Взаимное отношение первых трех Евангелий: «синоптическая проблема»

Points of Similarity Between the First Three Gospels The original connection of the term εὐαγγέλιον with the names of the evangelists through the preposition κατά indicates that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John do not invent or compose their content, but only testify with their presentation “to completely known events” (see Luke 1: 1), as they actually happened at the beginning of the Christian era. The evangelists were direct eyewitnesses or their constant companions, collaborators and students and, therefore, could give completely correct testimony. It should naturally follow from this that their narratives turn out to be similar, since they accurately reproduce the teachings and deeds of the Savior - it is clear that their image of Christ is essentially the same. But, while they coincide in the main and general features, the evangelists differ from each other in their depiction of the type taken. And this could have happened all the sooner and more easily since free thought was at work here, that the object itself was immense in its depth and breadth and, being removed from the gaze of observers, was not directly copied, but was reproduced reproductively according to various interests and for private, special purposes. Our canonical Gospels are imprinted with precisely such signs - both the simple ordinary meaning and the highly religious consciousness are completely satisfied with this understanding, seeing here even a decisive confirmation of the absolute truth of our Gospel records (St. John Chrysostom and others 298). However, a careful literary study of these monuments reveals something more, far beyond the limits of the presented explanation. So, already up. John departs so greatly from Matthew, Mark and Luke that his differences far outweigh his similarities in quantity and quality. At the same time, the weather forecasters oppose it with their general content, as if [revealing] a special type of gospel presentation, and reveal such closeness [among themselves] that can hardly be deduced only from the unity of the subject - unless the work of the evangelists is reduced to the mechanical role of a cane in the hands of a scribe-cursive writer and if the idea of ​​​​divine inspiration is not exaggerated to the extent of coercive force that suppresses personal will and original reason. First of all, all three first evangelists speak almost exclusively about the Galilean activities of Jesus Christ and in the vast majority of cases report the same miracles and speeches of the Lord. Meanwhile, John, with few exceptions, passes through this entire period in silence and mainly tells us about the ministry of the Lord in Judea. In their essence, the weather forecasters represent the same unity that we see in the story of the Theologian, and this fact - given the undeniable trinity of writers - obviously requires a special explanation that would reveal to us this phenomenon in the same way and as satisfactorily as in the fourth Gospel this naturally follows from the inseparability of the self-awareness of its writer 299. Not only this: in their chosen subject, the first evangelists operate with general and homogeneous material relating to certain moments in the life of the Lord Savior, and move within the same chronological framework. Hence, there are such frequent consonances in the subject of the narrative and even in its external literary treatment, with minor deviations in the content, which coincide both in the most significant points and in many minor details of a purely detailed nature. This phenomenon did not escape the attention of ancient researchers, and Eusebius in his “canons” already tried to give this issue mathematical clarity 300 . Having distributed all the gospel material contained in the weather forecasters into 562 (651) small groups, he found that all three had 184 (185) in common, of which only 73 (74) were found in John. At the same time, Matthew and Mark agree with each other in 73 (72) sections and with John in 23 (25); the first and third evangelists agree on 104 (104) points, and in 22 (22) of them the fourth agrees with them; Mark meets Luke in 14 (13) “digeses” 301. The content of 302, exclusively characteristic of each forecaster, is expressed by the following figures: Matthew alone has 74 (69) paragraphs, of which 12 (7) are read in the fourth Gospel; one Mark-20 (20); one Luke-93 (93), with 21 (21) similar to John. If we take the now accepted number of verses, we find that out of 1072 Matthew, only 330 are personal to him, out of 677 verses of Mark, no more than 67 are original, with 1152 verses of Luke, only 541 are his unconditional property, which when added up will give - for the total amount of 2901 verses - about 938 verses of independent content among all weather forecasters 303 . Under such conditions, Mark has almost nothing original, the features of Matthew are equal to 1/6, and Luke – 1/4 of their writings 304. These digital data clearly show the common content of the Synoptic Gospels. But with such unity of the gospel matter, its very distribution represents no less striking agreement in its fragmentation into identical headings and in their mutual connection. In this case, what is first striking is the harmonious gradualism in the course of the gospel narrative according to a homogeneous plan: the life of Christ before his appearance in public service, the beginning of the latter in connection with baptism and temptation, the gospel in Galilee and departure to Jerusalem, the triumphal entry and last days before the capture, condemnation, suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord. In this order the thoughts of all the first three evangelists go, which sometimes reach a striking consonance in private sections, although this is more common in only two. Wed. Matt. 3, 1 - Matt. 4, 17; Mk. 1, 2–15; OK. 3, 1 - Luke. 4, 15, where the same facts are conveyed in the same sequence: the sermon of John the Baptist, the baptism of the Savior, the temptation in the desert and the opening of Galilean activity; [in the further course of the story of Matt. 4, 16–30 coincides with Mark, while Luke. 4, 16-30 is preceded by another fact - the history of the calling of the apostles (5, 1-11); with Matt. 5, 1 Matthew expounds on the Discourse on the Mount, which was not preserved in this form by Mark and Luke, who, in similar acoluthic 305 continuity, then convey (Mark 1:21 - Mark 3:19; Luke 4:31 - Luke 6:19) various events of the Galilean period, etc.] 306. For brevity, we can say that Mark agrees with Luke in the first part, and with Matthew in the last. Another remarkable fact here is that even in the case when one evangelist reports a well-known fact in another place, he maintains the same connection in the narrative that is observed in the other two. For example, let us point out the miracle of the paralytic in Capernaum and the calling of Matthew-Levi (Matt. 9:1-17; Mk. 2:1-22; Lk. 5:17-39), the plucking of ears of grain by the disciples and the healing of the withered man (Matt. 12:1-14; Mk. 2:23 - Mk. 3:6; Lk. 6, 1–11), etc. 307 Further: the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels often turns out to be in the very method of presentation, sometimes expressed in a close coincidence in letter. Let's take Matthew as an example. 9, 5–6, Mark. 2, 9–10 and Luke. 5, 23–24, where the words of the Lord are preserved after and regarding the miraculous restoration of the paralytic. Here is the original text of Matthew in comparison with other synoptics: Τί γάρ (deest 308 in Mark and Luke) ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν (in Mark adjung. (Luke adjung. σου) ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει (Μκ. ὕ παγε 309); (Luke ὅ ? μαρτίας 310, τότε (deest in Μκ. and Luke) λέγει (Luke ε ἶ πεν) τῷ παραλυτικῷ (Luke τῷ παραλελυμένῷ)· "ἐγερθεὶς ἆ ρον σοῦ τὴν κλίνην (Μκ. σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε, ἄρον τὸν κράββατόν σου; Luke. "" In addition to the unusual form ἀφέωνται, found in almost all ancient codices of the first three Gospels (with the exception of B and א, why in Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort ἀφίενται 311), one should also pay attention to the fact that the words “speaks (said) to the paralytic” are placed in the same place in all weather forecasters 312. And this is not just one case, but there are quite a few such facts in the synoptic text: cf. Mt 9, 15 Mk 2, 20 and Lk. 5, 35; Matt. 12, 4 Mk. 2, 26 and Luke. 6, 4; Matthew 14, 15 Mark. 6, 36 and Luke. 9, 12 313; Matt. 16, 13 314 Mk. 14, 13 and Luke. 22, 10 315; Matt. 16, 24 ss. Mk. 8, 34 ss. and Luke. 9, 23 ss.; Matt. 16.28 Mk. 9, 1 and Luke. 9, 27. Often this phenomenon of textual agreement is noticed among two evangelists: Matthew with Mark or Luke, and the second with a third. For the first two, compare, for example, the story of the miraculous feeding of the four thousand, Matt. 15, 32 ss. Mk. 8, 1 ss.: Προσκαλεσάμενος τούς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ε ἶ πεν ( Μκ . λέγει αὐτοῖς )· σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον , ὅ τι ἤ δη ἡμέραι τρεῖς ( Μκ . . . . . . . γῆς) καὶ λαβ ὼ ν (ἔλαβεν) 316 τούς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους καὶ τούς ἱχθύος (deest y Μκ .) εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (deest), οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ τοῖς ὄχλοις ὄχλῳ). Καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες (deest in Μκ.) καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ τὸ περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων ἦ ραν (Μκ. καὶ ἦ ραν περισσεύματα κλασμάτων) ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας πλήρεις (deest in Μκ.). Wed. also Matt. 13, 4–23 Mark. 4, 4–20; Matt. 24, 32 Mk. 13, 28; Matt. 26, 47–55 Mk. 14, 43–48. For Matthew and Luke, we can point to the request of a certain scribe and Christ’s answer to him, Matt. 8, 19 Luke. 9, 57: Ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅ που ἐὰν (Luke ἂ ν) ἀπέρχ ῃ. Καὶ λέγει (Luke ε ἶ πεν) ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσεις , ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίν ῃ. Wed. also Matt. 7, 5 Lk. 6, 42; Matt. 8, 9 Luke. 7, 8; Matt. 12, 43 Luke. 11, 24; Matt. 24, 50 Lk. 12, 46. For Mark and Luke, a good example of punctual agreement is the conversation of Christ with the rich young man, Mark. 10, 17–25 Luke. 18, 18–25: Ἐπηρώτα (Luke ἐπηρώτησεν) αὐτόν · διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, τί ποιήσω, ἵ να (Luke τί ποιήσας) ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω; ὁ δὲ Ἰ ησοῦς ε ἶ πεν αὐτῷ (Luke ε ἶ πεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ ησοῦς )· τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ ε ἶ ς ὁ θεός . Τὰς ἐντολὰς ο ἶ δας . Μὴ μοιχεύσ ῃ ς , μὴ φονεύσ ῃ ς , μὴ κλέψὴς , μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσης , μὴ ἀποστερήσης (deest in Luke), τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου. Ὁ δὲ ε ἶ πεν ( ἔφη ) αὐτῷ (deest in Luke) · διδάσκαλε (deest in Luke), ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην (Luke ἐφύλαξα) ἐκ νεότητός μου. Ό δὲ Ἰ ησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠ γάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ (Luke. Ἰ ησοῦς ) ε ἶ πεν αὐτῷ · Ἕ ν σοι ( σε ) ὑστερεῖ (Luke ἔτι ἕ ν σοι λείπει )· ὕ παγε (Luke πάντα) ὅ σα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ δὸς (Luke διάδος) τοῖς (deest in Luke) πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕ ξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανω (Luke οὐρανοῖς), καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι ... ὁ Ἰ ησοῦς λέγει (Luke ε ἶ πεν )... πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke adjung.) γάρ ) ἐστιν κάμηλον διὰ τῆς (deest in Luke) τρυμαλι ᾶ ς τῆς (deest in Luke) ῥ αφίδος διελθεῖν (Luke διὰ τρήματος βελόνης εἰσελθεῖν) ἢ πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσελθεῖν . Wed. also Mk. 14, 15 Luke. 22, 12, etc. Such verbal-textual coincidences can hardly be attributed to mere chance. Firstly, they are too numerous to be eliminated by such a frivolous assumption. In this matter, we will refer to the authority of the American scientist A. Norton, who writes: “Most of this verbal agreement (between evangelists) falls on the transmission of someone’s sayings, and especially the sayings of Jesus. Thus, in the Matthew Gospel, the points of his coincidence with one or both evangelists extend to almost a sixth of its content, with 7/8 accounting for the presentation of the words of others and 1/8 for what can not be strictly called a story, where the evangelist, speaking on his own behalf, was not constrained in the choice of expressions. For Mark, this proportion in relation to the entire content of his Gospel reaches one sixth, and of this one fifth appears in the narratives. Luke has fewer such verbal similarities with the other evangelists. The passages in which they appear constitute only about 1/10 of his Gospel, and only a small part of this - less than 1/20 - is found in the stories" 317. True, the overwhelming majority of such examples fall on the speeches of the Lord and other persons, but we must not forget that both the latter and the Savior himself spoke predominantly (if not exclusively) in the then Hebrew language, that is, Aramaic, and this circumstance directly deprives us of the opportunity to find in them only an accurate rendering of what was said in its original form. In fact, when transcribing from the Hebrew-Aramaic dialect, the evangelists had before them the rich treasures of the Greek language, and it is not clear why they so often choose some well-known ones from the many possible words and phrases, when they could have used others with equal right. Then, in the Hebrew-Aramaic language only two forms dominate - perfectum (קָטַל) and imperfectum (יִקְטֹל) - for which Greek represents two future and three past; The frequent similarity of the evangelists on this point cannot be explained by simple reproduction, since it was not forced and inevitable. In the eschatological speech of all the Synoptics we read: “οὐ μὴ παρέλθ ῃ ἡ γενεά” [the generation will not pass away] (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32), “λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι "[My words will not pass away] (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33), where the Aramaic construction equally - and even more - allowed οὐ μὴ παρελεύσεται [will not pass away], οὐ μὴ παρέλθουσι 318 or παρελεύσονται [will not pass away] 319 . As is known, the Greek constantly attaches a mass of secondary shades to the main concept by increasing the prefixes σύν, μετά, ἐπί, παρά, κατά, εἰς, πρός, etc., while the Semitic did not know anything like that and was rather inclined to express these side points with different verbs, for example: יָצָא – go out (herausgehen), צָלָה – ascend (hinaussteigen). Therefore, one cannot refer to the fidelity of memory and accuracy of reproduction if all three first evangelists say προσμένουσι [are with] and συμπνίγουσι [muffled], when with no less convenience it was possible to choose περιμένουσι, παραμένουσι , συμμένουσι , καταμένουσι , ἀποπνίγουσι , ἐπιπνίγουσι 320. Further: Eastern languages ​​do not have verbal adjectives and, where they are needed, are content with descriptive forms, for example status constructus (state of conjugation), as we see in Hebrew. It is clear how many options they presented when translating into Greek, but even in these cases, complete consonance is often noticed between weather forecasters. Old Testament quotations are often given in a very original way, especially in Matthew - and yet this originality is not limited to just one Gospel text. Thus, the first evangelist instead of “ἰδού ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου "[behold, I send My angel, and he will watch the way before Me] (Mal. 3, 1 according to LXX) reads: “ἰδού ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃ ς "[Behold, I send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You] (Matthew 11:10 ); These words are found with the same difference in Mark (Mark 1:2) 321. Likewise, Matthew (Matthew 4:10) and Luke (Luke 4:8) convey Deut. 6, 13 as “προσκυνήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου” [You will worship the Lord your God], instead of the more appropriate תִּירָא – “ φοβηθήση “[you will be afraid] (cf. Is. 40:3–5 with Matt. 3:3, Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4; Isaiah 29:13 with Matt. 15:8–9 and Mark 7:6–7). τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ “[His paths] (Is. 40:3) are preserved in all synoptic texts (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). σύ ἦ σθα μετὰ Ἰ ησοῦ τοῦ Γαλιλαίου “[and you were with Jesus the Galilean] – preserved by both first synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:69; Mark 14:67: καὶ σύ μετὰ τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ ἦ σθα τοῦ Ἰ ησοῦ [and you were with Jesus of Nazareth]), although it, of course, does not belong to the Savior himself 322. This should also include cases of using new words, unusual grammatical forms, difficult combinations, for example “ὀπίσω μοῦ ἐλθεῖν “ [follow Me] (Matthew 16:24; cf. 10:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23; cf. 14, 27), "ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν " [of those born of women] (Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28), "γεύσασθαι θανάτου "[taste death] (Matt. 16, 28; Mark 9, 1; Luke 9, 27), "οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος " [sons of the bridal chamber] (Matt. 9, 15; Mark 2, 19; Luke 5, 34), "διαβλέψεις " [you will see] (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42), "ἀπαρθ ῇ" [taken away] – about the groom (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35), " συλλαβεῖν" [take] (Matthew 26:55; Mark 14:48), "συνθλαβθήσεται... λικμήσει" [break... crush] (Matthew 21:44; Lk. 20, 18), “κατέκλασεν” [broke] (Mk. 6, 41; Lk. 9, 16), “εἰ δὲ μή (γε)” [otherwise] - in a speech about the prohibition of pouring new wine into old wineskins (Matt. 9, 17; Mk. 2, 22; Lk. 5, 37), double increment: “ἀπεκατεστάθη” [became again] (Matt. 12, 13; Mk. 3, 5; Lk. 6, 10), “δυσκόλως” [difficult] ( Matthew 19, 23; Mark 10, 23; Luke 18, 24), " ἐπιούσιος "[urgent] (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3), "κολοβόω" [abbreviate] (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20), "ἀνάγαιον" [upper room] (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12), etc. The previous considerations give rise to the following conclusions: 1. All three first Gospels, from all the rich content of the life and teaching of the Lord Savior, select only one department of His Galilean ministry, passing through almost complete silence the activity in Jerusalem and Judea in general, which provided the main material for the apostle. John the Theologian. 2. The order in the placement of events is essentially the same, and their presentation is sometimes strikingly similar in letter even where this would least be expected, for example, in the original composition of Old Testament quotations, a unique construction, etc. It turns out, therefore, that Matthew, Mark and Luke look, as it were, together, through a single optical medium, and, naturally, see one picture in front of them. In this case, the real image undergoes a threefold refraction, but, remaining de facto inseparable, is reproduced with significant similarity in all three copies, which give our eye the opportunity to jointly view the entire phenomenon, as it was in reality, from three points of view. The first three Gospels are, so to speak, three glasses of a stereoscope, collecting scattered rays before our eyes into one complete image. That is why, since the time of Griesbach, they have received the name synoptics - συνοπτικὰ εὐαγγέλια [synoptic Gospels], which Neander introduced into general use. But, if we know from the testimony of John that the true picture of the life of Christ was much broader than the synoptic one, why, we ask, did only a small part of it fall under the observation of the weather forecasters? What outside hand lifted the veil of historical perspective before them with such a limited horizon, or what external cause so narrowed their horizons? Then: if the sacred writers did not act mechanically, then how can we explain that they so strictly observe the same acoluthic continuity of individual moments, and their speech so often achieves complete consonance even in those places where it turns out to be a complete cacophony for the subtle Hellenic ear, which always expects disharmony here? 323 Now we need to rationally explain the above-mentioned unity of the subject of the synoptic narrative and the features of its external processing. Experiences in solving synoptic problems When comparing the first three Gospels with the fourth, we see two types of Gospel stories - and the first seems as uniquely original as the second. Hence the immediate transition to the assumption that Matthew, Mark and Luke had before them one general schematic outline of the Gospel events and were guided by it as an obligatory norm, partly only supplementing and changing it; therefore their writings turned out to closely coincide with each other. So naturally, in the synoptic problem, the hypothesis of the first gospel (Urevangelium) was born. But if the first three Gospels occurred no later than the end of the first century, and Christian preaching was initially conducted orally, then, apparently, this Urevangelium could not be written. From here Oral First Gospel Hypothesis This idea was expressed in this form before others in 1797 by Herder 324 and developed in detail by Gieseler 325 , and then it found a unique application in the Tübingen school - in the sense of the tendentiousness of the Gospel records - and in Strauss, who explained the origin of their very matter from the mythical creativity of the first Christians. Gieseler believes that in Jerusalem, among the disciples of the Lord, a certain method of gospel narration, in Aramaic, gradually developed from the mutual exchange of memories and impressions, which was supposed to serve as a model for preachers of Christian teaching and protect them from deviations and perversions. It embraced only the social activity of the Lord in Galilee, but not all of its parts were distinguished by equal stability as part of the whole: as a result, some of them were molded into a purely stereotypical form that did not allow changes, while others opened up the possibility of various modifications and free combinations with the introduction of new material. This original type was translated into Greek in a peculiar form by St. Paul during his missionary travels, and later by the self-visionary apostles themselves when they left Palestine. In the second edition, Mark and our Matthew kept him closer, although the first moves further away from him, since he relies on readers living outside the Holy Land and adapts to their needs; Pavlov's treatment was more accurately preserved in Luke, whose features, among other weather forecasters, Gieseler brings to exceptional sharpness, almost in the spirit of later skeptical-tendentious criticism. Written for private reasons, these Gospels were not widely distributed at first, and only in general. Polycarp of Smyrna introduced them into general use in order to counter heretics and protect the flock from their harmful influence. This hypothesis immediately upon its appearance gained great sympathy, but two dangerous sides were soon revealed in it, which, when revealed one-sidedly, were expressed in two extreme directions, which significantly shook the authority of the theory: α) First of all, Gieseler placed too much emphasis on the complete peculiarity of his first gospel, its complete originality, and this soon opened up space for the question of its relationship and dignity in comparison with the text of John. The controversy raised on this subject 326 was soon decided in favor of the fourth evangelist, with the result that the tradition was considered insufficient to explain the origin of our weather forecasters, who turned out to be a later reworking of some lost apostolic records. β) But if so, then for what purpose and for what reasons was this processing carried out? Already Gieseler, in order to defend his point of view, was forced to exaggerately highlight the purely Paulinistic character of the third Gospel - and this served as an impetus for a new direction in solving the synoptic problem in the sense that our first three Gospels reflect different directions in the early Christian Church. This interpretation was systematically formulated by the Tübingen School. Essentially, she resolutely rejected the historical authenticity of the Gospel tradition, from which the question inevitably arose about the origin of the apostolic tradition with such rich and wonderful views 327. Bruno Bauer already expressed the idea that something in the gospel narratives bears a mythical imprint, and then he reduced most of them to the creative-mythical fantasy of the first evangelist 328. This position became the starting point for D. Strauss, who argued that the entire content of the Gospels should be exclusively mythological, created in a gradual mysterious process of saganal praise and exaltation of the life and deeds of one Jewish rabbi, until the dark legend reached strength and was enshrined in writing. The historical course of development of the theory of the oral Proto-Gospel shows that its consistency depends on a satisfactory answer to two questions: how the Proto-Gospel was formed and whether it is sufficient to explain the features of the current synoptic Gospels. Let us first turn to the first point, which finds a twofold solution among Orthodox Catholic and Orthodox Protestant theologians. According to the first, when the apostles were in Jerusalem after the Ascension, the exclusive subject of their memories and conversations was the life, deeds and teaching of the Savior. Through the mutual exchange of thoughts and information, accuracy and comprehensiveness of the reproduction of events was achieved, for each helped the other and together they did not miss a single small feature. Then the need naturally arose to communicate this content to the workers in the preaching of the Gospel, and the most understandable precaution prompted us to narrow its scope, limiting it only to what especially clearly expressed the messianic dignity of the Lord Christ, and to give everything a firm and stable form to prevent distortions. This is how a certain type of gospel history (stabilis narrandi typus) was formed by itself, tacito consensu [by tacit agreement], embracing passages common to the first three Gospels 329. Along with this, some other stories - due to their lesser importance - did not receive stereotypical immobility and were offered to neophytes in more free speech, and the words of the Lord were not so firmly connected with historical circumstances. This more fluid composition of the Gospel narrative constitutes the matter of those sections in which only two weather forecasters converge. Finally, there were other episodes that were remembered only sporadically and accidentally; Therefore, they did not find wide distribution and were the property of private circles. This easily explains why the evangelists sometimes completely disagree with each other: in these cases we have fragments of the latter property: in Matthew - from personal information, in Mark and Luke - from ἀπομνημονεύματα [memorial records] of St. apostles Peter and Paul. A significant part of the first Gospel was, of course, first in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek by the apostles. But in the first and second forms, it was carefully learned by heart until it was indelibly etched into the hearts of the evangelists 330. As we see from here, this hypothesis persistently asserts the close connection of the synoptic content with the apostolic memoirs - and this is its strong point, since it is undoubtedly that our Gospels, conveying actual events, could only learn about them from eyewitnesses. It is undeniable that in the end the root and source of the gospel stories lies in oral tradition, which for a long time was the only means of preaching the gospel of Christ. But for all right-thinking people this is a self-evident fact, and the essence of our question lies not in this, but in how to explain the monotonous appearance of the Gospel narrative of the weather forecasters. That the apostles as a whole knew as much detail as possible about the life of the Lord is also not subject to the slightest suspicion, but we need to understand why, from the vast store of their information, they deigned to choose only the period of the Galilean ministry and the last days of the Savior. Their goal, we are told, was to perpetuate about their divine Teacher that which most clearly imprinted His messianic dignity. So; but then, it means that in Judea Christ gave little or no evidence of His messiahship, meanwhile, John the Theologian irresistibly assures us that it was here that His messianic voice sounded especially loudly and His saving mission for the redemption of all mankind was especially clearly revealed. Therefore, the theory in its consistent application is inevitably forced to reject the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, which some too decisive critics did not hesitate to express (Bretschneider, Lützelberger, Zeller, Schwegler). But it is clear, however, that this is the salvation of a hypothesis at the sacrifice of facts, whereas according to a reasonable sense, the completely opposite is needed - to leave a standard that is not suitable for the matter and find a new one. In any case, the circumstance we have noted should convince us of the narrowness and exclusivity of the proposed interpretation, and at the same time of its complete unsuitability for this phenomenon. The observation does not change matters at all that, judging by the Acts and the Apostolic Epistles, the early Christian Church considered His passion and resurrection as the culminating points of the Lord’s saving ministry as the final result of the entire previous period. Therefore, considered in the light of its completion, the latter is depicted in general terms - from the side of its preparatory meaning, without chronological sequence by year or great holidays 331. In general, this opinion is, of course, fair; only it does not solve our question. According to him, one would have to expect that the last pages of the Gospel history will be told with one pen, and the earlier ones will be more noticeably affected by the individual characteristics of their writers, as always, many agree about the effect, but disagree about the premises, equally recognize the effect, diverging in determining the causes. Among the weather forecasters we see the completely opposite: they sound in complete agreement in their depiction of the Galilean ministry and fall into disharmony when they approach the suffering and resurrection of the Savior. Moreover, there is no doubt that John the Theologian more firmly and energetically pursues the idea of ​​the lamb of God, and his edition, more likely than others, should have parallels, which, again, is not the case. Even less satisfactory are the references to the fact that in their catechesis the apostles adapted themselves to the needs and level of development of the neophytes and fed them milk rather than solid food 332 . We admit that the Gospel of John is more difficult than the synoptic ones; It is also true that the story is more conveniently perceived and easier to assimilate - all this is in the order of things. But why couldn’t the Jerusalem journeys of Christ be conveyed more simply, in a publicly accessible form, instead of completely hushing them up? Why did the need for converts cause such uniformity? After all, people are not a template; this moving mass, where there are as many aspirations, desires, types, as there are heads and minds, would rather give rise to endless variations and accommodations of the gospel, alien to the stereotypical stability of forms and contents. And we know this from the example of up. Paul, who “made himself a slave to all things, that he might gain more. To the Jew he was as a Jew, in order to win the Jews; to those under the law he was as one under the law, in order to win those under the law; to those who are strangers to the law, as one who is strangers to the law, in order to win those who are strangers to the law; He was like one who is weak to the weak, so that he might gain the weak. He became all things to all, in order to save at least some” (see 1 Cor. 9:19-22). So: the special content of the weather forecasters in their relation to Ioannov defies the understanding of Gieseler’s supporters. But let us agree for a moment that the synoptic X they assumed actually received a certain formula. The question now is: what motives guided the apostles during this work, what prompted them to strive for this? “The desire to protect the Gospel truth from corruption during its oral transmission by people who did not belong to the ranks of the twelve,” the hypothesis answers us. But was what we find in the Theologian less deserving of such care and was not so important for the enlightenment of the world? No, for he himself testifies that his writing is necessary for eternal life (John 20:31), and therefore, of course, he would not be slow to contribute his share of memories to the general treasury of the chief apostolic tradition, since John was a pillar of the primacy of the church, along with James and Cephas (Gal. 2:9). Let us assume, however, that somehow the beloved disciple of the Savior was excluded from compiling the imaginary first gospel and all of it was limited only to the framework of the synoptic narrative - and then it is not clear why the apostles, in order to achieve their goal, did not turn to a more certain means, writing, to which they still had to resort later. We recognize that the entire cycle of synoptic legends is not invincible for the faculty of human memory, and we know that the rabbis achieved phenomenal results and amazing virtuosity in this regard. Let us not deny other facts of this nature: for example, Peter, according to Clementine, confirmed the words of the Lord every night 333; Polycarp of Smyrna related what he heard from the samovids “according to Scripture” (σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς) 334; the paralytic Servulus, by one rumor, acquired significant information on the Holy Scriptures 335; Egyptian monk audiendo memoriter tenuisse [having heard, retained in memory] 336. Although all these facts are far from convincing, and many do not go to the point at all, 337 but so be it. If the memory of Christians represented a sufficient guarantee for the preservation of the gospel truth in its purity and integrity, then why did apostolic writing begin so early? Why did Matthew take up his pen at a time when there were still many people capable of reading his entire Gospel to him in advance with almost literal punctuality? Finally, the initial type of gospel history, incomprehensible in its origin, turned out to be practically useless, because nowhere is it seen to be used for its intended purpose. Later than others, called to the work of apostolic ministry, Apostle. Paul worked more than others in the missionary field. It would be natural to expect that the former persecutor of the Church of God (Gal. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:9), greeted with distrust by his new brothers, first of all took care of acquiring the favor and disposition of the latter by the most careful study of the Christian catechism. And this was not difficult for him, because he had once succeeded in Judaism more than many peers of his kind (Gal. 1:14). Meanwhile, he would then have received solid support for his preaching and would have given the apostles a sure guarantee of his right-mindedness 338. In reality it turns out to be the opposite. Paul categorically and with deliberate emphasis declares that his Gospel is not human (Gal. 1:11, 12; cf. Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 9:14; 2 Cor. 9, 14 339), that he did not consult with flesh and blood and did not go to Jerusalem to see the witnesses of Christ the Savior, but was there three years later (after conversion), but even then he stayed only fifteen days and, besides Peter, saw only James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1, 16-19). Only fourteen years later he offered his gospel to the most famous for study: was he not struggling in vain? – and received approval and fellowship from those revered by the pillars (Gal. 2:1-2, 6, 9). Why was the First Gospel least used by those who, according to theory, needed it most? There can only be one answer - that there was none or that it had a different purpose that was not predicted by the hypothesis. It is remarkable that where the Apostle of Languages ​​sees the central point of Christian teaching, his difference from the Synoptics is especially important. He placed the essence and significance of Christian preaching in connection and dependence on the fact of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15, 13-15, 17) - and yet, to certify it, he refers to the appearance of the Lord to Cephas, the five hundred brethren and Jacob (1 Cor. 15, 5-7), which the weather forecasters almost do not mention. Likewise, the establishing words of Christ at the Last Supper, as they are conveyed in 1 Cor. 11, 23–25, do not find complete agreement with the news of the first three evangelists (Matthew 26, 26–28; Mark 14, 22–24), although they come close to the redaction of Luke (Luke 22, 19–20). We should not forget that the latter was more closely associated with Paul than others and his writing is the most “original” and deviates very far from the synoptic scheme in plan and content. Again, we are convinced from here that Luke’s guarantor did not know the supposed gospel prototype, otherwise it would have been reflected in its entirety in the interpretation of his companion. But if this is the case in relation to the Apostle of Languages, then in general the existence of the developed Gospel history becomes downright incredible, and for this reason the whole hypothesis loses ground. It is fair only in that it indicates the proper source of the synoptic legends, but it is completely helpless to reveal its unique form, because it does not represent either sufficient motives or a justifying purpose for the development of a specific apostolic first gospel. But if so, if in the area of ​​possible motives and special intentions there is no reason for consolidating the gospel matter into a synoptic framework, then does it not lie outside this area - where creativity operates, alien to the teleological narrowness of the tendentious aspirations of pure will and limited individual reason? This is exactly the outcome that the history of Western New Testament criticism itself suggested, and Strauss heeded its voice, sharply eliminating any consciousness in the process of formation of the gospel matter and replacing the known “few” of its agents with an unlimited mass of Christian brotherhood. This is how the theory of myth turned out, trying to bring our Gospels on the same level with folk sagas of an epic-heroic nature. What is the essence of this view on our particular issue? In a strict and precise sense, myth is the creation of a fact for the sake of and on the basis of an idea - when, for example, a given religious society wants to illuminate for itself the initial and initial moments of status praesens [the current state], and there are no corresponding justifications either in tradition or in written chronicles. Naturally, for this purpose, religious consciousness fills the bottomless void only with that which meets the emerging need and can only be considered as truly existing. Thus, the prevailing concepts of the era are embodied in events, and these latter - due to agreement with those - receive the meaning of undoubtedly valid ones. On the contrary, the saga is not distinguished by such creativity and always presupposes a true incident, the immediate meaning of which has been lost or has turned out to be low and insufficient for a higher and more developed view. Not understanding the past, the present exerts a violent influence on it and transforms it according to established new views 340. Similarly, in our Gospels, all stories about Christ are classified as mythical, where we see a reflection of a certain idea, and not a reproduction of a fact. In those cases where the factual material makes itself felt with greater force, but is presented in an extremely confused manner, with clear traces of distortions and embellishments of oral rumor, here we are obviously dealing with sagal products 341. Thus, a necessary condition for the mythical-sagal process is the presence of some deep idea that directly invents the reality it needs or transforms it to its own taste, and the specific feature of this process - according to the authority of Otfried Müller 342 - is the “necessity and unconsciousness” (Notwendigkeit und Unbewusstsein) of creative productivity 343 . Regarding the gospel history, these motives lay in the special tension and universality of messianic expectations before the time of the coming of Christ 344 - and only a reason was needed for them to take the form of a historical story about the Messiah of Israel. This impulse was given by the appearance and teaching of the “brilliant” rabbi 345 Jesus, to whom was attached what the thought of the Jewry of that time desired, transferring the image of the Deliverer, vivid to its consciousness, to a living person. The transition from the ideal to the real in the minds of the enthusiastic followers of the Lord, animated by messianic beliefs, was the most natural and happened unnoticed. Therefore, the connection turned out to be so strong that none of the students could have any doubt about the complete objectivity of what was in fact simple imagination. The whole decision now depends on whether at the beginning of our era there was an irreducible compulsion to create the Messiah and how necessary it was to declare itself in relation to the Savior. The first, of course, is undeniable, as shown by the question to John the Baptist (John 1:20, 24), but from the Gospels themselves it is clear that the Jews and apostles of that time considered it necessary to precede the Deliverer by Elijah (Matthew 17:10; Mark 9:11). And the Jew Tryphon even said to Justin: ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα , μέχρις ἃ ν ἐλθ ὼ ν Ἠ λίας χρίσ ῃ αὐτὸν καὶ φανερὸν π ᾶ σι ποιήσ ῃ [Christ, if He was born and is somewhere, remains unknown to others, and He does not yet know Himself, and has no power until Elijah comes and anoints Him and makes Him visible to everyone] 346. Therefore, the mythological process had to begin with the recognition of someone as a Tishbite, meanwhile, the Forerunner who appeared in spirit and power was rejected - and the apostles themselves only later, on the direct instructions of the Lord (Matthew 17:13; cf. Matt. 11, 14), rose to a true understanding of his personality. This was precisely the general view of Jesus (Matthew 16:14; Luke 9:8, etc.), and therefore it is completely incredible that someone who was not even recognized as one of the prophets would suddenly be revered as the Messiah himself. But let us assume that for some unknown reason a simple rabbi acquired such a high importance in the eyes of some Jews, who surrounded him with an aura of messianic greatness and decorated his life prose with all the colors of their ardent dreams. In this case, the process had to operate with inexorable consistency in the spirit of the aspirations of the people, and we know that its cherished ideal was the political Messiah, king and ruler, who would deliver Israel (Luke 24:21). In fact, exactly the opposite happened, for Christ most persistently rejected such a view and always put forward the idea of ​​a suffering and humiliated Savior, living peacefully with every Caesar. And in general, the life of the Lord in many ways did not correspond to the spirit and mood of the time. “He is of royal blood and a descendant of David, but His family is in decline; He was born in Bethlehem, but is considered a Nazarene; He speaks as no teacher has ever spoken, but has no diploma from any school; He multiplies the signs of His power, but these are not what the Jews demand; He heals, but often it happens on the Sabbath; He calls Himself the Messiah, but rejects the earthly role imposed by the scribes; He insists with increasing force on His sonship, equating Himself with God, but this especially offends the religious leaders and serves as the greatest temptation for them; He establishes the kingdom of God and proclaims the law, but this kingdom and this law are the end of the power of the Jews and their law” 347. Representatives of the then Jewry “assimilated to the Messiah all the privileges: world judgment, salvation, revival of the world, establishment of the kingdom of God, victory over all enemies, sitting at the right hand of God, sharing in His power and glory; but they stubbornly rejected His Divinity.” Therefore, the Savior, calling Himself the Son of God, outraged them and restored against Himself all the hatred of their religious beliefs 348. There is hardly any point of attraction between the historical Christ and the religious elements of that era. Instead of mutual affinity, a deep and irreconcilable contradiction reigns. It would be fair to state that it is not clear why messianic predicates began to be attached to the Redeemer with extraordinary generosity for hardened Jews, nor why His image turned out to be a negation of its giving cause. If so, then it is clear without words how little we can count on the theory of myth in solving the synoptic problem. Strauss says that for the most part the mythological content of our Gospels does not belong to the first Christian age, but its fundamental basis was the Old Testament myth, as it developed from the time and after the Babylonian captivity 349. This means that the expected Messiah was supposed to represent the complete fulfillment of all ancient prophecies. This, of course, was Christ according to the consciousness of the evangelists, but it is remarkable that at this very point, where agreement between the weather forecasters is inevitably assumed, the greatest difference reigns. In the proper and strict sense, Matthew alone satisfies this requirement, but one has only to compare his work with the writings of Mark and Luke, at least in terms of the number of Old Testament quotations and parallels, to see how far he is from his literary brethren in this respect and how great his difference from them is in place of the necessary solidarity. Therefore, from his point of view, Strauss is unable to understand and explain the character of our first three Gospels and must say “nescio” [I don’t know], and this amounts to a confession of one’s own weakness - or sinfulness, if weakness and ignorance are nevertheless proclaimed by strength and omniscience. From the above, the conclusion follows that neither Gieseler’s supporters nor the productive Tübingen mythologist revealed to us even with approximate satisfaction the unity of synoptic matter. Now, to take our question a step further, we must accept this as a fact - incomprehensible, but valid. Let us concede this too, recognizing that in an incomprehensible way, before the beginning of the writing of the Gospels, an oral first gospel was formed. Does this explain the character of our weather forecasters? In them, along with striking coincidence in general and in particulars, we encounter no less important deviations both in details and in the most significant points. It is obvious that it is impossible to allow a direct translation of the Chief Apostolic type of Gospel history - especially if it has received such strength that the Greek Matthew was not a translation, but simply a replacement for the Aramaic and, made independently of the latter, turned out to be entirely identical with it, as Westcott claims 350. It is clear that the existence of such a developed pattern does not reveal the synoptic phenomenon in all its objective mystery. Therefore, they think that over time and in different places it was modified and varied, split into several varieties, three of which were preserved for us by Matthew, Mark and Luke. But, firstly, Gieseler’s hypothesis here already contradicts itself, since, according to it, the Ur-Evangelium [first gospel] was compiled for precisely this purpose, in order to prevent any changes; then: such an interpretation in essence is only a statement of the phenomenon of similarities and differences in synoptic narratives, as did the Englishman Dr. Edwin Abbott, saying that one should assume a “triple tradition”: one for all the Gospels together, another for two in three forms (for Matt.-Mk., for Matt.-Lk., for Mark-Lk.), and a third for each separately 351 . It is undeniable that there was a legend about the life and work of the Lord the Savior with a general, but not everywhere identical in completeness and detail content; however, this fact in itself does not solve the synoptic problem, which requires a special explanation, which the hypothesis does not provide. In view of such difficulties, the defenders of the view under consideration suddenly, and to the detriment of the unity and consistency of the system, shift the center of gravity from matter to writers, making them guilty of the origin of differences. This would be quite fair if the question was only about literary differences and did not concern the essence of the Gospel sermon, but the whole problem is that here the deviations are no less significant than in purely personal stylistic details, as well as vice versa: in the latter we sometimes find just as striking coincidences as in the presentation of events and speeches. Obviously, simple authorial originality is too little, and it can equally rightly lead to the idea of ​​a single written image of the Lord with all the techniques of our weather forecasters, which the hypothesis does not allow. And finally: why did the threefold refraction of the common chief apostolic history in the minds of the three evangelists cause these differences? Is it because they learned it differently? Then for Gieseler its very appearance will be incomprehensible: if it allowed such dissimilar perceptions, then there is no raison dʼêtre [reason] for its occurrence. There remains one more outcome: to accept that, for their own reasons, the editors themselves deliberately reproduced inaccurately the original gospel type. This is exactly what the followers of Gieseler do, reducing everything to the special goals and unique plan of our Gospels. The moderate ones (J. N. A. Ebrard, and after him Archbishop Michael 352, N. Troitsky 353, Comely, Westcott) indicate that each tried to satisfy the particular needs of readers and therefore chose from many things that suited his task, and supplemented them with his own memories and impressions. The latter, of course, should not count, and the whole question is to derive all the differences from the general “unknown”. But is this possible? Here again we encounter a difficulty that cannot be eliminated from the Gieselerian point of view. There is no doubt, for example, that for Luke it was important to indicate the genetic connection of Christ with Adam, the forefather and God, the Creator of all people, but did Matthew’s genealogy exclude its continuation to the beginning of time without changing the members he cited? Don't we see that its main links - David and Abraham - are also supported by the third evangelist? It is clear that for him it was not an irresistible inevitability to insert new rings into the successive chain of the Savior's ancestors. The Resurrection of the Lord is the central and supporting point of the Christian faith - why do we find so many disagreements in its presentation? Why, in general, do writers have such a despotic attitude towards their primary source, when they all wanted to imprint in the hearts of their readers the single image of God the Redeemer, which was authorized by the host of the apostles as a mandatory norm? No, the simple concept of private goals does not justify such behavior, unless it is exaggerated to the point of exclusivity, unless one assumes that they sharply diverged from each other and with their energy exerted an overwhelming violent influence on historical material. The Tübingen school does not stop at such a conclusion and, putting into the facts a content alien to them, they think to bring our Gospels out of the struggle of directions - Judeo-Petrinistic and universal-Paulinistic, reconciled with each other at the highest moment. But whether we accept or deny the authenticity of the Gospel story, in any case, according to the spirit of the system, it is necessary that in the synoptic narratives these opposites are clearly expressed and the unifying tendency of any of them sounds very strong and perceptible to ordinary hearing. In fact, we find something completely different - and the first three Gospels, without knowing any tendentious extremes, give us the same image of Christ. There are differences, but there is no mutual negation, and the term “reconciliation” actually means that they all closely coincide with each other in thought, content, and presentation. Baur and his successors must create and are creating new Gospels - and this alone loudly testifies that they are not talking about a real phenomenon and that real literary documents are broader than their narrow yardstick, suitable only for the whimsical products of their unbridled imagination. It is therefore necessary to increase its size to the desired correspondence with the existing facts, and this in the end amounts to a direct merger with the orthodox Giselerians and the collapse of the entire [Tübingen] theory. Such a step was already taken by A. Hilgenfeld 354 and thereby revealed the internal inconsistency of the principles of the Tübingen school and the inevitability of its self-decomposition when applied to evangelical historical monuments. “After so many and extraordinary labors, we are still far from achieving even the slightest agreement even on the most important points of the synoptic question,” these words of Hilgenfeld can serve as an excellent epitaph for all the sad constructions of exegetical criticism. The positive result of all long-term and intensive attempts to solve the synoptic problem in the considered direction can be formulated in the following points: 1. The close relationship of our first three Gospels points to their common source in the holistic apostolic tradition. 2. Since the unity of this primary source cannot be reduced to the unconscious creativity of the mythological process, the reason for this should lie only in its complete objectivity, in adequate correspondence with historical fact, as all exegetes of the patristic period affirmed. 3. But, quite fair for the entire composition of the Gospel history, this recognition is not yet sufficient to explain the formal and material character of the Synoptics, for it remains unclear why all the wealth of the early Christian tradition, when consolidated in writing, was firmly limited to the period of the Galilean ministry and was expressed in literal and unexpected coincidences of all editions, to which the oral first Gospel was not in the least obligated, about which we do not even know how and why it appeared 355. 4. The dubious existence of such a prototype does not provide the key to understanding synoptic differences, since the special goals of each writer should lead to great heteroglossia, like the Baur-Tübingen ones, if they could justify the arbitrary disposal of the material. Since this is not the case, we are naturally inclined to think that the author's freedom had more restraining barriers than what the oral model presented, and was forced to greater attention to its original. This means that the latter was distinguished by perfect stability and definiteness of form and content, and these signs can only be contained in a written presentation of the Gospel story. Thus we arrive at a new theory on the synoptic question. The theory of the written first gospel This opinion, expressed fragmentarily and in passing already from the beginning of the 18th century, was developed with complete decisiveness at the very end by Eichhorn, who, following the example of Lessing, 356 argued that even before the death of Archdeacon Stephen, a short report on the Gospel events in Aramaic was compiled in the Church of Jerusalem to meet the needs of catechesis. This primary record A, due to frequent and inaccurate copying, was fragmented into several reviews - B, C, D, etc. - of which each evangelist had only a few at hand, translated them into publicly available Greek speech and processed them into one whole. Thus, Matthew's narrative arose from A and D, Luke used B and D, and Mark reproduced C, which arose from A and B 357. In this form, this hypothesis could not withstand the bold and victorious onslaught of Hug, who irresistibly demonstrated the similarity of the Greek synoptic text, and therefore, in addition to four Aramaic records, Eichhorn was forced to admit two more Greek ones. At the same time, the coincidences of the Gospels were explained by the unity of the original, and the differences - by the differences in its editions and translations and the writers’ own additions 358. Once the matter was reduced to arithmetic, from the point of view of probability, nothing prevented the multiplication of these unknowns in infinitum [to infinity]. And so the Anglican bishop Herbert Marsh added to the primary Aramaic original - א 359 - an Aramaic collection of sayings (gnomologia) - ב - along with five corrected and expanded varieties and one Greek edition of the first (א ן) 360. The intricacy of these constructions was striking, and since simplicity is the most important sign of truth and authenticity, Graz cut off the too lush branches of the March tree and limited himself to only the Aramaic first gospel and its Greek version: Matthew used the first, the second - together with the Greek edition of the latter [i.e. e. Matthew's Gospel] - Mark and Luke, and all of them were later changed and brought to greater agreement 361. The main drawback of the stated hypothesis was that when applied to the case, the alleged prototype completely disappeared and, obviously, was insufficient to resolve the issue if it was necessary to involve so many primary records that completely supplanted it. In this case, the First Gospel turned out to be downright useless; for this reason, Pavlus already expressed that the reconstruction of our Gospels should be carried out with the help of short stories - fragmentary “memorabilia” 362. Working in this spirit and under the pressure of a similar thought, Schleiermacher allowed an unlimited number of Aramaic and Greek fragmentary notes, which contained either the speeches of the Lord, then only miracles, then - finally - parables 363. He tried to justify his view by the statement that the testimony of Papias of Hierapolis supposedly cannot relate to our first two canonical Gospels in their present form and refers them to the forefathers - a collection of speeches (λόγια) and a disorderly list of the sayings of the Savior and facts from His life 364. This thesis formed the basis for the further development of the hypothesis of a written first gospel, which was found in the “logies” of Matthew, and Papie’s news about Mark was directly attached to his canonical Gospel, which took first place among our weather forecasters. The Tübingen school also took advantage of this result, inventing an intricate genealogy of first-second-Matthews, first-second-Markov, etc. into infinity. But Baur’s tireless opponent, Ewald, leaned towards March and allowed the following precedents for the emergence of our weather forecasters: 1) The Gospel of Deacon Philip in Aramaic, which in a historical sketch depicted the most important moments of the life of Jesus; 2) Matthew's λόγια with brief historical introductions; 3) based on them and not much different from the current Ur-Markus [first Mark], characterized by freshness and liveliness of colors; 4) “the book of higher history,” which also outlined the most significant events, such as temptation; 5, 6 and 7) three lost works, of which one breathed inner warmth and tenderness, the other was dry and fragmentary, and the third was dedicated to the years of the Lord’s childhood; 8) our canonical Luke, simply putting together all the previous materials - with the exception of Matthew; 9) canonical Mark – a slight reworking of the original Mark. We now see that supporters of the opinion about the written sources of our weather forecasters are divided into two factions. Some of them more or less decisively recognize, following Eichhorn, one common primary record, which was subjected to many different revisions before being enshrined in canonical monuments. But where is the supposed imaginary first gospel and when did it exist? These questions do not receive a satisfactory answer here. One can, of course, say that the fault for this is the lack of ancient news, but this is a simple asylum of ignorantiae [refuge of ignorance] with a heap of hypothesis upon hypothesis and therefore has no right to lay claim to even a weak probability. The canonical formation of New Testament writing took place before the eyes and in the bosom of the Church itself, and it was not able to forget what served as the original beginning of its sacred literature. They say there was no need for this when the synoptic narratives, with their perfection, absorbed and eliminated their ancestor and forever blotted out the memory of him. Apart from the fact that the very existence of such an original record then becomes doubtful - as a pure guess - the reason why the weather forecasters had such an overwhelming influence on the general church consciousness is incomprehensible. It could value the apostolic prototype lower than the works of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but there was no motive why it should disappear without a trace. The third evangelist directly puts himself ahead of the others in terms of accuracy and chronological coherence - and yet his canonical predecessors have constantly occupied and continue to occupy a place alongside him. Compelled by this necessity, scientists are trying to point out in the past some dark hints about the progenitor of modern synoptic legends in the news of Papyus of Hierapolis. In his work “Λογίων Κυριακῶν έξήγησις” [“Interpretation of the Lord’s sayings”] he testifies: Ματθαῖος μὲν ο ὗ ν Ἑ [Matthew wrote down (compiled) sayings in Hebrew] 365. This remark seems to indicate a primary collection of only the words and speeches of the Lord, different from our first canonical Gospel, where there is a lot of historical data. But it is certain, first of all, that Eusebius, who preserved the Papiian fragments before us, meant here exclusively the present Matthew, and we have no scientific reason not to trust him, for he knew the work of the Bishop of Hierapolis in its entirety, and we judge by pitiful and dark fragments. And, fortunately for us, the authority of the “father of church history” is justified with documentary irrefutability. Papias's work was called "Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις"; for all that, it also contained stories (διηγήσεις) of a historical nature (ἱστορεῖ), for example, about the resurrection of the deceased and that Just-Barsaba drank a poisonous drink without harm to himself, as well as καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς συγγραφεύς ὡ ς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀγράφου εἰς αὐτὸν ἥ κοντα ?? αὐτοῦ, καὶ τινα ἄλλα μυθικώτερα [he also outlined other things that came to him as if from an unwritten tradition, unusual parables of the Savior and His instructions and something else of a more fabulous nature] 366. This means that λόγια [sayings] in no case excluded episodes of a historical-narrative nature and most likely equal τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα [said and done by Christ], as Papias designates the content of the Gospel of Mark 367 - only with a predominance of didactic and teaching material, indicated by both the Hierapolis interpreter 368 and Eusebius 369 with the term λόγος [word]. With this understanding, Papi's testimony will be a general and, in the main, correct description of our Matthew's Gospel, originally compiled in the “Hebrew” language 370. If so, then it is from him that you need to start when solving a synoptic problem. Acting in this direction, other scholars do not want to remain with the current available data and are looking for its original in the εὐαγγέλιον καθ ᾿ Ἑ βραίους [Gospel of the Jews]. This monument has also reached us in a few extracts, and no one is able to restore its original text, even approximately. Here again we are faced with endless disputes and contradictions, and therefore there is no solid support for recreating the synoptic structure. If we accept the most plausible and agree that it is [the Gospel of the Jews. -Ed.] chopping up the Jewish Matthew 371 - and then we get the result that our first Greek Gospel arose from him, and the mutual relations of the weather forecasters are not explained in the least by this. Thus, the written “proto-gospel” is a pure theoretical fabrication, devoid of historical-documentary credibility. Then: its influence on our first three Gospels is not visible, since the synoptic differences are so great that they could not grow on the soil of one fixed stereotypical form. If the latter was so elastic that it lost its appearance at the slightest touch of the author’s hand, then in this case its basic character is completely lost and it itself turns into an airy mirage, devoid of any reality, or is fragmented into an innumerable number of atoms, the combination of which is represented by our canonical records. The second faction of scientists of the direction under consideration applies precisely this worldview to the field of evangelical history. Pavlus recommends his “memorabilia” (Memorabilien) - short written memorial notes, Schleiermacher treats about “digesis” (Diegesen) - short historical stories (διηγήσεις) 372, Lachmann talks about some “tattles” (Corpuskeln), others - following the example of March - simply go through everything letters of existing alphabets in various combinations. In all these hypotheses, it is assumed that some kind of intelligent will united scattered written tales even before the appearance of the current synoptic editions 373. In this case, first of all, one would have to expect that all the “digesis” would be merged into one image of the Gospel narrative, but this guess is directly eliminated by the triplicity of the Synoptic Gospels. Likewise, the Church was completely unaware of such a harmonistic attempt, as evidenced by the news of various gospel symphonies already from the second century (Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch) and as Luke attests, speaking of the “undertakings” of many. If such a gospel collection ever existed in the world, it would be most natural to preserve it than to undertake new works of this kind. Moreover: after such a comprehensive gospel history, there would be no need for other expositions, which only created unnecessary difficulties in understanding it with their differences. It follows from this that, according to the hypothesis, there should have been a first gospel, but it did not exist and it itself does not explain why Matthew, Mark and Luke were not satisfied with it. Let us now agree that the process of unification did not immediately reach its full completion due to its difficulty and for some reason stopped at the current gospel records. To explain the nature of the latter, obviously, only the last links, the closest ones, should be of primary importance, since the first ones are in too distant a relationship. In the same way, there should not be many of them, because then the mystery of synoptic unity will be unexplained, which is why the whole dispute arises. Moderate defenders of the hypothesis under consideration, without going into the depths of what is unknown to anyone, take precisely the immediate progenitors of the trinity of our synoptic twins. Weitzäcker, Reuss, Reville, Holtzman recognize only two lost works - first Matthew and first Mark; Black, Klosterman, Godet, B. Weiss - even one source that comes close to our first canonical Gospel. In both forms, both of these solutions are distinguished by their comparative simplicity, but even in them a certain amount of artificiality and logical inconsistency are noticeable from the point of view taken. If the unifying work of the previous material was gradually expressed in greater perfection, then it is not clear why before the synoptic moment there were two attempts, and not one, why exactly two, and not three, why, finally, proto-Matthew and proto-Mark, and not just Matthew and Mark or, together with them, Luke. Then: where is the reason that these two independent combinations turned out to be similar when the abundance of crushed material did not force such a coincidence? Distinguishing them, therefore, only clutters the path to the truth, and for purely logical reasons, Holtzman later renounced his previous dualism and leaned in favor of the idea that the fundamental principle of all weather forecasters is a collection of sayings, which passed entirely into the present Matthew 374. But if this source exerted its influence on Mark and Luke not directly, but through the medium of the first weather forecaster, as the named scientists largely admit, then it is clear that for solving the synoptic issue in all its breadth it is completely unnecessary and should not be taken into account. For this very reason, this unnecessary X disappears, which means that our first Gospels should be explained only from themselves, which is only conceivable if they mutually used each other. In this way he is called to the stage Hypothesis of mutual use of the first three Gospels This idea was expressed with absolute certainty by the blj. Augustine: “Marcus eum (Matthaeum) subsecutus, tamquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Cum solo quippe Joanne, nihil dixit; solus ipse, perpauca; cum solo Luca, pauciora; cum Matthaeo vero, plurima; et multa pene totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum solo, sive cum ceteris consonante” [Mark follows him (Matthew) and appears as his accompaniment and abbreviator. For he did not say anything that would be common with John alone; I said very little on my own; together with Luke alone - even less; but most of all with Matthew. In addition, he conveys a lot almost exactly in the same words as Matthew, coinciding in such cases either exclusively with him or with the other evangelists 375. This position in our time - in the course of previous attempts to clarify the synoptic problem - can be considered the only fruitful theory. Now it appears to us in three forms: 1. The first faction of scholars, strictly adhering to Augustine, declares that Mark used Matthew, and Luke both together. At the same time, some consider the Aramaic original of Matthew to be the direct source for the second evangelist, thinking that its Greek version was already made under the influence of Mark’s review; others refer in addition to oral tradition and some lost records, more or less fragmentary; still others at least do not directly deny the influence of the apostolic tradition. 2. The second category may include those scholars who - since the time of Griesbach 377 and following his example - share the opinion of Clement of Alexandria that the Gospels with genealogies appeared first of all ( τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας . ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οἰκονομίαν ... [he said that the Gospels were written first, where there are genealogies. And the Gospel according to Mark arose under such circumstances...] 378). In this case, Matthew is the first, Luke reworks him, and Mark uses the works of both predecessors. 3. There is still a third combination left - to award the palm to Mark and then place Matthew and Luke behind him in one order or another. This last form is now recognized as the most scientific and can be called in the strict sense the final word of exegetical sophistication 379. As we see from here, the supporters of the analyzed hypothesis are most divided by the question of the chronological and genetic sequence of our Gospels, since not all of them allow for the order of the canon accepted by the Church: Matthew, Mark and Luke. But such inattention to the voice of church tradition amounts to a direct denial of historical evidence, when everything should be based entirely on them, and therefore has no scientific value. Here are clear arguments for the weakness of these attempts 380 . Many are trying to reveal the composition of Mark on the basis of its direct literary dependence on Matthew and Luke. There are many supporting documents in favor of this idea, but its triumph lies in Mk. 1, 32, where, speaking about Christ’s healing of the sick and demon-possessed in Capernaum, the writer defines the chronological moment of these events from two sides: evening came when the sun set]. In parallel places Matt. 8:16 notes: ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης [when evening comes], and Lk. 4, 40: δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου [at sunset]. Mark's phrase obviously combines both of these indications, therefore the conclusion is drawn that in general this evangelist compiles his predecessors 381. However, doubling is, rather, a special literary device of Mark, since such examples are not rare in him (Mk. 1, 35: πρω ῒ ἔννυχα λίαν [early in the morning, completely dark]; Mk. 14, 12: τ ῇ πρώτ ῃ ἡμερ ᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων, ὅ τε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον [on the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover lamb was buried] Mark 16, 2: λίαν πρω ῒ ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλιου [very early at sunrise]) and cannot always be inferred from other synoptic texts. In this case, the addition of “interpreter Petrov” does not necessarily refer to Luke’s edition and is explained quite naturally. The fact is that Matthew does not indicate exactly the day of the week when the events he describes took place, and for him the general expression that it was in the evening was sufficient. But Mark directly dates them to the Sabbath (Mk. 1, 21, 29–31), when all work was prohibited; this forced him to note that the sick were brought to the Savior at the time permitted by law - after sunset, from where our Sunday already began. Other evidence is no less shaky - and yet it is not in them that the death point of this hypothesis lies, but in the basic idea itself. Let us assume that Mark takes the last place and simply shortens the works of Matthew and Luke, which are replenished very little 382. Not having anything new and original to say, he should directly recommend his sources; this would have been equally beneficial to his intentions and would have saved him from serious plagiarism. Equally, with such a point of view, it would be incomprehensible to respect the Church for him, where his writings have always enjoyed high authority along with others. This means: the hypothesis under consideration does not provide sufficient reasons for the emergence of the second Gospel and turns out to be even weaker when solving the synoptic problem as a whole. If the stylistic and other features of Mark reveal in him only a breviatorʼa [abridger] of Matthew and Luke, then the same measure must be applied to the latter. But no matter what artificial combinations we resort to, in this way neither Luke is explained from Matthew, nor Matthew from Luke, for each of them contains much that is original. Therefore, for the theory being analyzed, the words of B. Weiss are quite true that “it is a pure delusion and leads only to the fact that it distorts and obscures the real state of affairs” 383. Rejecting the analyzed view for purely scientific reasons, we receive here considerable edification for ourselves. The researched opinion is based on the idea that the evangelists are simple writers in our sense, writing in learned studies with a possibly extensive library of manuals at hand. There is nothing more false than this assumption, which does not justify itself and is unnatural based on the customs of the apostolic era and the nature of New Testament writing. The Gospels are then an incoherent mosaic of various fragments, a mechanical conglomerate, the origin of which is accidental and inexplicable from existing materials, the purpose of which is incomprehensible and even shameful! If such a view is impermissible and unscientific, since it confuses the matter, then it must be accepted as true that purely literary methods of modern criticism should not have a place in the synoptic problem. It does not consist in reducing one evangelist to another, but requires only to show whether their mutual acquaintance was not one of the factors in the method of literary formation of their writings. And when the answer is in the affirmative, this will in no way mean that this or that evangelist was not independent or did not have independent information about the subjects he revealed and, drawing data from his sources, only diluted what he took with his own additions. This fact will reveal to us only the general character and appearance of the Synoptic Gospels; their soul will always be constituted by the personal identity of the writers, who, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, presented the works and speeches of the Lord in a similar form, according to the model given by one of them. For this reason, by sharing the hypothesis of use in its essence, we protect ourselves in advance in the following respects. It alone is insufficient to resolve the synoptic question and invariably postulates the idea that the Gospel matter in its content was equally known to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Therefore, their dependence in no way excludes their complete originality and serves only as a key to understanding the literary treatment of their writings. In contrast to the humiliation of Mark, other scholars decorate him with a special aura, see in him the early Christian epic (Volkmar) and find the root of the rest of the Synoptics 384. And it cannot be denied that there is some truth here, since it is the second Gospel that shines with such immediacy of reproduction that the concept of compilability is least applicable to it. But despite all this, in itself it cannot explain either the special structure or the special content of synoptic narratives. We have already said that not in the strict sense, Mark in the first part adheres to Luke, but in the second he leans towards the order of Matthew 385. It is obvious that his plan is not able to reveal to us how the gradual course of the Gospel story developed among other weather forecasters. Likewise, in the historical matter itself, Mark is poorer than the latter and is insufficient as their source, and the conciseness and summary of his presentation rather indicates that he is abbreviating or hinting at more complete editions, but certainly cannot serve as their original. As an example, let us refer to the episode of the temptation of Christ in the desert, which Mark (Mark 1:12–13) touches upon only in a few strokes, while Matthew (Matthew 4:1–11) and Luke (Luke 4:1–13) convey it in great detail. In view of such circumstances, fans of Mark are forced to resort to the most daring guesses and fantastic hypotheses. Thus, the Greek Matthew is considered to have appeared later than everyone else and on the basis of them - after Mark had used his Aramaic prototype and Luke 386; others, instead of our second Gospel, put proto-Mark at the head, deducing from him Ur-Matthew [first-Matthew], Deutero-Mark, Deutero-Matthew and Luke, etc. 387 All this indicates that Mark does not give us either a synoptic order or the content itself and forces us to pile up many unknowns, and at the same time no mathematical calculation is conceivable. And Volkmar himself must admit that all Ur-Matthews, Logies, Ur-Marks are simple creations of critical fantasy. For this reason, one cannot but agree with Keim, who writes: “The most common thing in evangelical criticism is the neglect of chronological issues, when the opposite should be the case. The chronological data of literary passages have a predominant right to speak where other signs of their origin and affinity are so obscure and at the same time contradictory” 388. But in relation to our Gospels, the order of the current canon also indicates their chronological continuity 389. We find it in most Greek manuscripts and ancient versions, as well as in Irenaeus 390, the author of the Muratorian catalogue, Origen 391 and subsequent writers. Moreover, it was generally accepted that in time Matthew was first, and John last; Mark is placed before Luke by almost all ancient witnesses, with the exception of one Clement of Alexandria 392. It would be unfair to keep silent about the fact that often the writings of the apostles (Matthew-John) were preceded by the works of the disciples of the apostles (Mark-Luke; less often Luke-Mark) 393. But here the schematism of the system is clearly evident, alien to the chronological point of view, as shown by the words of Tertullian: nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant [the apostles John and Matthew put faith in us, while the apostolic men Luke and Mark revive it] 394. For all these reasons, we must follow the most reliable one in this matter, that of our Gospels, Matthew appeared first, followed by Mark and Luke. Another point of division among proponents of the mutual use hypothesis are unknown sources other than the weather forecasters themselves. Of these, the most prominent role until recently was played by the Hebrew original of Matthew, which is usually identified with Papi's λόγια [sayings] and is presented as a collection of the speeches of the Lord with or without brief historical introductions and explanatory notes. But although it is impossible to accept Hug’s opinion that our first Gospel was immediately written in Greek 395, nevertheless, its Hebrew original is something highly hypothetical. In its original form, it has not survived to us even in short fragments, and the words of Papias are too general and rather give room for the idea that in essentials it coincided with the current Greek edition. For this reason, to introduce another new term into the intricate synoptic problem, completely unknown either in the quality of content, or in volume or form, means deliberately complicating the matter and cluttering up an already thorny path. One extra X in a row of others never simplifies or facilitates decisions. Then: once we have entered the soil of pure probability, we ourselves will not be able to stay within the limits of only the first Matthew, much less prevent others from piling “proto-deutero-trito” onto all other weather forecasters. Once again there will be scope for whimsical games of pseudo-scientific guesswork and wit rather than proper coverage of the subject. To eliminate this sad and inevitable danger, we must limit ourselves to only the canonical texts of the synoptic narratives, as is necessary in the course of the hypotheses considered. In them, a complementary source is often allowed only to explain one weather forecaster, while others are derived from the latter. It is clear that this source is useless for the synoptic problem itself. In other cases, such additional entries are recognized for all or two of the evangelists for the reason that the composition of each is not revealed entirely from them. But it, of course, will not be clearer if we assume some unknown “something”. For us, this phenomenon serves as new proof that the dependence of the weather forecasters does not amount to slavish compilation and should not be understood in this sense, since they all had the same information in the gospel history and drew equally from the apostolic tradition. In view of the irresistible availability of this latter for everyone, all other, secondary sources for original and special synoptic passages become redundant and unnecessary. So: Matthew, Mark and Luke in this chronological continuity and in their present form are the only legitimate means to resolve the synoptic problem. It first of all requires an explanation of the nature of the content and order of the synoptic material. The peculiarity of this latter is that it concerns primarily the Galilean period of the life of the Redeemer and the events of suffering, death and resurrection, excluding His ministry in Judea and Jerusalem. Now the question is: how and for what reasons did Matthew allow such a limitation of the early Christian tradition and why did he make such a deliberate choice? The answer to this must be sought, of course, in the circumstances of the origin of the first Gospel. According to solid and scientifically undoubted church tradition, it was written for Jewish Christians and aims to prove that the Lord Savior is the promised Messiah. This position could not be argued and justified otherwise than by the strictest parallelism of the life and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth with the ideal image of the Deliverer of Israel - in spirit, meaning and letter of the Old Testament prophecies and predictions. Naturally, such a special task caused an inevitable limitation in the comprehensive richness of the early Christian tradition by isolating from it only related matter - one that directly expressed and embodied the idea of ​​the evangelist, helping him to satisfy the emerging needs of the Jewish Christians. What this limitation must have meant can be concluded from a comparison of the synoptic narratives with the spiritual theology of the Apostle John. Comparing them with each other, we involuntarily become convinced that here we have two pictures from the life of the Redeemer. The first is illuminated by a quiet and calm light of tenderness and mutual love - it is captured in soft colors and full of gentle tones, like a peaceful landscape under the rays of a bright star, occasionally darkened by flying clouds. The second bears a gloomy imprint and reflects the struggle of passions: the horizon is covered with thick clouds, the ominous and incessant rumbles of an approaching storm can be heard, and the sun with difficulty, although victoriously, makes its way among the chaos of the angry elements. In the first case, we see the gradual and clear implementation of the messianic ideal, in the second, we are presented with a narrow understanding of it by Jerusalem literalism and rabbinic scholasticism. Under such conditions, the Jerusalem period of the Lord’s ministry itself acquired a polemical tone and acquired a special character. Bookish short-sightedness and Sadducean blindness do not want to recognize the “bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16) - the Savior shows that He is the original, eternal and essential radiance of the ever-present glory. They blasphemously reduce Him to the level of a Galilean dreamer, not alien to the influence of evil power - He testifies in Himself to the Son of God. It follows from this that the Lord’s preaching during this time contains a sublime revelation of His Divinity, renewing the face of the earth, as it was created by Him. The messianic idea completely detaches itself from the national-theocratic point of view and enters into connection with the deepest secrets of the premium life of God and the Logos. It is now clear that the era embraced by John was less consistent with the plans of the writer of the first Gospel, for Matthew proceeds from purely biblical views, which were full of his readers. Moreover, in Jerusalem the Lord could not reveal Himself as the bearer of the Old Testament plans, when the true meaning of the latter had been lost: He eliminated and rejected them and did not find it convenient to proclaim Himself the Messiah in such a false sense. For all these reasons, Matthew was forced to concentrate more on the Galilean era, during which the messianic type was gradually revealed and revealed vividly and vividly, while in Jerusalem it was subject to great doubt and had to fight for its existence. Finally, publishing his work in Palestine and for the Jerusalem Christian society, the evangelist, without a doubt, was sure that the Jerusalem activity of the Lord was precisely known here, and a completely natural precaution forced him to spare the feelings of the believers, not to remind them of those bitter words that they caused with their stubbornness to the Divine Teacher and which, of course, already resonated painfully in their revived hearts. Such are the motives which caused the predominantly Galilean ministry to be recorded in writing in our first Gospel. It should be added to this that the writer, however, could not ignore some other episodes, especially the last days, for the death of Christ completed our justification and the resurrection granted life and salvation. In this way, having begun - according to the commandment of the Lord - from Jerusalem, the written gospel about Him easily received the form that was conveyed to it by the hand of the book publican. Let us now see how this composition was reflected by other evangelists. First of all, it is Mark’s turn in his relation to Matthew. Throughout all their works they talk about almost the same events and materially - in terms of content - closely coincide with each other. This is an indisputable fact and considerable evidence of their mutual literary acquaintance. Looking more closely at their construction, we further notice a striking coincidence in the order of the Gospel narrative. Both of them take the Savior’s “missionary journeys” as their point of departure and attach various episodes to them. The first of these ends with Matthew in Matt. 9, 1: ἦ λθεν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν [He arrived in His city], to which Mark corresponds to Mark. 2, 1: εἰσελθ ὼ ν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναούμ [again He came to Capernaum]. Matthew concludes the second with the words of Matt. 12, 9: καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦ λθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν [and He departed from there and entered their synagogue]; Mark says in parallel to this: καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν [and He came again to the synagogue] (Mark 3:1). The third in Matthew is described in the next chapter before Matt. 13, 54: καὶ ἐλθ ὼ ν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ [and having come to His fatherland], - and Mark reproduces this formula almost literally: καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ [and He comes to His fatherland] (Mark 6:1). The fourth is also marked by a return to their city - in Matthew: ἐλθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Καφαρναούμ [when they came to Capernaum] (Matthew 17:24); in Mark: καὶ ἦ λθον εἰς Καφαρναούμ [and He came to Capernaum] (Mark 9:33). Then the last journey to Jerusalem and the story of suffering are reported. We believe, without any special comments, we can conclude from these data that the external scheme of Matthew’s narrative was accurately adopted and preserved by Mark, who adheres to it in the detailed arrangement of events. The deviations are very minor. For the first section, they are expressed in the fact that the second evangelist attributes the section about Christ’s stay in the land of the Gadarenes (Matt. 8:18 - Matt. 9:1) to a later time - to the third period (Mk. 4:36 - Mk. 5:21). In the further presentation, Mark omits the news of the embassy of John's disciples (Matt. 11, 2 ss.), and the election of the apostles (Matt. 10), together with the healing of Jairus’s daughter (Matthew 9:18–25), tells after (Mark 3:14 ss.; 5:22 ss.) - in the third section, where they both agree with each other - with the exception of the news of the Pharisees’ request for a sign (Matthew 12:38 ss.), not available in Mark, which enriches it paragraphs included by him here in a new connection. In the fourth section, Mark separately reports about the embassy of the apostles to preach (Mark 6:7-13) and about their return (Mark 6:30), which Matthew had previously reported together; The evangelist-publican again repeats the note about the tempting request for a sign from heaven (Matthew 16, 1 ss.), which is found here only for the first time in Mark (Mark 8, 11 ss.), in whom we also read about the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8, 22 ss.). All these deviations in comparison with the points of similarity seem to be completely insignificant. In any case, no matter how much we exaggerate their significance, they cannot in any way indicate the independence of Mark from Matthew, for they find sufficient justification and motivation for themselves in the text of the latter and clearly betray the intention of the former to introduce greater chronological accuracy. It is easy to verify this with the simplest considerations. There is no doubt that the first Gospel is not a purely narrative work, but rather a historical deduction, permeated entirely by one idea and collecting together disparate facts. It is clear that the chronology here is not strictly observed: de facto [in reality], for example, the embassy of disciples to preach could not be immediately accompanied by their return. If Mark separates them, it is only out of a desire to show both moments their proper place. The same applies to other passages. As we know, the first two evangelists especially disagree about the Gadarene incidents, but Mark directly gives justification with a specific indication of the day and hours: evening has come] (Mark 4:35) - and a depiction of the actual historical situation (Mark 4:36). Likewise, speaking of the resurrection of Jairus's daughter, Mark punctually reports that it was when Jesus crossed over from the region of Decapolis 396. All these observations lead to the idea that the second evangelist knew the work of the first, but did not slavishly copy it and felt the right to allow changes and deviations, considering himself an equally reliable witness of the life and deeds of the Lord according to the authority of their eyewitness - the Apostle Peter. His writing, therefore, is a review of Matthew's text, distinguished by greater chronological sequence and some features of presentation. As for the form of the narrative itself, the proximity of both weather forecasters cannot be doubted in view of the obvious facts. To what has been said above, we can also add that only this assumption satisfies the scientific requirement - to explain their undeniable verbal similarity - and that only with it phenomena of a similar property will be completely natural and understandable. This idea, it seems, does not need unnecessary confirmation through comparison of texts, but to illustrate it, it is important to observe that, even moving away from Matthew in the order of events, Mark is closely in touch with him in the way of presentation. A striking example of this can be provided by the Lord’s instructions to the disciples about the dangers awaiting them when carrying out their apostolic mission and about their behavior at this time. The first evangelist associates them with the embassy of the twelve (Matthew 10:19-22), and the second includes them in the eschatological speech (Mark 13:11-13) - and yet the expressions of both sound in agreement and often merge into one sound 397. The same can be noted regarding purely historical facts, often compared with each other not chronologically, but according to logical requirements or even in passing - for a simple illustration of the expressed thought. In support of this we will refer to the story of the death of John the Baptist. Matthew reports this due to the fact that Herod the tetrarch imagined that Christ was the risen Baptist (Matthew 14: 1-3 ss.). It is clear that in reality these episodes should have been separated by a certain interval, as Luke reproduces them (Luke 3, 19-20; 9, 7, 9), - and yet Mark exactly follows Matthew’s narrative (Mark 6, 16-17 ss.), even retaining the connecting particle γάρ [for]. It would hardly be scientific to recognize such a phenomenon as a matter of pure chance; it is so striking that our minds are necessarily forced to admit a more appropriate reason in the dependence of one evangelist on another. For all these reasons, we can think with reasonable confidence that Mark knew Matthew and, in one way or another, used his work in his work. Thus, the pagan Romans, who were to take the place of the broken branch, enter the kingdom of grace according to the same gospel that was offered to the firstborn children of God, and, uniting with the true descendants of Abraham, they receive the opportunity to glorify the Lord Redeemer with one heart and one mouth. The Church of Christ is alien to the division between Greek and Jew - and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark unite them into an indivisible community of believers with their similar written content. It is impossible not to see here how authorial freedom harmoniously coincides with the divine plans and is subordinate to them, without being constrained and suppressed in the human field of literary treatment of the Gospel story. Luke's composition is much more complex, so it is difficult to clearly clarify his relationship to other weather forecasters. Compared to them, he has a lot of his own material (five miracles and twelve parables: Luke ch. 1-2; Luke 7, 11-18 and 36-50; 10, 1 and 25-42; Luke ch. 12-16; Luke 18, 1-14; 19, 1-28; 23, 6-12; 24, 12–53), the introduction of which had to have a strong impact on the synoptic plan, and the inevitable insertions were also reflected in the way of presenting events that received a different, often new and unusual connection. Despite this, one cannot deny its textual coincidence with Matthew, Mark and both together 398. For the sake of brevity, I will once again recall the words of the Lord when healing a paralytic in Capernaum: “So that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, then he says to the paralytic: get up, take up your bed and go to your house” (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10-11; Luke 5:24). The interpolated remark of this speech represents only an explanatory gloss and, of course, does not belong to the Savior. If it is reproduced equally by all weather forecasters, then this could only happen because they used a common edition 399. Similarly, Mark’s request to the Lord of the Gadarene demoniac not to torment him is motivated by the fact that the Lord Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to come out of this man (Mark 5:7-8); Luke (Luke 8:28–29) sets out this with punctual photographic closeness to the text of the second Gospel, although it would have been most natural to mention the Savior’s command above: then it would be better to preserve the actual sequence of moments in the form in which they occurred 400. There is no doubt that in the nature of expression in Luke there are many differences and differences, but in most cases these are simple features of style, which find a completely satisfactory explanation even with the assumption of literary acquaintance with the “interpreter of Peter.” It is impossible not to notice, for example, that the third evangelist strives for conciseness of speech and shortens Mark (Mk. 1, 21: καὶ εὐθύς τοῖς σάββασιν εἰσελθ ὼ ν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκεν [and soon on Saturday He entered the synagogue and taught] Luke. 4, 31: καὶ ἦ ν διδάσκων αὐτούς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν [and He taught them on the Sabbath days]; Wed Mk. 1, 28 Luke. 4, 37; Mk. 2, 15–16 Luke. 5, 29–30; Mk. 3, 31–35 Luke. 8, 19–21; Mk. 4, 5, 8–9 Luke. 8, 6, 8; Mk. 9, 6 Lk. 9, 33; Mk. 4, 30–32 Luke. 13, 18–19; Mk. 5, 2–15 Luke. 8, 27–35; Mk. 11, 15 Luke. 19, 45–46; Mk. 13, 1–2 Luke. 21.5–6; Mk. 14, 16 Luke. 22, 13). Even more often one can see concern for the correctness of the style and its Attic purity. Heavy phrase Mk. 12, 38: περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμούς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ... [literally: beware of the scribes who want to walk in long robes and greetings in public assemblies] - simplified by Luke (Lk. 20, 46) with one insertion of φιλούντων [loving], in which further accusative cases receive their grammatical justification. Wed. Mk. 12, 44 and Luke. 21, 4. The expression of Matt. 8, 9: ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ ᾿ ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας [I am a subordinate man, but I have soldiers under my command] - very dark and gave rise to various translations and interpretations about the hierarchical rank of the Capernaum centurion; OK. 7, 8 adds a minor touch - τασσόμενος [assigned] (after ἐξουσίαν) - and the matter is clarified to the point of obviousness 401. Wed. Matt. 11, 8 and Luke. 7, 25; Matt. 5, 25 and Luke. 12, 58; Matt. 12, 44 and Luke. 21, 4 402. Non-Greek turn of Matthew πάντες γὰρ ὡ ς προφήτην ἔχουσιν τὸν Ἰ ωάννην [lit.: for all have John as a prophet] (Matt. 21, 26) Mark cuts into two subordinate parts, but retains the non-Hellenistic ε ἶ χον (ᾔ δεισαν) τὸν Ἰ ωάννην [had (knew) John] (Mark 11, 32); Luke gives it Attic lightness and smoothness: ἶ ναι [all the people are sure that John is a prophet] (Luke 20:6). In the same way, the latter noticeably eliminates Hebraisms, replacing ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (וֹנַפְשׁ) [his soul] Mk. 8, 36 short ἑαυτὸν [himself] (Luke 9:25), revealing that οὐκ ἀφῆκεν σπέρμα [left no seed] (זֶרַע posterity: 1 Samuel 1:11; Isa. 59, 21) Mk. 12, 20–22 means ἀπέθανεν ἄτεκνος [died childless] (Luke 20, 28–29), showing that ἐθαύμασαν [they were surprised] Matt. 8, 27 and ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν [they were afraid with great fear] Mark. 4.41, being synonymous in Hebrew תָּמַהּ [to be surprised] (Eccl. 5, 7: אַל־תִּתְמַהּ μὴ θαυμάσ ῃ ς [do not be surprised]; Job 26, 11: וְיִתְמְהוּ και έξέστησαν [and are amazed]), express a gradual gradation of the same feeling, in which the shade of fear turns into amazement: φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν [being afraid, they were amazed] (Luke 8:25). All these phenomena incline us to the conclusion that Luke edited the pre-existing synoptic text of Matthew and Mark, as the latter did with the former. But here, too, some preference for Mark is already visible; It is even more noticeable and understandable when reproducing the historical course of events, for with the second evangelist it acquires greater chronological accuracy, which the third sets as one of the important tasks of his work. Now if we take Luke and Mark together, there will be quite a lot of similarity in the order of their narration. Thus, the first part of the third Gospel with Luke. 4, 31 according to Luke. 9, 17, which embraces the events from the moment of the healing of the demoniac in Capernaum until the feeding of five thousand people, finds complete agreement with the sequence of Mark: with Mark. 1, 21 according to Mark. 6, 44. For both, this period of the Lord’s activity is divided into 4 sections, the beginning of which Mark coincides with His return to “His” city: α) Mark. 1, 21–45 Luke. 4, 31 – Luke. 5, 16; β ) Mk. 2, 1–28 Luke. 5, 17 - Luke. 6, 5; γ ) Mk. 3, 1 – Mk. 5, 43 Luke. 6, 6 - Luke. 8, 56; δ ) Mk. 6, 1–44 Luke. 9, 1–17. The peculiarities of Luke in this case are expressed primarily in the fact that he includes here some new data about the miraculous fishing (Luke 5:2-11) and about the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17); the news from Matthew that was not accepted by Mark about the healing of the servant of the Capernaum centurion (Matthew 8:5-13) and about the embassy of John to Christ (Matthew 11:1-19) Luke again introduces into his story (Luke 7:1-10; 18-35), because he found the chronological situation that the second evangelist could not indicate to them in general depiction of the first: about the Capernaum episode, Luke directly says that the next day after it (ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς) the Savior went to Nain (Luke 7:11), and regarding the latter he notes that it was the resurrection of the youth, reported to the Baptist, that prompted him to send two disciples to Jesus with a question about His messiahship (Luke 7, 17–19 ). From Matthew’s narrative it is clear that Luke acted justly, since the Lord’s answer “the dead are raised” (Matthew 11:5) directly refers us to the miracle of Nain. The same principle of chronological placement makes itself felt in other places, when, for example, the apostle-publican cites the legend of the scribe who wanted to follow Christ very early and without observing proper chronology (Matt. 8:19-22), Mark completely omits it, not knowing at what point in time it can be attached, and Luke (Luke 9.57 ss.) accurately reports that it was on the way to Jerusalem - at passing through Samaria (Luke 9, 51 ss.). In the narrative that follows, Luke first goes through in silence several stories common to the two weather forecasters (Mark 6:45 Matt. 14:23; Mark 7:1 Matt. 15:1; Mark 7:31 Matt. 15:29; Mark 8:1 Matt. 15:32; Mark 8:11 Matt. 12, 38; 16, 1), and with Lk. 9, 51 provides completely new information; Likewise, in the history of recent days, he deviates a lot from many original features. However, there is also a small section of Luke. 9, 18–50, where he, in the same gradual manner as Mark (Mark 8, 27 - Mark 9, 40), conveys about the Savior’s conversation with the apostles about the opinion of the people about Him, about the transfiguration, about the healing of a demon-possessed lunatic, the dispute of the disciples over who is more in the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Theologian’s proposal to prohibit a person who cast out demons in the name of Christ without direct authority on this. Thus, the composition of Luke's Gospel very significantly reflects the influence of Mark's construction, although something is taken directly from Matthew. This means that this sacred writer does not go far beyond the synoptic scheme, and his allusions to the Jerusalem journeys (Luke 9:51 - Luke 16:14) of the Lord do not receive the development that we find in John the Theologian. Theoretical justification for the idea of ​​mutual use of weather forecasters from the idea of ​​the purpose of the gospel gospel The evangelical matter essentially remains common to all synoptics 403, and it is not without the right that the flock can direct them in the oral evangelical gospel 404. The divisions of gifts are, and the same is the Spirit; and the divisions of ministries are, and the same is the Lord (1 Cor. 12:4-5). The intention of the Spirit was that the apostles preach the Gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15) and teach all nations (Matt. 28:19) throughout the whole world (Mk. 16:15) even to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), but in such a way that national-racial and religious characteristics were taken into account (Acts 1:8) Jewish legalism, Samaritan schismatics and Hellenic “atheism” (Eph. 2:12), which all equally had to be abolished by the grace of God for the formation of a new kingdom of the sons of God. If all these elements had equal right to enter the Church of Christ, then it was necessary that the principle connecting them be one - such that before it all were indifferent. This is faith in Jesus Christ, through which the righteousness of God comes to all and to all who believe (Rom. 3:22). From here it is clear that the central point of such a unification should have been the personality of the Redeemer, who heads everything (Eph. 1:10), and for this it was necessary that His image in identical features be imprinted in the consciousness of those being saved as God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24). This is exactly what is achieved to perfection by the commonality of synoptic matter, which is why in all the first three Gospels the same Heavenly Actor appears, characterized by the same words, the same miracles, the same saving feats of suffering on the cross and life-giving death. And it is natural that this type is held by the weather forecasters, who wanted to lead everyone to Christ. We have seen the reasons why Matthew narrowed the scope of his narrative to the narrow confines of the Galilean ministry of the Lord. He was prompted to this by the desire to attract his fellow flesh and blood to the Crucified One as the hope of Israel, the son of David and the seed of Abraham. Pursuing the same goal in relation to the pagans, Mark somewhat smoothes out the teleological devices of Matthew's presentation, but retains its basic character. Thanks to this, the result was that the converts from the Hellenes found themselves built on the same foundation and, as a new spiritual Israel, stood alongside the converts from the Jews. This compatibility and such parallelism were the closest step to the next moment, when all “difference” was completely destroyed, consigned to oblivion and giving way to the highest unity of all by origin from one ancestor Adam and One Creator - God. This period marks the Gospel of Luke, for which the conclusion of the genealogy of Christ is highly characteristic that He was “Adam, God’s” (Luke 3:38). By combining the first synoptic narratives, he at the same time unites the heterogeneous elements of Christian society into one body of those baptized by one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), where there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female: for there is one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), where everyone is Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:23). In turn, this state of the Church was a preparation for the time when the God of all will be in all (1 Cor. 15:28). From this point of view, the commonality of the synoptic narrative and the unity of the historical type indicate the action of the Holy Spirit, who made the apostles “witnesses of Christ in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Without abolishing human freedom and without forcibly interfering with the usual authorial process, He directed it in such a way that through it the supreme plans of God were naturally realized, saving all people and integrating them into the body of the Church through the head of Christ, equally known to all and equally understood by all through the integral reproduction of His image in synoptic images. In this case, the sequential dependence of Matthew, Mark and Luke represents only one of the means of fulfilling the Lord’s commandment that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “The work of the evangelist,” as Westcott rightly observes, “is not only the fruit of divine inspiration or only human thought; it is rather the combined result of both, with the aim of adapting to the needs of mankind that collection of the speeches and deeds of the Lord, which we see in the various phases of the apostolic preaching” 405. That is why both church fathers and teachers did not shy away from the idea of ​​​​the mutual literary acquaintance of the first three evangelists. Claiming that the latter wrote “without converging or agreeing,” and that the triplicity of their consonant presentation serves as evidence of the truth of their narrative, they expressed by this the position that they were all equally knowledgeable in their subject and, using one another, were not in the least obliged through this to all their knowledge. Equally true referents, they allow changes, deviations and even disagreements - without the slightest fear of falling into contradiction, since these are new touches, additional features that only an eyewitness could afford. It is clear that this does not exclude the dependence of the weather forecasters and is easily reconciled with the paternal idea of ​​the equality of each of them in the testimony of Christ 406. Not to mention Augustine and many others, his thesis finds a noticeable application when commenting on the Gospels themselves and comparing their stories. Let us point to Origen, Epiphanius and Ambrose of Milan 407, who spoke most decisively about the literary similarity of the first three Gospel texts - in the fair conviction that this in no way detracts from their originality. General notes on the origin and mutual relations of the Gospels: their dependence and independence in reproducing the holistic way of life of Christ the Savior Now that the synoptic problem has been examined and exhausted from all sides, we can draw several general conclusions on the issue of the origin of the written Gospels, the mutual relations of the synoptics and exegetical techniques in interpreting the latter. The content of our gospel narratives consists of the deeds and teachings of the Lord the Redeemer during His earthly life. All of it was known to the apostles from their close knowledge of events and for each of them it was supplemented by the information of others, so that in the end an extensive cycle of gospel stories was to be formed, embracing its subject in all its breadth. This is natural and understandable, as the implementation of the direct commandment of Christ the Savior that the apostles teach the peoples to observe everything that He commanded them (Matthew 28:20). How this ideal was achieved when reproducing the Gospel events is hidden from us, and therefore any guesswork on this matter is unnecessary. One thing is certain: from the very first steps of their independent ministry, the Lord’s disciples were concerned about this, as must be concluded from the story of the election of Judas. Introducing this question to his comrades for discussion, St. ap. Peter said among other things: “It is necessary that one of those who were with us throughout the entire time that the Lord Jesus remained and spoke with us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He ascended from us, should be a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). The unanimity and close communication of the early Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14; cf. Matt. 28:53 408) contributed to the mutual exchange of thoughts, impressions and memories, and through this the reconstruction of an integral gospel history - especially since already at the very formation of the Christian Church “the congregation was about one hundred and twenty people” (Acts 1:16) and between them there were “some wives, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and His brothers” (Acts 1:14). But such gospel was transmitted for a long time through the oral communication of the apostles, when they “went out and preached everywhere, with the Lord’s assistance and strengthening the word with subsequent signs” (Mark 16:20) - and the written presentation appeared later, in addition to the first 409. T ὸ λεῖπον τ ῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίςχ , τούτοις ἀφ ᾿ ὧ ν ἐστέλλετο , διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου [to those from whom he was leaving, he made up for his absence with writings], writes Eusebius about Matthew 410. It is clear from this that the main, common source of our Gospels was oral tradition, that they are based on tradition coming from eyewitnesses of the Lord and reliable in all its parts, as long as it is set forth by persons who were in close connection with them. The words of Origen about the Apostle Paul are quite applicable to them here (cf. Rom. 2:16): ν · ἃ δὲ ἐκήρυσσε καὶ ἔλεγε , ταῦτα καὶ ἔγραφε · καὶ ἃ ἔγραφεν ἄρα εὐαγγέλιον ἦ ν [everything he preached and said was the gospel (good news); and what he preached and said, he wrote down; therefore, what he wrote down was the gospel] 411. But just as living speech diversified, depending on the position and needs of the listeners, so the written narrative had to be divided into several editions, adapting to the religious and racial differences of the world of that time. The current fourfold number of Gospels took into account all these features, and through this the truth of the Gospel received complete revelation and became accessible to all peoples. The starting point of the gospel preaching was Jerusalem with Judea and the first members of the New Testament kingdom were the sons of Israel - sacred writing activity also begins at this point and is directed to the faithful sons of Abraham. The apostolic ministry had to unite heterogeneous elements into one body, unite them, like living stones, into a spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:5) with a foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) on the indivisible personality of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:13) - like this, the Synoptic Gospels retain the same historical type and through it prepare a common ground on which all people should converge and form from themselves a community of those who are being saved, imbued with one spirit and based on one gospel. The means to this was the same image of Christ, and this goal was achieved through the literary acquaintance of the evangelists, successively using their works, mutually complementing each other from the material side and, finally, in the person of John, crowning the entire building, which begins on earth, with a peak that is hidden in heaven - in the mystery of the transcendental unity of God. At the head of this written reproduction of the Lord's redemptive work is the Gospel of Matthew, designed for the Jews and applied to their needs; Mark adapts it for the Gentiles; Luke brings both editions together and thereby unites all believers under the roof of a common Creator-God; The theologian introduces them to the very source of life, which was with the Father and appeared to us (1 John 1:2), making us equal children by grace-filled birth through the Son (John 1:12-13). Since all these writers were equally reliable witnesses to the events described, their mutual dependence is only one of the ways in the general course of the divine economy for the salvation of the world. It leads to the similarity of their narratives in the external distribution of facts and agreement in the literary presentation of the weather forecasters, but this serves the same intentions as the unity of the foundation of the sermon. Their content, in essential terms, was the completely original property of each evangelist, and therefore they were all independent in conveying the gospel of Christ as it happened in reality. This easily explains the dual impression that our first three editions of the Gospel history produce. With an undeniable literary closeness - with the nature of mutual influence - they at the same time bear traces of deep originality. Each represents a complete whole with a strictly harmonious subordination of parts. The additions are also numerous and always merge to the point of indissolubility with the general synoptactic passages. Moreover, they are all distinguished by a unique language that permeates their entire content. Synoptic deviations sometimes (for example, in genealogies and the history of suffering and resurrection) reach such proportions that it is difficult for us to reconcile them completely - due to ignorance of all the circumstances that were precisely known to the sacred writers. That is why the Gospel of Mark, the least rich in original material, is full of vivid details and expressive plasticity of an eyewitness. But it is remarkable that this originality is, as it were, suppressed by the desire for the sameness of the reproduction of the person of Christ. This can be observed most clearly in the language of our Synoptic Gospels. In this case, you need to pay attention to the following phenomena. In departments similar to all weather forecasters, only 1/5 of verbal coincidences are found in their personal narratives and 4/5 account for the objective presentation of events. With the agreement of two of them, the textual proximity in the speeches of the Lord in Matthew and Luke is extremely great, and in the stories it does not exceed 1% and only in the first and Mark it borders on 1/3. The second and third evangelists express this ratio as 5:1. In additional passages we see the same thing: in Mark and Luke and in the latter with Matthew there is almost no verbal consonance in the narrative parts, and in Matthew and Mark it is no more than 1/6. In general, verbal-textual similarity significantly prevails in the “didactic” departments and is rather weak in the “descriptive” departments. For Matthew the proportion can be set to 12:5, for Mark – 4:1, for Luke – 9:1. Likewise, from the side of content, the overwhelming majority of material coincidences are found in objective-reproductive legends, where the effort to capture existing reality in all its immediacy is obvious 412 . So: synoptic unity concerns primarily historical facts - the words, speeches and miracles of the Lord - and is least affected in descriptive images with the aim of depicting the historical situation, connecting various episodes, moving them into a chronological framework, etc. In the initial moments of the Gospel presentation, which have an introductory meaning (the Nativity and sermon of the Baptist, the first years of the Savior’s life), it is subtle and declares itself with all its force only in the presentation of public service Christ in Galilee. In this we see the clear intention of the first three evangelists to maintain one integral type of Redeemer - Teacher, Benefactor and Savior of all people, who were supposed to form a single body and enter into an equally close organic connection with their Head. But at the same time, the weather forecasters could not avoid the accommodative nature that characterizes the apostolic preaching. In these interests, we find in each a different coloring, a unique grouping of events, deliberate detail in some cases with energetic conciseness in others, a special style and originality of expressions. All these features are aimed at better impressing on the minds of the hearers the work of Christ to the extent possible of coincidence with his actual greatness. Therefore, such features equally have objective significance and must be taken by the exegete with equal attention in order to fully reconstruct the gospel story. It is necessary to combine the narratives, but not to merge them to the point of indistinguishability, which is not always possible and would not correspond to the truth of synoptic legends: they therefore deviate from each other because the event itself represented a grandiose combination of the unattainably high and incomprehensibly miraculous; They agree because they do not invent it, but draw it from different points of view and grasp the different details they need. Then: when we know that Mark had Matthew at hand, and Luke both together, we must grasp all the gradual shades of the general image and be guided by the commentary that one gives about the other: the first about the second, the third about all his predecessors. Only then will our exegesis be truly evangelical, resting on the understanding of the sacred writers themselves and alien to the introduction of their own thoughts and judgments; only then will we approach the possible objective understanding of the “Gospel of Christ”, revealed by the Only Begotten Son and - under the guidance of the Spirit of God and according to His plans - enshrined in writing for the salvation of every person coming into the world - Jew before and Greek (Rom. 1, 16; 2, 10). Historically reliable and legal-enduring significance of the Gospels All our previous discussions provide support for correct conclusions about the meaning and character of our Gospels as literary monuments. They reproduce the gospel of the Lord - the greatest event in world history and the endless manifestation of the goodness of God - and are of paramount importance due to the mere sublimity of their subject. But they do not pursue any extraneous interests other than the possible accuracy of their stories in accordance with the needs of believers. Naturally, while coinciding with the historical fact of redemption in their content, they agree with it in its very goal - to lead everyone to Christ. In this case, the work of the sacred writer is completely parallel to the feat of the apostle-preacher, who proclaims Christ alone, but wants Him to become the property of the mind and heart of every believer. The unity of matter with the diversity of forms is the result of such actions, equally applicable to oral preaching and written narration. Hence the commonality of the synoptic type and its variations in the editions of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The Apostolic word first of all met an element convenient for itself in those who - like Simeon the God-Receiver and the prophetess Anna - “looked forward to the consolation of Israel” and “served God day and night with fasting and prayer” (see Luke 2:25, 37). But his conquering power does not know human limitations and, crossing national-racial and religious boundaries, has a subduing effect on those from Caesar’s house (Phil. 4:22) 413, “strangers from the covenants of promise, who had no hope and were atheists in the world” (Eph. 2:12). No less than that, it subjugates those who - together with Dionysius the Areopagite - saw in the present an immediate preparation for the future and were imbued with the thought of righteous judgment and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 17: 31-32, 34). It is precisely these needs that our first three Gospels are designed for: one meets Jewish expectations of salvation and glory, the other enlightens “atheistic Rome,” the third is addressed to the “Hellenists,” full of Jewish religious ideals, but already influenced by Greco-Roman culture; the latter were supposed to form the binding cement for the formation of a harmonious building of the Church, which at its pinnacle raises all members to the true abode - to heaven (2 Cor 5:1-2; Phil. 3:20). But, taking everyone into its bosom, Christianity does not eradicate or suppress the legitimate aspirations of human nature: it sanctifies and elevates the best of them, indicates new tasks and provides more effective means. It is clear that this side was not forgotten either, where knowledge of the Scriptures peacefully coexisted with eloquence and fervor of the spirit, as was the case in Apollos (Acts 18:24–25), who combined the reverence of an Israeli and the humility of an unworthy Christian with the breadth of scientific education and the luxury of Hellenic wisdom. The Apostle John offers the greatest knowledge that meets the needs of human thought. It is clear from this that our Gospels are historical monuments not only because they reflect a real fact - the real gospel of Christ - but also in the sense that they represent the gradual formation of the Kingdom of God, the growth of a mustard seed into a branched tree, successively overshadowing the entire universe. The Lord Redeemer, being the beginning of Christian development, is at the same time the eternally unchanging cornerstone of the entire life of regenerated humanity. Therefore, the Gospel scriptures, reporting “about the arrangement of our salvation,” contain, according to the remark of the schmch. Irenaeus, “the future foundation and pillar of our faith” for all times 414. And if we carefully look at their essence, we will have to make sure that this requirement is fulfilled to perfection. The single divine image of the Savior is revealed in them in forms adapted not to one or another era only, but for all periods of the world. And the above-mentioned features of human societies of the apostolic age apply to all people, marking the ever-present types of human desires and aspirations. One “is” is unthinkable for us without the previous “was,” and each of us inevitably connects the present with the past. Christianity was also not an ex abrupto [unexpected] phenomenon; it grew out of the Old Testament revelation and represents its completion. Matthew reveals it from this side, showing the Jews a powerful legislator, a divine king, a prophet of the universal Church. In this form, it absorbed in spirit everything that was great and beautiful in former times, and the pen of the evangelist depicts it as one of the most decisive and saving acts of providence in the course of national history. In this sense, the first Gospel corresponds to the needs of all humanity, accustomed to delve into the distance of centuries and there to find how it moves and exists today. But every day has its own “malice” and its own meaning, in addition to its connection with yesterday and tomorrow. His demands are no less persistent and inexorable; they necessarily had to cause satisfaction on the part of the apostles in a special way of evangelizing the gospel, when Christianity turns out to have strength and vitality, regardless of the traditions of Moriah and Sinai, as a purely heavenly revelation, majestically revealed before the eyes of eyewitnesses. It is a fact, undoubtedly real and historical. From this point of view, it is depicted to us in the Gospel of Mark, which gives a brief and relief-plastic story about the ministry of the Lord without special introductions about the preparatory moments for it. He understood that the formidable Rome, which laid its iron hand on all the kingdoms of the world, could only bow before the power of God, to whom everything is submissive with one wave. He, like St. ap. Paul, Christianity is represented primarily by the power of God (Rom. 1:16) in Christ, which was revealed throughout His entire life. From this side, it remains eternally victorious over man and, amid the unstable and fleeting change of phenomena and situations, gives him the opportunity to create a lasting present, without which earthly existence is unthinkable. In itself, the latter is only a point between the past and the future and inevitably disappears if there is no further behind it to continue it. The beginning of our era was an era of general despair and painful decay: Christ delivers him from these ulcers, healing the unfortunate paralytic who was unable to immerse himself in the life-giving waters of the Siloam spring (John 5: 7–9); He gathers under his father's roof all the prodigal sons who have gone to a distant country (Luke 15:20 ss.), opening for them the path to correct civil, religious and moral prosperity; He sheds a bright light of future glory, opening the doors of heaven to the repentant thief (Luke 23:43). Luke connects the objective power of Christianity, as it was revealed to the gaze of Mark, with its universality. The Christian faith is a centrifugal force, spreading to the last peripheries and capturing everyone in its path; but it is also a centripetal force, uniting all people into a whole humanity with inextricable bonds of brotherhood and absorbing in general harmony both caste divisions and individual exclusivity of pride and self-exaltation. The desire for personal well-being here is combined with the well-being of everyone, in the latter it finds support for confidence in its future and, on the basis of mutual solidarity, is inspired by bright hopes regarding its strength. And then, in the joint and harmonious work of everyone for the benefit of everyone, the ideal of Christian perfection is gradually embodied on earth, and the need for a possible merger with it naturally flares up, when the best in humanity finds a correspondence and echo in the inaccessibly divine. For such persons, a spiritual, mysterious history is necessary, and it is presented by the Apostle John, who shows how the ardent desires of our spirit were realized in the life of the Lord, and the best aspirations are affirmed and directed by His own word. He portrays Christ in a premium and unoriginating relationship to the Father; He is the eternal and always equal revelation of God in the past, present and future, as Creator, Redeemer and Judge (John 1, 3; 10, 15; 12, 48). Now the past is the root of the present, the present is the basis of the future. Thus, the τετρακτύς [quaternary] of our Gospels exhausts all possible paths and does not leave without a related gospel a single period of life, not a single request of human nature throughout the entire history of the world and with all the diversity of races and individuals. In view of this nature, they will forever remain the pillar and affirmation of the truth for all times and will forever have the fundamental significance of the Christian faith, because its primary source, Christ, is the unchanging ideal for humanity with all the differences in its conditions, with all the peculiarities of its desires and hopes - is depicted according to the natural development of every Christian soul, which is always directed from Matthew through Mark and Luke to John, but never vice versa. It is clear from this that, having arisen in the apostolic era and in relation to the then circumstances of time, place and population, our Gospels have a character of universality and absolute bindingness, alien to exclusively chronological and national-individual restrictions. And this, in turn, raises the question: to what extent do the conditions of their origin justify and explain such qualities of them? How could the personal characteristics and famous position of the writers lead to such universality of their works? To what extent can they be historical both in themselves and in comparison with apocryphal-heretical tales? All this, in the end, obviously forces us to undertake a literary study of each of the current Gospels separately, with the goal of achieving a correct understanding of their properties as historical and legal monuments through such detailed study. When we approach them with such requests, at first glance we experience some disappointment and do not find proper satisfaction. Only one of them bears the name of the apostle, whose personality is clearly imprinted on his creation; others lack individual coloring. The scarcity and darkness of early historical information about the Gospels is not compensated by the completeness and clarity of later memories. With the exception of John the Theologian, none of the evangelists left noticeable traces of themselves in the chronicles of the first century, and tradition adds too little to those random notes where their names appear. All this greatly complicates and greatly complicates the task of external literary review of our Gospels. But, looking deeper into the matter, we soon become convinced that all this serves as direct evidence of the truth of church belief. If we compare our inscriptions with the pompous titles of the Gospel counterfactuals, under the authority of James, Nicodemus, Peter and Paul, then we will easily find that in the latter the author stands in decisive contradiction with his work, while in the canonical monuments a harmonious agreement is discerned. Likewise, everything that external sources give about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John meets a close correspondence with the present character of their writings. No matter how doubtful the exact date of each of them may be, it is undeniable that they are separated by certain periods of time - very long in comparison with the rapid pace and continuous change of events - and belong to different eras. The first of them, in its original form, marks the period when the apostles still went together to the temple at the hour of prayer (Acts 3:1); John, apparently, assumes that Jerusalem was already trampled by the pagans (Luke 21:2 4) and the house of Israel was desolate (Matthew 23:38). It is clear that all this should have been reflected in the unique coloring of the written gospel, which also bears imprints of the individual properties of its editors. The publican of Lake Galilee, the companion of the Apostle Paul, the son (1 Pet. 5:13) and the “interpreter” of Peter differ from each other no less than from the prophet of the Apocalypse. And all these peculiarities of personal qualities and historical conditions, so far as our knowledge extends to the beginning of the Christian era, stand in perfect proportion to the character of our Gospels. Let us now turn to each of them and consider them in sequential order. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author explains that we are talking about passages already cited from St. John: see ss. 135–136 and 140–142. -Ed. Here in Glubokovsky-1932 the following paragraph is inserted (the essence of which, with less clarity, is stated later in Glubokovsky-1899): “Moreover, in the chosen subject, weather forecasters - or all three or, much more often, two of them - closely agree with each other on all the most important, and often in particular points of the Gospel history. This is easy to see from the very movement of the synoptic story in a completely identical gradualness. Everyone’s plan here is as follows: 1) Christmas and the childhood of the Savior. 2) The sermon of John the Baptist and the baptism of the Lord. 3) Fasting and temptation of Christ in the desert. 4) The beginning of public ministry and the calling of the first four apostles. 5) The activity of the Lord in Galilee. 6) His travels to Jerusalem and ministry in Judea. 7) Christ’s stay in Perea and journey to the last Easter. 8) His life in Bethany and Jerusalem before his redemptive sufferings. 9) Betrayal of Judas, Last Supper and suffering. 10) Resurrection, appearance of the Savior and ascension.” -Ed. Eusebius Caesariensis. Epistula ad Carpianum ad canones Evangeliorum, PG 22, 1276–1292; cp. Hieronymus stridonensis. Praefatio in quatuor Evangelia, PL 29, 528. [In these tables (“canons”) of Eusebius there are not two sets: passages common to Mark, Luke and John, and passages common only to Mark and John. This explains some of the incompleteness of Glubokovsky's further analysis. Eusebius’ letter to Carpian was published many times, so it is impossible to say to which edition the numerical data indicated by Glubokovsky belong. In square brackets we present the corresponding numbers of verses calculated from the publication of the letter in the modern edition of the New Testament: Eusebii epistula ad Carpianum et Canones I-X // Greek-English NT. P. 35*-40*. It is worth paying attention to only two cases (which are, apparently, typos) in which the difference is significant. Otherwise, the relative deviations are insignificant. -Ed.] From the Greek “διήγησις” - story, narration. -Ed. That is, material found only in one of the first three evangelists, without being repeated in other weather forecasters. -Ed. These calculations, associated with the labor-intensive translation of Eusebius's passages into modern biblical verses, have not been verified by us. -Ed. We were unable to establish the logic of Glubokovsky’s latest calculations. It is difficult to say how the last two figures were obtained. From the above data it is clear that Matthew's "own" verses amount to 330/1072 ca. 1/3, Luki- 541/1152 approx. 1/2 of their Gospels. Perhaps Glubokovsky compares the “unique” verses of the weather forecasters with the total number of non-unique verses in the first three Gospels (which is 2901–938 1963). Then indeed for Matthew this ratio is 330/1963 approx. 1/6, for Luke – 541/1963 approx. 1/4. All figures are repeated in Glubokovsky-1907, and Glubokovsky-1932 adds the following data to them, only aggravating the ambiguity: “...Matthew is similar to Mark in verses 170–180 and in verses 230–240 to Luke, in whom up to 50 verses are the same as the second evangelist.” -Ed. From the Greek “ἀκόλουθος” - next (after someone), accompanying, accompanying. -Ed. The fragment we enclosed in square brackets is absent from Glubokovsky-1932, contains many inaccuracies and is not completely clear. For example, verse 30 in chapter 4 of the Gospel of Matthew does not exist. The suggested reading is: “...in the further course of the story of Matt. 4, 18–22 coincides with Mark. 1, 16–20, while Luke the history of the calling of the apostles (Luke 5, 1–11) presupposes other facts; starting with Matt. 5, 1 Matthew sets out the Discourse on the Mount, which was not preserved in this form (i.e. in this place) by Mark and Luke, who, in similar acoluthic continuity (with the exception of the mentioned insertion of Luke 5, 1–11), then convey various events of the Galilean period: Mark. 1, 21 – Mk. 3, 19; OK. 4, 31 - Luke. 6, 19". -Ed. Here, “in another place,” Matthew reports each pair of events indicated. Glubokovsky notes that the first evangelist, having placed these blocks not in accordance with the presentation plan of the other two weather forecasters, nevertheless retains the same connection of events within each block, that is, for each pair of events. -Ed. Abbreviations when comparing different texts: deest- “absent”, adjung. – “added.” -Ed. So in Glubokovsky-1899, 1907 and 1932 (in the 1911 edition this entire paragraph is missing). Most likely, Glubokovsky’s inaccuracy: the text of Mark in this place looks slightly different in different editions of the New Testament, but everywhere there is an insertion, which is also reflected in the Russian translation: “get up, take up your bed and walk.” Thus, in the eighth edition of Tischendorf (the version of which Glubokovsky probably follows) this fragment of Mk. 2, 9 looks like this: “ἔγειρε, καὶ ἆ ρόν τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ ὕ παγε.” -Ed. The publishers of the Greek-English NT in the Gospel of Mark here preferred to read "ἀφιέναι ἁ μαρτίας ἐπι τῆς γῆς", found in two Greek uncial manuscripts: B and Θ (Corideti Codex, found in Georgia and dating back to the 9th century). -Ed. In Greek-English NT the Gospels of Mark and Matthew also have this reading. The reasons why the Greek New Testament Editorial Committee chose this option are as follows: “Although the perfect (ἀφέωνται) has solid manuscript support, this reading appears to be a secondary reading, borrowed by copyists from the parallel narrative of the Gospel of Luke. Mark uses the present tense (άφίενται) and Matthew follows it” (Textual Commentary on the NT. P. 66). The reading is marked with a symbol (B), indicating that there remains some degree of doubt about the correctness of the Committee's decision. Let us note that one of the postulates underlying the Committee’s choice of one option or another is the primacy (in time) of the Gospel of Mark (see Ibid. R. xhiiii). -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author adds: “... meanwhile [these words] cannot be a reproduction from the Lord’s speech itself, for they were not spoken by Him, but are an extraneous, editorial note.” -Ed. See Hug J. L. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 2. Tubingen, 1809. § 37. This is the case in all Glubokovsky’s publications. In fact, the passage in Matthew that parallels the following passages from Mark and Luke is Matt. 26.18. However, there is no literal textual match. -Ed. See HugJ. L. Op. cit, loс. cit. Curly brackets indicate features of Tischendorff's text according to editio octava critica major. Cp. Hug J. L. Op. cit., § 17. Norton A. The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. Cambridge, 2 1846. Vol. 1. P. 240. Glubokovsky’s inaccuracy; this form is not common in literature. -Ed. Probably Glubokovsky's remarks refer to the textus gecertus. In the text of Mk. 13, 31 almost all publishers, starting with Tischendorf and Trigelis (i.e., from the middle of the 19th century), put “οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται” (in Greek-English NT reading “οὐ μὴ παρέλθαχπν" is not even indicated on the apparatus). As for Lk. 21, 33, then in א, A and a number of other codes there is also “οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται”, and it is this reading that is usually accepted in modern editions of the New Testament (see, for example, Greek-English NT). -Ed. The verb προσμένω is found in the first two evangelists in the story of the miraculous feeding of four thousand with seven loaves (Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:2). The verb συμπνίγω (in different forms) is used by all three Synoptics in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19; Luke 8:14). -Ed. Except for the ending "ἔμπροσθέν σου", which is missing from many authoritative codices. -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the ending of this sentence was changed to a more logical one: “... does not belong to the speaker.” -Ed. The wording of this sentence in Glubokovsky-1932 shows that “disharmony” here means “the use of different, non-identical expressions”: “...and their speech often achieves perfect consonance in those places where a certain disharmony is necessarily expected.” -Ed. Herder J. G. Christliche Schriften. Bd. 3: Von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland, nach Johannes Evangelium. Nebst einer Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien aus ihrer Entstehung und Ordnung. Riga, 1797. Gieseler J. K. L. Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1818. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] In Glubokovsky-1932, the author explains that the dispute was initiated by Bretschneider’s essay: Bretschneider K. G. Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Johannis apostoli indole et origine. Lipsiae, 1820 -Ed. This place (the last three sentences) is revealed in more detail in Glubokovsky-1932: “Because of this, it is necessary to assume subjective interests and personal goals in their mutual interweavings and collisions, like the “Saxon anonymous” (Hasert) and really declared our Gospels to be the fruit of the fierce struggle of Peter and Paul and a well-known compromise between them (Hasert. Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser und ihr Verhältniss zu einander. Leipzig, 1845; Sendschreiben an Baur über die Abfassungszeit des Lucas und der Synoptiker, 1848 [the first book was published under the pseudonym Philosphotos Alethias, we were unable to establish anything about the second - Ed.]). Starting from this thesis, the Tübingen school applied it to the illumination of Christianity itself according to the Hegelian method of splitting the original type into two polar varieties and uniting them in a higher moment. In this sense, Baur immediately began to proclaim (BaurF S. Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien. Tübingen, 1847) the first and third Gospels are products of primitive Judeo-Christianity and decisively hostile Paulinism, seeing in Mark a neutralizing reconciliation, and - due to the natural duration of this process - the completion of our weather forecasters was attributed to the time between 130 and 170 years. But now an irremovable doubt naturally arose in the Gospel tradition itself in general: if it is factually unreliable, then where is the source of the apostolic tradition with such rich and wonderful content? -Ed. Bauer V. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte des Johannes. Bremen, 1840; Idem. Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker. Bd. 1–3. Leipzig, 1841–1842, 2 1846; Idem. Christus und die Cäsaren. Berlin, 1877. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Comely R. (S. J.). Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888 et 1925. P. 186, 187. [Link taken from Glubokoesky-1932. -Ed.] In Glubokovsky-1932, the following addition was inserted here: “It was, as it were, the first Christian catechism, inviolable and obligatory for everyone and typically reflected in the apostolic writings (for example, in St. Apostle Paul) by the distinctness and stereotyped textual formulation in the presentation of the main Christian dogmas and phenomena, which idea in modern times he extremely persistently developed in his writings late prof. Alfred Seeberg." -Ed. Westcott V. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858, pp. 208–209. Comely R. (S. J.). Op. cit. P. 185. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Pseudo-Clemens Romanus. Recognitionum lib. II, 1, PG 1, 1249 [one of those works that were called “Clementines”, since they were originally attributed to the schmch. Clement of Rome. -Ed.]. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Fragmentum epistolae ad Florinum, PG 7, 1228; cp. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica V, 20, PG 20, 485. Gregorius Magnus. XL homiliarum in Evangelia, hom. 15, 5, PL 76, 1133–1134. [Cp. Idem. Dialogorum liber IV, 14, PL 77, 341–344; pyc. Transl.: Our Holy Father Gregory Dvoeslov, Bishop of Rome, interviews. M., 1996. pp. 236–237: “He (Servul) never learned to read and write, but he bought himself a Bible and, admitting pious people to the hospital, constantly forced them to read in front of him. In this way he studied all the Holy Scriptures..." -Ed.] Augustinus Aurelius. De doctrina Christiana, prologus, 4, PL 34, 17. [The meaning of Augustine's quotation is: "The Egyptian monk Anthony memorized the Scriptures by hearing others read them." -Ed.] Cp. Hug J. L. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 2. Tubingen, 1809. § 22. In Glubokovsky-1932 there is the following insertion: “Then there would have been noticeable traces of such an activity in his messages. That's what Prof. thought. Alfred Seeberg, who fanatically developed this idea and, using Paul's epistles, tried to formulate the most catechetical text. And it can hardly be argued that from early Christian times some symbolic confessions should have been formed - mainly to distinguish from Judaism and to convince it - but they were brief, did not have inviolable immobility and did not concern the historical side, for no one doubted the actual existence and teaching dignity of Christ. Consequently, there was a compressed doctrinal-dogmatic sample, least of all suitable to serve as a synoptic fundamental principle with an abundance of specific data. And St. ap. Paul does not assume anything of the kind that is binding or productive for his own authority and for his own gospel.” -Ed. The last two links are wrong. In Glubokovsky-1932 they, along with the previous reference, are absent. -Ed. Strauss D. F. Das Leben Jesu. Tübingen, 1840. Einleitung, § 10. We are probably talking about Prof. Karl-Otfried Müller (1797–1840), historian, a number of whose works are devoted to the study of myths and sagas. -Ed. Justinus Martyr. "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew" Judaeo, 8, PG 6, 493. Didon, Henri. La vie de Jesus-Christ. T. 1. Paris, 1890. P. 233. Strauss D. F. Op. cit. Einleitung, § 14. Westcott V. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 298. [So in Glubokovsky-1899 and Glubokovsky-1907. In Glubokovsky-1932 the reference points to the river. 228, no. -Ed.] See Abbott E. A. Gospels // Encyclopaedia Britannica. 9th ed. Cp. Salmon G. Introduction to the New Testament. London, 1888, pp. 148–150. Essentially, Corneli asserts the same thing: “But the apostolic catechism could not be the same everywhere: there was another in Jerusalem, where the Jews were instructed; another - in Rome, where - after Claudius expelled the Jews from the city - the Church consisted almost exclusively of converted pagans; the other in Antioch, where both Jews and converted pagans belonged to the Church” (Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 185–186). Glubokovsky talks about Mikhail (Luzin) (1830–1887), Bishop of Kursk and Belgorod, among whose works is his doctoral dissertation “On the Gospel and Gospel History” (M., 2 1870). -Ed. We are probably talking about Nikolai Ivanovich Troitsky (1851–1920), a historian and spiritual writer, whose master’s thesis was entitled “On the Origin of the First Three Canonical Gospels” (Kostroma, 1878). -Ed. Hilgenfeld A. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig, 1875. It is appropriate here to say a few words regarding similarities in language. This phenomenon is usually explained by the fact that Greek speech was not native to the apostles and they, naturally, hardened sounds alien to them. But it is clear without any argument that, even if this were so, such an interpretation is too primitive when it comes to integral and independent works, and not about student extemporalia [improvisations]. In addition, the most difficult words always sink deeper into memory and are more firmly preserved in all their originality. Meanwhile, in the first three Gospels such cases are not particularly significant and truly original terms are mostly the property of one of them as ἅ παξ λεγάμενα [used once]. In them one can see the free hand of a writer who has mastered the language and is far from slavishly repeating a memorized model, and such a writer needs a more stable form in order to find himself forced to adhere to a certain text in the presentation of speeches or in the description of miracles. Lessing G. E. Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloẞ menschliche Geschichtsschreiber betrachtet. 1778 [unpublished]; cp. Idem. Theologischer Nachlass/Ed. C. G. Lessing. Berlin, 1784. S. 45 ss. [Lessing's work was published only six years after it was written, in the indicated collection (S. 42–75). There is no reference to Lessing in Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Eichhom J. G. Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur. Bd. 5. Leipzig, 1794. S. 759 ss. Idem. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1804. S. 353 ss. Here the symbol א, of course, has no relation to the Codex Sinaiticus, which was discovered much later. Likewise, other designations do not apply to the existing New Testament manuscripts. -Ed. Marsh N. Abhandlungen über die Entstehung und Abfassung unserer drei ersten Evangelien // Herbert Marshʼs Anmerkungen und Zusätze zu Johann David Michaelis Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes / Deutsch übersetzt von E. F. K. Rosenmüller. Bd.2. Göttingen, 1803. S. 284 ss.; in the original: Marsh H. Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First Gospels - appended to his English translation by Michaelis: Michaelis J. D. Introduction to the New Testament / Tr. H.Marsh. Vol. 3, Part 2. London, 2 1802. P. 167–409. Gratz P A. Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu erklären. Tubingen, 1812. Paulus N. E. G. Commentar zum neuen Testament. Bd. 1: Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Kommentar über die drei ersten Evangelien. Lübeck, 1800. In Glubokosty-1932, the sentence is continued: “...illustrating my opinion on the Gospel of Luke...” - and a link is given: Schleiermacher F D. E. Über die Schriften des Lucas, ein kritischer Versuch. Berlin, 1817. -Ed. Schleiermacher F D. E. Über die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evangelien // Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1832. S. 735–768. Quote in Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica Ш, 39, PG 20, 300. Ibid.: οὐχ ὥ σπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων [not placing the words of Christ in the correct order]. Ibid.: Ἀριστίωνος ... τῶν τοῦ κυρίου λόχων διηγήσεις καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου Ἰ ωάννου παραδόσεις [Aristion's presentation of the words of the Lord and transmitted by Presbyter John]. Wed. Below about the Gospel of Matthew. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author adds that diegesis “is also accepted by the famous commentator Hermann Olshausen.” -Ed. This proposal is expanded in Glubokovsky-1932 as follows: “It is assumed that before our weather forecasters there were numerous, almost countless monads that belonged to one historical object, but were mutually independent both in their origin and in their actual position. Despite this, they produce something holistic and harmonious, which even our critics consider full of spirit and strength, unified in the community of all parts and in their combined action. Consequently, a living organism was formed from indifferent atoms. How is this possible? The Universe, our visible “cosmos,” of course, consists of the smallest elements, but for their inextricable unity there are also sufficient reasons that produced such an ordered universe. According to atheists, these are inevitable laws of nature; according to religious conviction, this is the supreme God, who brought the elements He created into wondrous harmony. In relation to the Gospel monuments, the first is unthinkable and when applied to the oral process of the mythological emergence of the Gospel history, as Strauss testified with his sad experience, who did not indicate either the beginning, or the ways, or the methods of synoptic formation. Therefore, it is necessary to accept the second and assume that some intelligent will united the scattered written notes into more complete and rounded essays. And this whole operation happened even before the advent of our synoptic editions, since it is impossible to imagine that three independent individuals independently combined similar figures from numerous checkers. In this case, we will end up with a lengthy pre-synoptic presentation, covering extensive scattered material, but this will already be a written first gospel, and we know that such an idea is unsuitable for the synoptic problem and here it is simply complicated by the involvement of new unknown x’s.” -Ed. Holtzmann N. J. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1885. S. 339. Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum I, cap. 2, PL 34, 1044 [In the 1932 edition, Glubokovsky makes the following remark about this quotation: “Sometimes Catholics even still claim that here we are talking only about the unity of the gospel matter, which is presented in Mark in a shorter, more abbreviated manner than in Matthew (Cotely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 103–104, 181). However, this is an obvious reinterpretation of a completely clear text, that the second weather forecaster relentlessly follows the first, and does not simply coincide with it in content.” -Ed.] See Muretov M.D. On the question of the origin and mutual relationship of the synoptic Gospels // Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 27. M., 1881. P. 205–241; Muretov M.D. Gospel // Orthodox Review. 1890, February. pp. 195–228, see p. 206. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Griesbach J. J. Commentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis decerptum esse monstratur. Jenae, 1789–1790. [Link taken from Glubokovsty-1932. -Ed.] Quote in Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 14, PG 20, 552. In Glubokovsky-1932, this sentence sounds somewhat different: “This last form, which opens up space for all sorts of additions and combinations in the process of formation of synoptic matter, is now recognized as perhaps the most scientific and can be called - not in the strict sense - the final word of Western Protestant exegesis in the synoptic field.” -Ed. The last two sentences are missing from Glubokovsky - 1932. - Ed. See Bleek F. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Berlin, 4 1885. § 68. S. 187. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] The last sentence in Gpubokovsky-1932 is slightly changed, after which the author develops his thought as follows: “Let us assume that Mark occupies the last place and works with the works of Matthew and Luke in his hands. As if from here the conclusion should be drawn that his work is only an easy compilation, like those that our time produces, especially on the theological sciences. But, having explained the external composition by this, we will be in complete bewilderment about its internal essence and the sufficient motive for the appearance of such a creation. After all, one cannot think that Mark was striving for a literary name or even wanted to receive an academic degree or prize, since there is no doubt that all the Gospels take care of the needs of believers and the establishment and dissemination of Christian truths. And then, not having anything new and original to say...” -Ed. Weiss V. Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen. Berlin, 1872. S. 9; Idem. Das Leben Jesu. Bd. 1. Berlin, 1882. S. 39 ss. Compare: “The priority of Mark to Matthew and Luke no longer requires to be proven” (Moffatt J. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1927. P. 80). [Quote and link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] See Volkmar (V40;olkmar) and partly Pfleiderer. [Explanation taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] For a sample, see Köstlin's system: Köstlin K. R. Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien. Tübingen, 1853. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1932. -Ed.] Keim Th. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Bd. 1. Zürich, 1867. S. 47. In Glubokovsky-1932, the idea is explained as follows: “... the order of our Gospels has been fixed for a long time and, apparently, has a chronological basis, for it is impossible to find any other reason for the fact that between the two apostles out of the twelve, two apostolic disciples are included.” -Ed. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 844–845; cp., however, Ibid. III, 9–11, PG 7, 868 ss., where Irenaeus quotes from Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, which order is maintained when listing them in III, 11, 7, PG 7, 884. Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum I, PG 13, 829. [This fragment survives only as a quotation from Eusebius Pamphilus: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 25, PG 20, 581.-Ed.] Quote in: Eusebius Caesarensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 14, PG 20, 552. In some ancient Itala codes, one Greco-Latin (D - codex Bezae) and the Golden Gothic, in the fathers of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi 4, 733–751, 781–788, etc.), in Cyril of Alexandria (De recta fide ad reginas, PG 76, 1260 ss.), in the apostolic decrees (Constitutiones apostolicae II, 57, PG 1, 729) and among many Greek fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. Tertullianus. Adversus Marcionem IV, 2, PL 2, 363. Hug J. L. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 2. Tübingen, 1809. § 12. S. 60–63; cp. Ibid. § 8–11. Here the following paragraph was added to Glubokovsky-1932: “We readily agree that it is impossible to satisfactorily or at least approximately explain Markov’s deviations in the narrative by chronological and all other motives. But we must not forget that the primary source and final authority for Mark was the Apostle Peter, who was the decisive factor for him both in matter and in form. It was to this that Papias of Hierapolis reduced all Markov’s features, seeing here a close reflection of Peter’s didascalia. Here it is enough just the fact that Mark really compiles Peter, and then there will be a completely sufficient reason for all sorts of deviations as sanctioned by the witness of Christ. In comparison with it, all other manuals were necessarily secondary, serving only as an auxiliary guide for the literary, chronological and pragmatic ordering of the Gospel information. If even with these conditions a significant coincidence with Matthew is seen, this irresistibly says that in this case it was the latter who had a powerful influence, since only he was and could be considered equal to the Apostle Peter.” -Ed. Wed. Hug J. L. Op. cit. § 26. S. 113. Wed Hug J.L. Op. cit. § 36–37. S. 143–148. In Glubokovsky-1932 there is a clarification: “...they used the general edition through Matthew, which was followed by the other two [forecasters].” -Ed. We are talking about a rearrangement of cause and effect that is truly unusual for the narrative: “Seeing Jesus from afar, [the possessed man] ran and worshiped Him, and, crying out with a loud voice, said: What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I conjure You by God, do not torment me! For Jesus said to him, “Come out, O unclean spirit, from this man” (Mark 5:6–8). -Ed. Indeed, the text of Matthew contains uncertainty: its meaning depends on the placement of punctuation marks. The option given in square brackets is equally possible, as is another translation: “I am a man who has warriors under my authority.” Luke removes such uncertainty. Interestingly, the reading of Luke also penetrated into a number of manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew - in particular, the Sinaiticus and Vatican Codes. See analysis of this fragment, for example, in: Nolland J. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 35a. Luke 1–9:20. Texas, 1989. P. 317; Explanatory Bible. T. 3. P. 165. -Ed. The last parallel, repeated in all Glubokovsky’s publications, is certainly erroneous. Probably the author either wanted to compare Matt. 12, 44 and Luke. 11, 24, or accidentally repeated the above comparison of Mk. 12, 44 and Luke. 21, 4. -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author formulates the idea as follows: “The gospel matter, in essence, remains the same for all weather forecasters who used each other in literature” - and inserts a lengthy footnote: “In essence, prof. Adolf Harnack, who now rightly castigates the hypocrisy of the “Protestant consciousness”, which suppressed all scientific freedom with its confessional-party fetishes (Harnack A. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 4: Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien. Leipzig, 1911. S. 55), and decisively rejects the “wild hypotheses” that prevailed there (Ibid. Bd. 2: Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1907. S. iv), like Wellhausen’s eine Dynamithypothese [explosive hypothesis] about composition. book of Acts (Ibid. Bd. 3: Die Apostelgeschichte. Leipzig, 1908. S. 178). According to Harnack, the general synoptic source was Q - a collection of speeches and sayings of Jesus Christ, not oriented towards the history of suffering, with an almost exclusively Galilean horizon, without any noticeable special tendencies - apologetic, didactic, religious-political, national (anti-national) (Bd. 2. S. 121). This composition is the same for all three Gospels (Ibid. S. 78) was originally compiled in Aramaic (Ibid. S. 171) even before Mark, around 50 or even earlier (Bd. 4. S. 87), by some disciple of Christ (Ibid. S. 96). With Mark, Q is mutually independent, no lower in dignity than the first, in many places even higher (Bd. 2. S. 173), but the second weather forecaster also had “collections of the Lord’s sayings, which were strongly related to Q” (Ibid. S. 157: Hermworte-Sammlungen lagen, die sich stark mit Q berührten). The latter is in Matthew [sic in Harnack; Glubokovsky mistakenly puts “at Mark’s”. -Ed.] and Luke are utilized in the same Greek translation (Ibid. S. 80), although with differences from the Greek Matthew, suggesting, however, only a different copy, but not a different edition (Ibid.). This text is preserved more intact in Matthew (Ibid. S. 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23–25, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 49, 54, 55, 64, 66, 67, 72, 74), and Luke changes it with stylistic corrections (Ibid. S. 7, 9), however, he values him higher and, in any case, not lower than Mark (Ibid. S. 219). The work of the second forecaster was the basis for the third (Bd. 3. S. 151); despite all this, he did not break ties with Matthew, since in their general content (over and above the similarity with Mark) such a proportion is stated that this is 2/11 for the text of Matthew [also inserted from Harnack’s original; Glubokovsky has an erroneous “for the text of Mark.” -Ed.] and 1/6 for Luke (Bd. 2. S. 1). It follows that Q is reproduced by Matthew, Mark draws on a collection close to Q, Luke combines Q and Mark. This almost coincides with our opinion, with the exception of Harnack's distinction between Q from Matthew and from the didactic manual for Mark, but is it possible to agree with this premise if in the first case intact preservation is asserted, and in the second strong contact is verified? Do not historical data also support this, since it is accepted as very probable (sehr wahrscheinlich) that Papias (quoted in Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 39) means “our (present) Matthew” (Bd. 2. S. 172)? True, it is added that if the latter cannot be learned by the apostle, then it will be especially likely (überwiegend wahrscheinlich) that it is Q that is the work of Matthew, but serious considerations in favor of such an impossibility have not been given and cannot be thought of, and then Q will merge with Matthew and... the hypothesis of the mutual use of weather forecasters will be obtained” (pp. 74–75). -Ed. Without touching in detail on the concept of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, let us note for now that sober Catholic theologians do not separate the latter from the gift of apostleship, seeing in it only a particular expression of it. Such, for example, is the Tübingen professor Schanz (Schanz, R. Iop. // Theologische Quartalschrift. 1885. Hf. 4. S. 668 ss.). Westcott V. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. R 170. Cp. Schanz, P. von. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas. Tübingen, 1883. S. 12. Origenes. Hom. 26, 5: “Luke replenishes”; 4, 1: “Mark shortens”; on Mark. 8, 15; [same in Tpubokovsky-1899 and 1907. The links are erroneous. Turning to the original source (Schanz's article, see below) allows us to establish that for the first two quotes Glubokovsky incorrectly indicated the author: Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 26, 2 (Shants has 26, 5), PG 57, 335; hom. 4, 1, PG 57, 39. As for the third reference, Schantz actually quotes Origen: “On Mk. 8, 15 he notes: “And, of course, Mark, due to the fact that Matthew omitted the Herodians, included them to improve the narrative"" (S. 223), however, the source of this quotation from Origen given by Schantz could not be established. In Glubokovsky-1911 there is no entire this section; in Glubokovsky-1932 there is one instead of three references: Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum XVI, 12 ss., PG 13, 1409 ss.]; Epiphanius Constantiensis, haeres. 51, 6, PG 41, 896–897; Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam I, 11, PL 15, 1538. R. von. Die Traditionshypothese // Theologische Quartalschrift. 1885. Hf. 2. S. 216–243. This erroneous reference is repeated in all editions of Glubokovsky, with the exception of Glubokovsky-1911, where this entire section is missing. The author probably had Luke in mind. 24, 53. -Ed. This also eliminated the inaccuracy and incompleteness of oral messages, in which important points were sometimes omitted, and the entire image was limited to the rudiments. See Acts. 18, 25–26; 19, 2 ss. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 24, PG 20, 265. Origenes. Commentaria in Joannem I, praefatio, PG 14, 32. To illustrate the relationship between weather forecasters in matter and language, we can take the following table by Westcott (WestcottB. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 199): [Unfortunately, the meaning of the last two columns is unclear: Westcott's book remains inaccessible to us. The first two columns probably indicate the percentage of agreement between the evangelists and the rest of the weather forecasters, falling into “stories” and “speeches”. -Ed.] Wed. Tacitus. Annales XV, 44. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 844. You might be interested in: