liturgical reformation, since it was only an ordering and sanctioning of the prevailing ecclesiastical lectionary practice. It is unclear where the lower limit (based on 1907 data) was derived from. The upper estimate is the sum of 156†2584†1372†124124. -Ed. This refers to the publications: Liber sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo Domino et Deo nostro / Ed. J. A. Widmanstadius e. a. Viennae, 1555 et 1562; Novum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum: cum versione latina / Ed. J. Leusden, Ch. Schaaf. Lugduni Batavorum, 1708 et 1717; Novum Testamentum Syriacë Denuo recognitum atque ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum emendatum / Ed. S. Lee. Londini, 1816; Tetraevangelion sanctum: juxta simplicem Syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, massorae, editionum denuo recognitum / Ed. Ph. E. Pusey, G. H. Gwilliam. Oxonii, 1901. Now the accepted spelling is Peshitta (Peshitta), but we leave the word unchanged - the way it was written in the time of Glubokovsky. -Ed. Publications mentioned: Cureton W. Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac. London, 1858; and Baethgen F. Evangelienfragmentë Der griechische Text des Curetonʼschen Syrers. Leipzig, 1885. -Ed. Publications in question: Bensly R. L., Burkitt F. C., Harris J. R. The Four Gospels in Syriae Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest / Intr. A. S. Lewis. Cambridge, 1894; Lewis A. S. Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest with a Translation of the Whole Text. London, 1896. -Ed. So in Glubokovsky’s editions of 1899 and 1907. and in Scrivener (Scrivener II, p. 25). According to modern data, Philoxenus ascended to the throne in 485 -Ed. E. von Dobschütz convincingly proves that Polycarp and Thomas had the Euphalic apparatus. See: Dobschütz, E. von. Euthaliusstudien // Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. Vol. 19 (1899). No. 2. S. 153. Here Glubokovsky has “Harclesianus”, but we do not know this Latin spelling of the adjective “Heracleian”. -Ed. The publications implied are: Erizzo F M. Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex codice Vaticano Palaestino. T. 1–2. Veronae, 1861–1864; Lagarde, P. de. Bibliotheca Syriaca. Gottingae, 1892. Nestle E. Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament. Gottingen, 1897. S. 55. Cm.: Assemani J. S. Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. T. 2. P. 283. We also note that already in the next paragraph the author writes the name as “Bar-Gebrei”. -Ed. Published in the collection: Wiseman N. Horae Syriacae, seu Commentationes et anecdota res vel litteras Syriacas spectantia. Romae, 1828. -Ed. Cp.: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica I, 13, PG 20, 120–121. -Ed. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op.cit. IV, 22, PG 20, 384. Melito Sardensis. Fragmenta, 12. We are talking about the publication: Ciasca R A. Tatiani Evangeliorum harmoniae Arabice. Romae, 1888. -Ed. An Armenian translation was published in Venice by Mekhitarist monks in 1836. For a Latin translation from Armenian, see: Ephraem Syrus. Evangelii concordantis expositio / Tr. J. B. Aucher, ed. G. Mosinger. Venetiis, 1876. -Ed. See: Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Haereticarum fabularum compendium I, 20, PG 83, 372. -Ed. Cp.: Glubokovsky N. N. Greek handwritten evangelium from the collection of I. E. Troitsky. St. Petersburg, 1898. P. 217, approx. 15. However, Bentley suggests that in Augustine's De doctrina Christiana II, 15, PL 34, 46 one should read "et illa" [and this (version is preferred)] instead of "Itala", which Potter corrects to "usitata" ["common use"]. [See: Bentley R. The Correspondence of Richard Bentley / Ed. Ch. Wordsworth. London, 1842. P. 569; about Potter's conjecture: Field F Otium Norvicense. Pars 3. Oxonii, 1881. P. 57. -Ed.] Wiseman N. Two Letters on Some Parts of the Controversy Concerning 1John 5, 7 // Catholic Magazine. 1832, 1833; later reprinted in: Idem. Essays on Various Subjects. Vol. 1. London, 1853. Burkitt F. C. The Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and Studies IV, 3). Cambridge, 1896; cp. Res.: Dobschütz, E. von. // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1897. No. 5. S. 133–135. Cm. Hieronymus stridonensis. Praefatio in quatuor Evangelia, PL 29, 526. By “sample” we mean a list intended for repeated copying and thus generating a stable form of the text. -Ed. Bull "Aeternus illе". -Ed. This bull is usually called “Cum sacrorum bibliorum” and is dated November 9, 1592 -Ed. See: Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis ad concilii Tridentini praescriptum emendata et a Sixto V P. M. recognita et approbata. Vatican, 1590; Biblia sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita. Vatican, 1592; Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi / Ed. J. Wordsworth, H. J. White. T. 1–3. Oxford, 1889–1954. – Ed. Here we reproduce the version of the 1907 edition - “bogairsky”, “Bogair” - closer to the modern spelling (“bohairsky”) than the “boairic”, “Boair” used in Glubokovsky-1899. -Ed. Latest edition of the Gospels: Horner G. W. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphic and Bohairic. V40;ol. 1–2. Oxford, 1898. [Later, by 1905, two more volumes containing the remainder of the New Testament were published. -Ed.] Wed. Wilcken U. Die griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Ein Vortrag gehalten auf der XLIV. Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Dresden am 30. September 1897. Berlin, 1897. S. 46, 27: “El-Faijûm ist der Name jener grossen westlich von Nil gelegenen Oase, die durch den Bahr Jûsuf mit dem Nilthal verbunden ist, einst wie jetzt der Schmuckgarten Aegyptens” [El-Fayoum is the name of a large oasis located west of the Nile and connected to its valley by Bar Yusuf. As before, so now, this is an Egyptian ornamental garden]. Wed. Georg Schweinfurth // Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin. 1886. No. 2. S. 1 ss. (with map). The main city of the province is Medinet el-Fai-jûm (Ibid. S. 13). In Panopolis? (Ibid. S. 50–51). Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 1, PG 20, 521; Ibid. VI, 41, PG 20, 605. Cm. Headlam A. C. [No definite discussion on the history...] // Scrivener II, p. 125–127. For variations see Sunday W. Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum iam inde a Millii temporibus oxoniensium manibus tritum. Oxonii, 1889, pp. 185–189. Cm.: Goussen H. Apocalypsis S. Johannis apostoli versio sahidica. Accendunt pauca fragmenta genuina diatessaroniana (Studia theologica, fasc. 1). Leipzig, 1895. Cp. Rez.: Schmidt S. // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1896. No. 19. S. 498–499. See: Headlam A. C. [Fayoum, Middle Egyptian and Akhmim Versions] // Scrivener II, p. 140–144. Glubokovsky-1907 has a different characteristic of Ulfila’s translation: “...and in the New Testament its text is essentially identical with Zlatoust’s.” -Ed. Options at Sunday W. Op. cit. P. 193–199. [In Glubokovsky-1907, the author adds: “...for scientific judgments and hypotheses regarding this translation, see: Bolotov V.V. Description of the fourth Ethiopian manuscript of the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. St. Petersburg, 1900." -Ed.] See Scrivener II, p. 151. Robinson, contrary to Conybeare, argues that the oldest Armenian translation is based on an ancient Syriac translation, similar to Afraat’s, but this Armenian was later corrected from Greek texts. See: Robinson J. A. Euthaliana. Cambridge, 1895. R. 72 ss.; Conybeare F. S. On the Codex Pamphilii and the Date of Euthalius // Journal of Philology. Vol. 23 (1895). P. 241–259. For options, see Sanday W. Op. cit. P. 193–199. [In the 1907 edition, Glubokovsky adds that “ample material for judging the Armenian translation is given by Archbishop Mesrop Ter-Movsesyan: Archbishop Mesrop Ter-Movsesyan. History of Bible translation into Armenian. St. Petersburg, 1902." -Ed.] See below about the Gospel of Mark [p. 341. -Ed.] About Walton's polygaotte, see below, p. 84. -Ed. Burgon J. W. The Revision Revised. London, 1883. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta / Studio, opera et impensis FX.de Cisneros. Ed. J. L. Stunica et al. T. 5: Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine. Compluti, 1514. -Ed. Publications listed: Desiderius Erasmm. Novum Testamentum omne. Basileae, 1516, 2 1519, 3 1522, 4 1527, 5 1535; ????? ς τε καὶ νέας . Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Novaeque omnia. Venetiis: Aldus Manutius et Andrea Torresanus, 1518; Simon Colinaem. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη. Paris, 1534; Estienne R. Novum Testamentum Graece. Paris, 1546, 2 1549, 3 1550, Genevae, 4 1551; Theodorus Beza. Iesu Christi Domini nostri Novum Testamentum. Geneva, 1565, 2 1565, 3 1567, 4 1580, 5 1582, 6 1588, 7 1591, 8 1598, 9 1604, 10 1611; Ή καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officina Elzeviriorum, 1624, 2 1633. -Ed. Publications mentioned: Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece et Latine / Ed. Benedictus Arias Montanus. T. 5: Τῆς καινὴς διαθήκης ἅ παντα. Novum Iesu Christi D. N. Testamentum. Antverpiae, 1571; Biblia. T. 5. P. 1–2. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1630–1633; Walton B. Biblia Sacra Polyglottä Complectentia textus originales, Hebraicum, cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Graecum. T. 5: Novum D. N. Jesu Christi Testamentum. Londini, 1657; Courcelles, E. de. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum. Amstelaedami, 1658; [Fell J.] Τής καινὴς διαθήκης ἅ παντα . Novi Testamenti libri omnes. Oxonii, 1675; Mill J. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη . Novum Testamentum. Oxonii, 1707; Novum Testamentum Graecum/Ed. J. Mill, L. Küster. Lipsiae, 1710; Gerhard von Mästricht. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum. Amstelaedami, 1711; BengelJ.A. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Tubingae, 1734; Wettstein J. J. Ή καινὴ διαθήκη . Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae. T. 1–2. Amstelaedami, 1751–1752; Matthäi C. F. Novum Testamentum, XII tomis distinctum Graece et Latine. T. 1–12. Riga, 1782–1788; Idem. Novum Testamentum Graece. T. 1–3. Wittenbergae, 1803–1807; Alter F. C. Novum Testamentum ad codicem Vindobonensem Graece expressum. T. 1–2. Viennae, 1786–1787; Birch A. Quatuor Evangelia Graece. Havniae, 1788; Idem. Variae lectiones ad textum Actorum Apostolorum, epistolarum catholicarum et Pauli. Havniae, 1798; Idem. Variae lectiones ad textum Apocalypseos. Havniae, 1800; Idem. Variae lectiones ad textum IV40; Evangeliorum. Havniae, 1801. -Ed. Griesbach editions: Griesbach J. J. Libri historici Novi Testamenti, Graece. Pars 1–2. Halle, 1774–1775; Idem. Novum Testamentum Graece. Halle, 1777; Idem. Novum Testamentum Graece. T. 1–2. London-Halle, 1796–1806; Idem. Novum Testamentum Graece. T. 1–4. Lipsiae, 1803–1807. -Ed. That is, families of manuscripts. -Ed. Scholz edition: Scholz J. M. A. Novum Testamentum Graece. T. 1–2. Lipsiae, 1830–1836. -Ed. We are talking about the publication Lch. -Ed. See: Tischendorf S. Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio octava critica maior. T. 3: Prolegomena scripsit C. R. Gregory additis curis E. Abbot. Pars 1–3. Lipsiae, 1884–1894. The editions of the New Testament by Tischendorf themselves have a rather confusing numbering (parallel to “Leipzig” and “through”). The most important are the editions of 1840 (published in 1841), 1849, 1856–1859 (Bd. 1–2), as well as T, an appendix to which Gregory-Abbott’s introduction was later published. -Ed. This is how the scientist's name is correctly pronounced. The stress is on the second syllable. -Ed. The publication itself is Tr; Appendix: Tregelles S. R. The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities. Part 7: Prolegomena and Addenda and Corrigenda / Comp, and ed. F J. A. Hort, A. W. Streane. London, 1879. -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1907: “...died in 1901 as Bishop of Durham.” -Ed. The first volume is WH, the second: Westcott V. F, Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. -Ed. See: Weiss W. Das Neue Testament: Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung. Bd. 1–3. Leipzig, 1894–1900, 2 1902–1905, -Ed. So in Glubokovsky-1899. In the 1907 edition, the author writes: “... a new edition was undertaken by Berlin professor von Soden (see about him: Glubokovsky N.N. New critical edition of the Greek New Testament // Church Bulletin. 1902. No. 15 (April 11). pp. 469–471); So far only the first part has been released.” This refers to a publication that was fully implemented only by 1913: Soden, N. F iop. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grand ihrer Textgeschichte. Teil 1: Untersuchungen. Bd. 1–3. Berlin, 1902–1910; Teil 2: Text mit Apparat. Göttingen, 1913. -Ed. Cm.: Miller E. Preface // Burgon J. W. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London, 1896. P. XIII. On the “summary readings,” see George Salmon, rector of Trinity Church in Dublin: Salmon G. Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London, 1897. Glubokovsky N. N. Greek handwritten evangelium from the collection of I. E. Troitsky. St. Petersburg, 1898. P. 208. See: Zahn Th. Die bleibende Bedeutung des neutestamentlichen Kanons für die Kirchë Vortrag auf der lutherischen Pastoralkonferenz zu Leipzig am 2. Jimi 1898. Leipzig, 1898. S. 4. See, for example: Justinus Martyr. Apologia I, 66, PG 6, 429. -Ed. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 3, PG 5, 854–855; Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 23, PG 20, 257; Ibid. V, 20, PG 20, 484–485: Polycarp; Ibid. V, 24, PG 20, 493: Polycrates. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses Ш, 1, PG 5, 845; Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Fragmenta in Joannem, praefatio, PG 66, 728. [Some confusion in Glubokovsky's original references has been corrected here. The “news of Eusebius” most likely refers to the passage: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica Ш, 24, PG 20, 265–268. -Ed.] To the late Fr. A.V. Gorsky: Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 24: Formation of the canon of sacred books of the New Testament. M., 1871. pp. 297–327. Bousset W. [Rezension] // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1898. No. 3. S. 70. – Rez. op.: Resch A. Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. Hf. 2–3 (TU 10/2–3). Leipzig, 1894–1895. [Such output data is provided by the publications of 1899 and 1907, but Busse’s review is not on these pages. The text of the quotation itself mentions the publication of the apocryphal acts of Timothy: Acta S. Timothei / Ed. H. User. Bonnae, 1877. -Ed.] Godet F. Introduction au Nouveau Testament: Introduction particulère. Vol. 2: Les évangiles et les Actes des apôtres. Liv. 1. Neuchâtel, 1897. P. 38–39, 41–42, 133–136. In the 1907 edition, Glubokovsky makes a footnote: “According to Harnack (Natask A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litterator bis Eusebius. Theil 2: Die Chronologie. Bd. 1: Die Chronologie der Litterator bis Irenaeus. Leipzig, 1897. S. 701), canonical όμολογούμενον [subject of agreement; something that is accepted by everyone; in this case the established collection of canonical books] originated in Rome, but this may refer to a later, final stage.” -Ed. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica Ш, 3, PG 20, 216–217. Origenes apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 25, PG 20, 584. Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum, 36, PL 2, 49. Idem. Adversus Marcionem IV, 5, PL 2, 366–367. This is probably Glubokovsky's mistake (repeated in all publications where this section is present). In fact, this refers to the just quoted 4th book, 5th chapter of Tertullian’s work. “Generositas” literally means “generacy”; in his translation of the quote, Glubokovsky used the word “authenticity” (“in the same way the authenticity of other scriptures is known”). -Ed. A. Harnack suggests that Diodorus of Tarsus (apocryphal) Apocalypse of Peter was included in the Bible itself as an ingredient and an equal part (see Diodor von Tarsus: Vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors / Nachgewiesen von A. Harnack (TU 21/4, Neue Folge 6/4). Leipzig, 1901. S. 58 ss.), but this is rejected even by A. Jülicher, because in the obvious place it is more likely that there is an error of memory when quoting the New Testament text, and then the use of the Apocalypse of Peter will still be only for the questioner, but not for the Orthodox: see Jülicher A. [Rezension] // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1902. No. 3. S. 84. – Rez. op.: Diodor von Tarsus: Vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1907. The work of Pseudo-Justin, attributed by Harnack to Diodorus, Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, consists of questions to the Orthodox and his answers. Jülicher points out that all the biblical quotations used in the dialogue, for which Harnack noted the similarity with the Apocalypse of Peter, are found only in the wording of the questions and, in addition, these coincidences can be explained by ordinary inaccuracy when quoting Scripture from memory. -Ed.] In Glubokovsky-1907, the author formulates his thought more gently, without reference to the West: “Because of this, prejudiced suspicions regarding our canonical works are completely inappropriate and inconsistent with established scientific rules.” -Ed. Ignatius Antiochenus. Epistula ad Philadelphios (recensio longior), 8, PG 5, 833 (Funk II, p. 138). In Piubokovsky-1907: “specially suspicious and negative.” -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1907, “besides which no others exist” is omitted. -Ed. You might be interested in: