Евангелие от Матфея

Apostle Matthew (Levi), writer of the first Gospel Our first canonical Gospel in all manuscripts bears the inscription “κατὰ Μαθθαῖον” [according to Maffei] or, less often and less accurately, but in a more Greekized form, “κατὰ Ματθαῖον” [according to Matthew]. Thus, the publisher of the gospel of Christ in this case was a certain Matthew, and Christian tradition from the most ancient times, as well as third-party news (pagans and heretics), claim that this is an apostle of the twelve. And, without a doubt, information about this person must be sought in the monuments of New Testament sacred writing, where in the list of the Lord’s immediate disciples we encounter “καὶ Μαθθαῖος” [... and Maffei] on the seventh (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15) or eighth (Matthew 10:3; Acts 1, 13) place and mostly in connection with the name of Thomas. Although in the apostolic catalogs one cannot see strict continuity in the order of calling and “hierarchical” rank, nevertheless, from this we can conclude that Matthew did not join the ranks of the twelve at the very beginning of Christ’s public ministry. Fortunately for us, very definite evidence of this incident has been preserved. In the first Gospel, Matthew is called ὁ τελώνης [publican], and therefore, obviously, he is identical with the publican described in Matthew. 9, 9. This was near Capernaum, located near Lake Gennesaret, on its northwestern shore, not far from the confluence of the Jordan River, on the last slopes of the Safed Mountains at the mouth of Wadi el-Nishif. The current ruins of Tell-Hum do not indicate the particular wealth and vastness of this city, but in any case it was a very lively and lively center. Being located near Lake Gennesaret, it was very convenient for fishing, and this fishery flourished here, and its fishing trade was famous even in the Jewish capital. Even more important was the fact that it was a border point of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas and lay on the trade route (Matthew 4:15) from the Golan (Gaulonitis) to the Mediterranean Sea and was a junction of roads leading to Tire, Damascus, Jerusalem and Sepphoris. Therefore, the Roman garrison - the century - was constantly quartered in it (Matt. 8:5; Lk. 7, 1 ss.), there was a tax station (“mytnitsa”), where taxes were paid to special tax farmers (“publicans”) in exchange for the annual amount they paid to the Roman government, and a customs outpost for collecting duties from passing trade caravans. Since during the era of Roman rule all of Palestine was divided into several large tax districts, Capernaum was, of course, the center of one of them. Here, at the beginning of the second year of preaching activity (according to Dido 415, in February 28 of the Dionysian era), Jesus, when leaving the city, saw a man sitting on the tollhouse, the verb Matthew (Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον), and said to him: “Come after me.” And he stood up and followed Him (Matthew 9:9). All the details of this episode literally coincide with the narrative of Mark (Mark 2:14) and Luke (Luke 5:27) about the call to the apostleship of the publican Levi (Λευείς, Λεβής 416), and hence it is undeniable that the latter is identical with Matthew of the first Gospel. If so, then we acquire new data for his biography, that he was the son of Alpheus (Mk. 2, 14: ε ἶ δεν Λευεὶν τὸν τοῦ Ἁ λφαίου [He saw Levi, the son of Alpheus]), although it is impossible to deduce any positive information from it. Chrysostom and Theodoret 417 recognized that he was descended from the same parents as James Alpheus 418, or the Younger, the primate of the Jerusalem Church and the writer of the conciliar epistle 419; but this opinion is based solely on the similarity of the name Ἁ λφαῖος [Alpheus], ​​so common at that time 420, and can hardly even be probable, since Jacob of Jerusalem was most likely one of the brothers of the Lord, and Matthew is not mentioned anywhere among them, and none of them themselves belonged to the ranks of the Savior’s close disciples. Much more important for us is the undoubted indication of Matthew’s social position and the circumstances of his election, which lead us into the secret places of the inner being of this apostle and reveal to us his spiritual image. “Publican” - this term alone says a lot to characterize him. This word denoted an entire class among the Jewish people, who took advantage of national-religious shame for their own selfish purposes, in order to create external prosperity for themselves on the ruins of the glory of Israel with the sweat and blood of their fellow tribesmen. Having conquered Palestine, Rome imposed a significant tax on it, but, out of ordinary pride and natural calculations of benefit, it did not want to collect money itself through its commissioners, but gave this item of its budget to the rich Jews. The latter, each in his own district, then reimbursed their contributions themselves and, of course, not without interest. This type of activity of official publicani [farmers] always and everywhere aroused just contempt, 421 but its disgustingness was aggravated in this case by the fact that a great disaster was being exploited here, which crushed Jewish pride and smashed all great ideals to dust. Israel dreamed of being the ruler and light of the whole world, and Roman enslavement was for him more painful and shameful than all the chains of prison. How much more shameful in the eyes of the faithful were those who helped to consolidate these fetters and lined their pockets with such unclean work! For the Jews there was nothing more terrible and offensive than a publican who, for his own gain, sacrifices the best precepts of his religion and the dearest hopes of national self-consciousness. By serving Rome, he obviously tramples on the most precious heritage, which constituted the “living soul” for all the true descendants of Israel, and even mocks it. This is a grave sin against God, conscience and the laws of one’s own blood, which the publican sucks. He is the worst of renegades and infinitely more guilty than any criminal (Matthew 18:17; 21:31–32 and Luke 7:34; 15:1); he is the same as a pagan, and, perhaps, lower than him (Matthew 18:17). This was the prevailing opinion about this caste of tax farmers and, in general, it was, of course, fair. But there were exceptions here, and very important ones: history knows them, and reasonable psychology easily understands and explains them. Seeing the destruction of the Jewish kingdom, the publicans understood more accurately than others that this was not the aspiration of Israel, that it was above political power and regardless of civil splendor, if God had taken them away. It lies in a region alien to the instability of political forms; it is of a spiritual nature. Thus, at a time when the Pharisees belittled their religious ideal and, from all the blows of fate, only became inflamed with arrogant pride: “I am the seed of Abraham, and no one else has worked” (John 8:33), - many of the tax collectors lived in that humiliation that rises to primacy in the kingdom of God (Luke 14:11; 18:14), not having narrow restrictions on the political and civil system. “Now salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham,” the Lord said to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9). The submissive acceptance of the foreign yoke as a sign of God’s wrath instilled in them the saving thought of their insignificance, and general contempt increased in them the feeling of their unworthiness along with the hope for the mercy of God Most High. “God, be merciful to me, a sinner” (Lk. 18:13), - this is how they were accustomed to speak, think and feel, preparing the ground in their souls for regenerating and sanctifying grace, when pompous Pharisee self-righteousness wanted to receive a hundredfold fruit from Jehovah for their meager tithes. The thunderous voice of one crying in the desert “repent!” found a response in the hearts of the publicans, and, having been baptized by John with water, they justified God (Luke 7:29) 422 as children of wisdom (Matthew 11:19), who were to be purified by the fire of the Holy Spirit and receive His gifts (Matthew 3:11). That is why Christ’s loving call to “repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15) met with complete readiness in them and opened the way for them to the bridal chamber. Capernaum's Levi 423 also belonged to such persons, for whom the humiliating wearing of the Roman yoke served as a means of perceiving the good yoke and light burden of the Lord (Matthew 11:30). An object of horror and disgust for everyone, with his sinful soul he immediately understood where to look for true freedom and unwavering glory. He was glad to plunge into this saving source, although he did not dare to think about such happiness. But Christ penetrated into the recesses of his being, saw his disposition, and the blessed sound of the Messiah “walk according to Me” merged with the inner inclination of the publican and imparted decisive strength to him. “And he, leaving everything, stood up and followed Him” (Luke 5:28) - without fear of the wrath of his colleagues and the punishment of his superiors. Let the dead bury their dead! - placing his hand on his head, he no longer looked back, so as to be led into the kingdom of God (Luke 9:60, 62). Matthew suddenly broke with his past, which was for him only a difficult school for a sweet present, abundant with tears of contrition and repentance, but also full of hope for renewal. Soon he openly testified to this in front of everyone. In his house, he arranged a large feast for the Savior, where there were many of his former companions, tax collectors and sinners, apparently carried away by his example in following Christ (Mark 2:15). And then the Lord again rewarded Levi’s zeal and zeal. “It is not the healthy,” He said, “that need a physician, but the sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31–32). These words, so encouraging for the humiliated diners, were most life-giving for Levi himself. They showed him all the power and greatness of divine mercy - and, obedient to its saving voice, he was immediately reborn in spirit for the kingdom of God, which at first the book Nicodemus could not even understand (John 3:3). For him, it was the same as the wonderful and terrible vision on the way to Damascus - and just as the evangelist Paul appears to us from Saul, so this Levi, who by his birth was outwardly “cleaned” to God, now internally becomes akin to Him through the new life given to him and becomes one of the Lord’s disciples under the title of Matthew, which means “gift of God” 424. Whether he received this nickname now, or it had been with him since childhood, along with his own, in any case, from now on it became his exclusive name, fully reflecting his spiritual image. From that moment on, he is a different person: although he is a tax collector, he is already sought out by God and gifted with all the benefits of divine mercy. And this is not from him, it is God’s gift: he is Matthew. But everything that comes from God returns to Him: together with his name, Levi leaves everything and completely devotes himself to serving the Lord, dedicating himself entirely to God, just as he previously sacrificed family prerogatives of national pride and the false swagger of empty vanity. The “attachment” and “devotion” to God of the former Levi became the essence of the entire existence of the “God-given” Matthew and was embodied in the latter: the selfish tax collector is absorbed and disappears in the apostle. Such natures put their whole soul into achieving their ideal, but they do not like to move forward, to come to the fore, preferring to act calmly, quietly and unnoticed with a firm conviction in the sanctity of their mission, with the confidence that this is their whole existence, which is as natural as life itself. Therefore, no news has been preserved about the Apostle Matthew in the Gospels; we only know that he was among the closest disciples of the Lord and, together with the latter, participated in all events. In the same way, information about his further fate after the Ascension of Christ is vague, uncertain and contradictory. All ancient witnesses claim that he was active for some time in Palestine and preached the saving gospel among his compatriots. It can be assumed that his activities were not exclusively tied to Jerusalem, for while he was here after his conversion, around 37, Paul did not find him there (Acts 9:26-27; Gal. 1:18-19), and he is also not mentioned at the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:1 ss.). According to Clement of Alexandria, he remained in the holy land for fifteen years (until 44) and then went to other countries 425. According to some (Rufinus, Gregory the Great, Eucherius of Lyons, Socrates Scholasticus, etc.), it was Ethiopia (the kingdom of Meroe), others call Persia (Ambrose of Milan) or Macedonia (Isidore of Spain), and the peoples 426 enlightened by him are called either Parthians (Paulinus of Nolan), or Syrians and Ethiopians (Simeon Metaphrastus), or simply anthropophagous (Nicephorus Callistus) 427. In any case, it was more recognized that Matthew addressed his gospel to tribes of Semitic roots, whose mentality and the nature of their views were closer to Jewish concepts and therefore more likely to accept the doctrine of Christ as the Deliverer, prophesied to their common forefather 428 . Clement of Alexandria reports that he had an ascetic lifestyle, never ate meat and ate only “seeds, fruits and vegetables” 429, which is quite consistent with the character of such persons who devote themselves to God - not only the soul, but also the body. Heracleon assures that he died a natural death 430, but the Church has always accepted that he was also awarded the crown of martyrdom 431. Apostle Matthew – publisher of the first written Gospel It is this Matthew that Christian tradition has recognized and recognizes since ancient times as the compiler of a special account of the Gospel history. His work has long been known as a written work. Already Barnabas before the end of the 1st century. gives an excerpt from our first Gospel (Matthew 22:14), and in the Codex Sinaiticus it is preceded by the words: ὡ ς γέγραπται [as written] 432. It is clear that this apostolic man drew from a written source, which the author of “Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα Ἀποστόλων” [“The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles”] directly calls the Gospel, saying: ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ αὐτοῦ ὡ ς ἔχετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν [as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, as you have in the Gospel of our Lord] 433. And this scripture has always been considered inspired by God on a par with the Old Testament word of God. Evidence of this can be found, for example, in the so-called secunda epistola Clementis Romani ad Corinthios [the second letter of Clement to the Corinthians], which is actually a sermon that appeared between 130–160 AD. 434 One passage from our Matthew is reproduced here with the remark: καὶ ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει [and other scripture says] 435, just as Gen. 1, 27 quoted: λέγει ἡ ​​γραφή [says Scripture] 436. The character of this Matthew's Gospel from the point of view of α) content and β) language It is undeniable, therefore, that Matthew owns the written Gospel, which enjoyed sacred authority in the Church. But, undoubted from this side, the ancient evidence raises considerable difficulties in applying them to the current first canonical Gospel, raising the question: is this creation really and in this form did it come out of the hands of the apostle-publican? In judgments on this point there is, of course, a lot of artificiality, but one cannot help but admit that there is also some factual support for them. The reason for them was given by Papias of Hierapolis, and his news deserves careful analysis, especially since this man has sufficient rights to our attention on the present subject. Sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons, a student of Polycarp of Smyrna, says that he [Papias. -Ed.] was Ἰ ωάννου μὲν ἀκουστής, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ [listener of John, friend of Polycarp, ancient man] 437. Let us not yet assert that John the Theologian is of course here; in any case, it is true that the shepherd of Hierapolis, who was an ancient husband for the bishop of Lyons, lived near the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century 438 and was a man of great knowledge and an expert in the Holy Scriptures: γραφῆς εἰδήμων 439. True, the Caesarian historian denies that he was “a listener and witness of the apostles,” however, he also agrees that “Papias accepted the teaching of the faith from those close to them” (παρὰ τῶν ἐκείνοις γνωρίμων) 440. It is clear that the words of such a person, who stood in such close relations with the Lord’s immediate companions, should have special weight. And he declares: συνετάξατο ), ἡρμήνευσε δ ᾿ αὐτὰ ὡ ς ἦ ν δυνατὸς ἕ καστος [Matthew wrote down (composed) sayings in Hebrew, and who interpreted them as best he could] 441 . In this phrase we are given two instructions: α) regarding the character of Matthew's writing and β) regarding its language. Let's consider both. α) On the first point, Papias reports that the apostle-publican composed τὰ λόγια [sayings], that is, Κυριακὰ or τοῦ Κυρίου [Lord's or Lord's]. If he had known how much trouble this one simple term would cause science, you can be completely sure that his hand would not have moved to write it. This word is truly a stumbling block, temptation and controversy in Western exegesis and has been and is discussed so much and often that most have even lost the ability to understand its direct and immediate meaning. From a whole huge library of extensive and brief treatises on this subject, the sad conclusion follows that the original of Matthew's work was only a collection of entire speeches and fragmentary sayings of the Lord. Some scientists limit its entire content to this; others suggest that there were also some historical-narrative introductions. So it has now been established that Matthew composed the Logia proper, which are very far from our first Gospel. This is proclaimed to be the truth, and there is not a single lie in it. But, first of all, we do not find any reasonable incentive to assert the material and formal peculiarity of a known creation only on the basis of the difference in its names, since it is not clear that they cannot refer to the same work. But in our case, we can categorically say that this is not proven and not provable from the very term λόγια [saying]. It is very likely that the name εὐαγγέλιον [Gospel] comes from the apostles themselves, but at first it was not so specialized as to exclude all other designations for our first four monuments of New Testament literature. Beyond any dispute, Justin knew them quite well, and yet he often uses Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν Ἀποστόλων [memoirs of the apostles] precisely where his text coincides to the point of literalness with the Synoptics and John 442. Hence the consequence is direct and clear: just as it does not at all follow from the testimony of a learned apologist that there once existed apostolic records different from the current monuments, so the λόγια [sayings] of Papias do not necessarily oblige us to admit the existence of a purely didactic collection, not identical with the current Matthew. Here the only question is permissible: could the Hierapolis shepherd apply the name “λόγια” to the latter? We answer: not only could he, but he did it. If we take a closer look at the nature of his phrase, we will have to notice that the true Gospel of the Apostle Publican for Papias was something long past. Συνεγράψατο, ἡρμήνευσε [recorded, interpreted] - these phrases convince us that the author compares the original and disappeared writing of Matthew with what was before everyone’s eyes, and this could only be the Greek first Gospel, which eliminated the need for all interpretations. It is clear that the translation is compared with the Aramaic λόγια and even merges with them to the point of indistinguishability. Thus, Papias does not give the slightest reason to separate the first and second Matthew, since he characterizes him by what he sees in this. In his mind they coincided with each other, like an original with the most faithful copy. He obviously understands Matthew's Gospel, but is it ours - or was it only a collection of the Lord's speeches? The solution to this perplexity depends primarily on the form in which the work of the apostle-publican was addressed under Papias. Due to the scarcity and obscurity of the monuments of ancient Christian writing, it is impossible to extract indisputable data from here - nevertheless, a high probability speaks for the first possibility of the indicated problem. Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, author of the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", Athenagoras, Theophilus 443, Justin - a number of these writers from the end of the first century show a very close acquaintance with the current Greek text of Matthew and do not in the least force us to recognize another edition for this period. And this is all the more true since the term λόγια does not force such guesses, and Eusebius himself, without any hesitation, applies it to the Gospel in the form as he knew it, that is, ὁμολογούμενον - canonical. And it is necessary to agree with the insight of the church historian in view of the following facts. Papias's work was also called an explanation - λογίων Κυριακῶν [of the Lord's sayings] 444, and it also contained stories like the note about Justus-Barsab, and one ancient manuscript adds: ἱστορεῖ δὲ καὶ ἄλλα θαύματα καὶ μάλιστα τὸ κατὰ τὴν μητέρα Μαναΐμου τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστ ᾶ σαν , περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστ ᾶ ντων, ὅ τι ἕ ως Ἀδριανοῦ ἔζων [tells other miracles, and first of all about the mother of Manaim, who rose from the dead; and about those raised from the dead by Christ he says that they lived until the time of Hadrian] 445. Therefore, λόγια themselves do not in the least indicate any collection of speeches, but, according to the review of the great expert on early Christian writing, Lightfoot, it is a synonym for the designation of the Holy One. Scriptures 446. For the Apostle Paul, τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ [sayings of God] point to the Old Testament (Rom. 3:2) or the entire teaching of Christ (Heb. 5:12). Josephus immediately replaces λόγια with τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα [sacred writings] 447 . We find the same in Clement of Rome 448. The author of the homily, which goes by the name of his second letter to the Corinthians, identifies τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ [sayings of God] with the fact that λέγει ὁ κύριος [says the Lord] in the Gospels 449, which are also in Irenaeus are meant by the name “τὰ λόγια τοῦ κυρίου” [sayings of the Lord] 450. From this it is clear that Papias, with his “λόγια κυριακά” [“sayings of the Lord”] ​​could designate our canonical creation of Matthew. According to the terminology of that time, by this he expressed the view, noticeable in Pseudo-Clement of Rome, that the Gospel of the Apostle Publican is as authoritatively sacred a work as the entire Old Testament Scripture in general, since it also contains the “sayings” of the Lord. It should also be noted that Mark’s work is called differently. More precisely, the Hierapolis “exegete” does not give his title at all, but gives his characteristics in the sense that, without worrying particularly and exclusively about the chronological order, the “interpreter of Peter” tries to accurately state τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα [said and done by Christ] 451. This observation allows us to think that with regard to Matthew, with his λόγια, he indicates something unique in comparison with Mark. And this comparative method reveals to us the true view of Papias. Just as the second evangelist wanted to more accurately reproduce the words and deeds of the Lord not from a strictly chronological point of view, so, obviously, the apostle-publican focused primarily on τὰ λόγια [sayings]. In Mark, λεχθέντα and πραχθέντα [said and done] mutually balance one another; in Matthew, the first predominates. If there λεχθέντα, everything said - each separate and brief saying, then here the τὰ λόγια - more or less lengthy speeches come to the fore, surpassing those both in their volume and external form, for it was a coherent composition of expressions of a sacred nature 452. And one cannot but agree that this quite correctly notes the character of Matthew’s Gospel, which among all the others contains the most didactic content. As a result, it turns out that Papias knew about the scripture compiled by the Apostle Matthew, which was distinguished by the abundance and vastness of the speeches of the Lord; however, the latter did not exclude historical-narrative material, but prevailed over it and had divine dignity according to the source from which they flowed. Likewise, all the work enjoyed high authority and was ranked alongside the inspired word of God in general. All these signs come very close to the current canonical Matthew and do not in the least encourage us to assume otherwise. If we realize that the apostolic men and apologists have clear traces of using only our Greek Gospel, then this can be admitted with categorical affirmativeness. β) Another point of Papias' testimony concerns language. According to him, Matthew wrote ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτ ῳ [in Hebrew]. Usually these words refer to the then dominant Aramaic dialect, which is called Syro-Chaldean. There is a lot of misunderstanding in all this. First of all: the very terminology introduced by the blzh. Jerome, suffers from large errors. It is supported by the news of Dan. 2, 4, that “the Chaldeans (הַכַּשְׂדִּים) answered the king (Nebuchadnezzar) in Aramaic (אֲרָמִית),” from which they conclude that the Aramaic language of some parts of this book (Dan. 2, 46 - Dan. 7, 28) is the same with Chaldean. But the “Chaldeans” mentioned here are not the name of the people and mean members of the Babylonian priestly caste, as οἱ χαλδαῖοι [Chaldeans] in Herodotus indicates the priests of Bel and was later applied to eastern magicians, astronomers, soothsayers, etc. The evidence in question rather certifies that the Aramaic dialect was the court language Nebuchadnezzar and his successors and is not identical with the Chaldean or North Semitic, the Babylonian form of which is preserved on wedge-shaped inscriptions 453. Mixing with Syriac is also not entirely successful, because here the whole merges with the part. In fact, in the Northern Semitic group there are three branches: Canaanite (Canaanite), Aramaic and Assyro-Babylonian, and Aramaic breaks down into Eastern Aramaic (the languages ​​Syrian, in the Babylonian Talmud and Mandaean) and Western Aramaic 454; in turn, the latter is split into dialects: 1) Jewish (Biblical-Aramaic: 1 Ezra 4, 8 – 1 Ezra 6, 18; 1 Ezra 7, 12–26; Dan. 2, 4 b - Dan. 7, 28; Jer. 10, 11 and two words in Gen. 31, 47 and in the targums Onkelos and Jonathan); 2) Galilean (in the Palestinian Talmud, Samaritan and Christian-Palestinian); 3) Palmyrene and 4) Nabotean 455. It is clear that the Syriac language itself does not embrace all of Aramaic, being only one of the representatives of the Eastern Aramaic group 456. However, already in the LXX they pronounce אֲרָמִית through “συριστί” [in Syriac], and in the post-Christian era the name “Aramaic” was replaced by the usual term “Syrian” among the Greeks, which was also adopted by Christians, since for strict Judaism “Aramaic” was “pagan.” Hence, among the Palestinians The Jews called everything Aramaic סוּרְסִי [Syrian] 457 . Consequently, the epithet “Syriac” is a purely artificial classification of the Aramaic language, which is not at all covered by Chaldean. The homeland of Western Aramaic dialects was the region between the upper Euphrates and the Mediterranean Sea to the borders of the kingdom of Israel. However, for a long time, Aramaic dialects began to penetrate further to the south and displace Canaanite ones. From the end of the 3rd century. BC, the Aramaic language in the life of the people gains virtual dominance over the Jewish language, and around the half of the 2nd century. becomes generally accepted in Syria, Palestine and the countries bordering the east, until Hebrew became the language of the school and then (in the last pre-Christian century) only the language of worship 458. In view of these observations, it is believed that the Apostle Matthew wrote in Aramaic, as they said then. But it is false that the Jews in Babylon outright forgot the Hebrew language, 459 which, on the contrary, was preserved in exclusive use when reading the Law and the Old Testament 460. It is therefore possible that the evangelist published his sacred gospel in this sacred dialect. To justify his transfer, Prof. Franz Delitzsch notes: “Even after the captivity, the Hebrew language remained the language of Jewish literature. The Book of Sirach was written in Hebrew, as is shown by its passages in the Talmud (and what is now beyond doubt from the fragments now found). The original of 1 Macc and the Psalms of Solomon was Hebrew. The inscriptions on coins, epitaphs, and liturgical prayers were Jewish. The Hebrew language was also adopted for the laws, as evidenced by their codification in the Mishnah. This means that the book in which Matthew, according to Papias, collected the sayings of the Lord, was written ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτ ῳ [in Hebrew]. True, at this time ἑβραϊστί [in Hebrew] and χαλδαϊστί [in Chaldean] were not exactly distinguished. Nevertheless, it is extremely improbable that Matthew wrote in Aramaic: for the Aramaic dialect of Palestine (called in the Talmud סוּרְסִי, which there and in the Targums is better represented than in the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum and in the published J. R. N. Landʼom (Lugduni Bat., 1875) fragments of the Palestinian translation of Psalms 461) was the language of daily life, the language of vulgar, and ἡ ἑβραΐς διάλεκτος [Hebrew] was the sacred language, the language of temple worship, synagogue and home prayers, all formulas blessings and traditional law, as well as parables, tales about animals, lamentations over the dead are set out in the Talmuds and Midrashim, overwhelmingly in Hebrew. The sacred language continued to be the language of the highest form of speech, and even popular proverbs were only partly Aramaic. Josephus, declaring in the preface to his work on the Jewish war that his narrative was originally compiled for the compatriots of inner Asia in their native language, here, of course, means Hebrew, and not Aramaic. Then, as now, knowledge of the Hebrew language was widespread among the educated classes of the nation, and Aramaic was understood only by a minority of the dispersion. Even now, knowledge of the Hebrew language (among Jews) is much wider, which is why understanding the dialect of the Jerusalem Talmud is the privilege of very few Jewish scholars. Christ and His apostles for the most part thought and spoke (?) in Hebrew” 462. The last phrase reveals considerable exaggeration 463; it would be fairer to assume that the Savior used the publicly available Aramaic speech 464. With all this, the main considerations do not waver and are confirmed by many new examples, since most of the Jewish apocrypha were originally published in Hebrew 465. Obviously, the literary language was Hebrew, to which the Apostle Matthew most naturally should have turned when publishing his Gospel. In this case, the reference to the fact that the Lord spoke in Aramaic 466 cannot be considered convincing, since this is about one of the written monuments, and they were usually published in Hebrew. This is all the more likely for the Gospel, which for both the writer and the readers was a sacred collection containing a parallel and even higher revelation to the Old Testament 467. Therefore, it is permissible to accept with sufficient scientific firmness that the Apostle Matthew wrote in Hebrew. This eliminates all other guesses about the Greek prototype. At the beginning of the 16th century. Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan strongly spoke out for the Greek original, which even the Catholic Guth later tried to argue with all scientific seriousness and great wit 468 . Completely extraneous tendencies were soon mixed into the purely scientific question, and the matter was again confused to infinity by all sorts of hypotheses and all kinds of reinterpretations. Protestants, who often extended inspiration to the very letter of Scripture, sometimes defended this idea in purely confessional interests 469 and in opposition to the papacy 470; rationalists thought to find in it solid support for their arbitrary reconstructions of gospel writing. Distinguishing the Aramaic Matthew from the Greek as two independent wholes, in the first they saw one of the sources from which our weather forecasters were formed in the usual, purely literary way. So the translator has now completely disappeared 471, and his place has been taken by the “author”, posing as a self-witness apostle. If the latter wrote anything, then his original creation does not coincide with the current one. Let us consider how strong the evidence for the Hebrew original of the first Gospel is and in what relation it stands to the current canonical text. Papias reports this positively, as the most firm and widespread belief of his era, borrowed, perhaps, from the “presbyter” John. Through this, his view loses its individual hypothetical nature and its roots go back to apostolic times. The bishop of Hierapolis did not have it [Jewish original. -Ed.] at hand and, apparently, merges it with the Matthew Gospel that existed at that time. Previously, “everyone interpreted it as best he could,” but now this is not the case, for it is understandable to everyone in its Greek presentation. It is clear that he identifies both the first and the second. This means, in his opinion, the Greek Matthew is an accurate translation of the Aramaic work. We find another testimony from Eusebius, who learned from tradition (λέγεται) that “Pánten went to the Indians and among some of the local residents who knew Christ, he found the Gospel of Matthew, brought there even before his arrival. One of the apostles, Bartholomew, preached to them and left with them the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew ( καταλεῖψαι γραφήν), which survived until the designated time” 472. To this blzh. Jerome adds that Panten brought his find to Alexandria 473. This news is dear to us because it cannot be deduced from Papias and gives us new, independent and independent evidence about the original Hebrew language of Matthew’s writings based on direct acquaintance with it. In view of this, the tradition of the Alexandrian school, the exponent of which was its luminary - the famous Origen in the same sense, receives considerable value. This was the tradition of all ancient writers in general, for example Irenaeus, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine 475. The Syrians held no less firmly to their view of the Hebrew original of Matthew 476. Regarding all these persons, one can, of course, say that they rely on Papias or Panten and many are mutually dependent on one another; one can also guess that for some of them the assumption about the Hebrew original of the first Gospel arose as a conclusion from the fact that this work was intended for the circumcision and therefore the writer compiled it in their native language. Although these are just hypotheses, there is no need to specifically analyze and refute them. It is enough that, according to undoubted authorities and the assurances of the Hierapolis shepherd and the Alexandrian catechet, alien to any tendentiousness and fortune-telling, the apostle-publican first wrote in Hebrew. The attitude of the Greek edition of the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrew original and the dignity of the first Where is this original and what is its relation to our Greek text? There is no doubt that the fathers and teachers of the Church read only the latter, and this naturally prompted them to one way or another solution to the questions posed, caused by the very essence of the matter. We already know that, according to all the data, Papias does not distinguish between the “Jewish” Matthew and the Greek and, apparently, is inclined to think about a translation that completely reproduces the original. And this opinion is shared by all other writers, and Jerome directly declares: non satis certum est, quis illum in graecum transtulerit [but it is not clear enough who translated it into Greek] 477 . But if so, then due to the firm conviction of the ancient Church in the existence of a “Jewish” original of the first Gospel, the need could not but arise to illuminate its fate, to determine the reasons for the appearance of the version that replaced this original, and their mutual textual affinity. There are some considerations on this subject as well. First of all, Irenaeus shows that the Judeo-Christian sect of the Ebionites, which later received a Gnostic coloring, used only the Gospel of Matthew 478, and the historian Eusebius reports that it was called καθ ᾿ Ἑ βραίους [according to the Jews] 479. Epiphanius already directly merges them, saying that βραίους [it (the Gospel according to Matthew) is called (the Gospel) according to the Jews], calling it below simply ἑβραϊκόν [Hebrew] 480. According to Eusebius 486 - however, hardly reliable 487 - Papias already borrowed something from it, and Igisippus cites from it some excerpts 488, which we find many in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome 489. For all that, the “Gospel of the Jews,” however, was never directly identified with Matthew’s original, as shown by the fact that it is mostly mentioned under its own title, although even without this, traces of its influence seem to be found, for example, in Ignatius the God-Bearer and in Justin Martyr 490. Origen quotes him with the restrictive apology "εἰ δέ τις παραδέχεται..." [if anyone accepts...]; “si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis...” [if someone still wants to cite it - not as an authority, but as an explanation of the real issue...] 491. Eusebius, without considering it outright fraudulent, says that the Jews who accepted Christ especially love him 492 . Even for such behavior he received a strong reprimand from Theodore of Mopsuestia, as if he was inventing a fifth Gospel with heretical overtones 497. From all that has been said, the following conclusions follow. In Christian antiquity there was a firm and reliable belief that Matthew originally wrote “in Hebrew,” but this work was early pushed out of use and had very little distribution. Many see traces of it in the Nazarite-Ebionite “Gospel of the Hebrews,” but no one recognized it in the least as an exact copy of the “Jewish” original. On the contrary, almost everyone pointed out heretical additions, cuts and distortions, taking the Greek version as the norm. This means that it was the latter that was accepted as a true reproduction of Matthew’s original. All writers use it with this meaning - and Origen gives the “Gospel of the Jews” only supplementary dignity, as having preserved some true news. More important and more impressive for us is the voice of authority on this subject. Jerome, for he was an expert in this matter. It may be interesting for the study of early Christian sectarianism of the Judaic direction, but not for the study of canonical writing. Any other considerations will be arbitrary, as is reflected in the diversity of opinions, the constant companion of human fallibility: veritas enim una, error multiplex [for truth is one, but error is manifold] (Cornely). Thus, they think to find in the “Gospel of the Jews”, if not the most “Jewish” original of the actual apostolic work, then at least a copy closer to it than the canonical Matthew. But antiquity rejected this, and modern science has not proven it. To do this, they usually smooth out the harshness of modern fragments, praise the simplicity and primitive spontaneity of expressions, where only the vulgarism of the apocrypha is heard (for example, that a rich young man - after advice to sell and give away all his property - began to scratch his head: coepit dives scalpere caput 499), extol the primary liveliness and original simplicity of ideas, accuse ancient authors as if they were unfair and due to a misunderstanding branded him with a heretical stamp, etc. But no matter how far we go along this dangerous path, it remains more likely that the story of the birth of Christ was not in the “Gospel of the Jews,” which adhered to the idea of ​​the natural origin of the Redeemer 500. Is it possible to assume that this was not the case in the original, that the latter did not recognize the unmarried conception and the essential sonship of Christ to God the Father, as the Nazirites and Ebionites preached? Scientists of free views answer, understandably, in the affirmative, but their apodicticism is not rewarded with fundamental solidity. They consider the Apostle Paul to be the most ancient and indisputable exponent of Christianity 501, and in his messages, which are undoubted for them, he states that he who was from the seed of David according to the flesh and from a woman is the Only Begotten Son of God, sent into the world and existing above all as God 502. In view of this, it is more likely to allow a tendentious omission in the “Gospel of the Jews” than a later insertion into our Greek Matthew, which therefore turns out to be more original. In this case, the idea is already arbitrary in advance that the first represents a transitional link from the original to the second and serves as a source for it in the external composition and in the content itself. But first of all, this hypothesis rests on several false premises, as if our canonical Gospel is not a translation, could not have appeared in such a volume at once, and that its material and the course of the narrative are not explained from Mark, from which it grew. This is all personal guesswork and there is no indication of this in historical documents; The opposite is true there. Then: the defenders of this opinion themselves “refer only to individual points of contact (einzelne Berührungen)” 503, and nothing lasting can be created from such a general observation, as long as there are no undoubted traces of direct literary influence, as is quite fair. If it cannot be said positively that εὐαγγέλιον καθ ᾿ Ἑ βραίους [Gospel according to the Hebrews] is a tendentious reworking of our Synoptics, with whom all its content coincides in essence (out of 22 fragments, 11 are read in Matthew, 12 in Luke and 6–7 – in Mark), then its great proximity to the text of Luke testifies to its secondary [i.e. e. secondary. -Ed.] character compared to Matthew. In the very method of presentation, signs of later embellishment and sectarian vulgarization in the sense of party interests are noticeable. It is known that the Ebionites adhered to Judaistic views and humiliated the Apostle Paul as a renegade 504; This feature is now significantly visible in the surviving passages in their predominant love for St. ap. Peter, always called by his Hebrew name; for example, when, after a conversation with a rich young man, the weather forecasters speak of the Lord to all the disciples (Matthew 19:23–24; Mark 10:24–25; Luke 18:24–25), in the “Gospel of the Jews” it reads: “Simon, fili Joanne, facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus, quam divitem in regnum coelorum" [Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven] 505. Those passages that supposedly bear the stamp of deep originality also lead to the same conclusion. Here they usually point to the words of the Savior: “And My Mother, the Holy Spirit, took Me by one of My hairs and carried Me to the great mountain Tabor” 506. This is the view of the third person of St. The Trinity, they say, appeared only because it was thought of as the Hebrew רוּחַ [spirit, breath] - nomen femininum [feminine noun]. To the regret of apologists, this term - although it has a feminine form in the plural ( רוּחוֹת ) - is, in its use, a word of the general gender. Moreover, it would be strange to derive ideas from artificial verbal differences, because then in the Caionic Gospels Πνεῦμα ἅ γιον [the Holy Spirit] would not be a masculine principle and John would not allow himself to connect τὸ φῶς [light] with the accusative αὐτόν [him] ( John 1, 9–11). Therefore, it is much more plausible to think that in the fragment being analyzed there is an echo of the Gnostic-Valentinian teaching about the Spirit in His relationship to Christ as σοφία [Wisdom], the feminine element, producing in the supreme Principle. In this case, the entire monument should be considered secondary, inferior to our Matthew both in time of origin and in terms of purity of content. And all this gives rise to the ancient church tradition that our canonical first Gospel is the only authentic copy of the Jewish original, which is reproduced in it directly, without any mediation of earlier editions. In refutation of the last thought, Papias is sometimes brought in, interpreting it ἡρμήνευσε [interpreted] in the sense of various translations of the Aramaic work of the apostle-publican. Even if this is so, it follows that all such partial attempts at transcriptions were of an imperfect nature of individual understanding and were eliminated by the complete Greek version, so that it absolutely replaced the original text and did not have these shortcomings. Their influence is not visible, except, perhaps, a purely negative one, that their errors caused a new experience. But it seems to us that such a meaning cannot and should not be acquired by the named term. As the identical form of time συνεγράψατο - ἡρμήνευσε [recorded - interpreted] shows, both of these predicates refer to the same chronological moment and de facto were in an inextricable connection. When there was συγγεγραμμένον ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτω [written in Hebrew], then there was an interpretation of it, which disappeared with the loss or replacement of it. These "Erminies" [i.e. e. interpretations. -Ed.], thus, do not constitute anything separate and parallel to the Jewish Gospel; they were directly attached to it and were aimed at meeting the needs of its readers and listeners, who did not always understand its content with proper clarity. It is clear that this refers to oral explanations of the Hebrew text, which did not have a stable form and varied indefinitely, depending on each new person 507. After all that has been said, we will obtain the following scientific result regarding the Gospel of Matthew. At first it was composed in Hebrew, then translated into Greek, and in such a way that the version supplanted its prototype and completely eliminated it. This means that the latter should be recognized as the self-authentic writing of the apostle-publican in its entire volume and entire composition, according to the eternal belief of the Christian Church. All suspicions in this regard come from false assumptions about the dependence of our editors on the “Gospel of the Jews” and Mark and have the least credibility. More than others, and with some scientific seriousness, the originality of the first two chapters of the present Matthew was rejected; but upon closer examination one cannot help but see in them an integral part, imbued with the same spirit of views and imprinted with the same character of expressions. Thus, Old Testament quotations in the Gospel itself are usually preceded by the formula: προφήτου [so that what was spoken by God through the prophet would be fulfilled]; the same thing occurs there (Matthew 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17). Ῥ ηθείς, ῥ ηθέν, ἐ ῤῥ έθη [spoken, spoken, was spoken] are characteristic of almost only one (except Rev. 6, 11; 9, 4) Matthew, and they are also found in the history of the Nativity of Christ (Matt. 1, 22; 2, 15, 17, 23). The particle τότε [then] is read in him more than 90 times and very rarely in Luke (14) and Mark (6): we see it in Matt. 2, 7, 16, 17. This evangelist almost exclusively (except for Matthew 23:37) writes Ἱ εροσόλυμα [Jerusalem] 510, which is also seen in Matthew. 2, 1, 3. Matthew loves the construction beginning with the participle, as is often the case in the chapters under analysis (Matthew 1:24; 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 22, 23; cf. Matthew 2:13–14: ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε ὀ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς παρέλαβεν [stand up and take he stood up and took] and Matthew 8, 26: τότε ἐγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν [then he stood up and forbade]; Matthew 2:11 and Matthew 4:9; Λέγων [speaking] is often used in Matthew in Hebrew - without addressing any person, which is also observed in Matthew. 1, 20; 2, 2, 13, 20. Hence, from a purely scientific point of view, our Greek edition should be recognized as original in its entirety, since all guesses about subsequent insertions are based on a preconceived idea about the impossibility or improbability of some of them, such as the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion of the Lord. In the absence of equivalent negative documents of a documentary nature - for example, in ancient manuscripts, translations and quotations of ancient monuments - this conclusion acquires a degree of complete certainty. As for general views, in this regard, the destruction of the first two chapters of Matthew’s Gospel will be as violent and unnatural as cutting off the head of a living person, for they express the main view of the sacred writer that Christ is the true Messiah, the son and Lord of David. It is clear that they form an integral part of the organic whole. But in defending this point about the authenticity of the Greek first Gospel, we must not exaggerate it to an exceptional degree, eliminating the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe translation of our Matthew. Many scholars do this, insisting that it always existed only in Greek, no matter who its writer was. They point first of all to the widespread use of Greek speech in Palestine around that time. This is only half true. Why does Peter use the Aramaic “Akeldama” (Acts 1:19), when Matthew already knew the corresponding Greek synonym “Ἀγρὸς αἵ ματος” [land of blood] (Matthew 27:8)? Why did Josephus convey Titus' speeches to the besieged Jerusalemites in Hebrew 511? It is clear that Aramaic was the popular language, and Hebrew was dominant in writing, which the apostle-publican used, destining his work for Jewish Christians. And even in the current text one can notice echoes of the Hebrew original. Thus, the expression “καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰ ησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁ μαρτιῶν αὐτῶν "[and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins] (Matthew 1:21) is quite understandable only in the Hebrew original, where יֵשׁוּעַ [Jesus] means “God the Savior.” True, in addition to his own names, the Greek Matthew sometimes retains Hebrew terms in other places (Matthew 1:23; 27:46), but in the first case Emmanuel is a nomen proprium [proper name], and without “Ἐλωί (ἡλεί) ἐλωί λεμὰ σαβαχθανεί "[My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?] it would remain unclear how this exclamation of the crucified Lord aroused the ridicule of those around him, as He speaks Elijah (Matthew 27:47). It is also noted that Hebrew words in Matthew are often explained in a way that is impossible to assume in the Aramaic original, and therefore it never existed in the world. However, this is not entirely true, for in 1 Sam. 7, 12 reads: אֶת־שְׁמָהּ וַיִּקְרָא [and called him “Aven-Ezer,” saying: The Lord has helped us up to this point] (in LXX: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Αβενεζερ, λίθος τοῦ βοηθοῦ [and he called his name Abenezer, “stone of help”]), and, according to Jerome, “Barabbas in Evangelio, quod scribitur juxta Hebraeos, filius magistri eorum interpretatur” [“Barrabas” in the Gospel of the Hebrews it is interpreted as “the son of their teacher”] 512. It is clear that such fragmentary glosses are also conceivable in the “Jewish” original - for the purpose of maximum expressiveness of speech - and their presence does not necessarily indicate that this monument is original. And it goes without saying that such cases are most natural in a translation that wants to preserve the authentic flavor without sacrificing accessibility. So, LXX write: ἐκάλεσε (Ῥ αχήλ) τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Y ἱὸς ὀδύνης μου · ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐκάλεσεν αὐτοῦ Βενιαμιν [Rachel (Rachel) called his name “son of my sorrow”; his father named him Benjamin]. This is, of course, a translation, but in the Hebrew text instead of the first there is בֶּן־אוֹנִי [Benoni] (Gen. 35:18). There is also no doubt that Old Testament passages are sometimes quoted from Matthew according to the Greek version, but it should be remembered that this phenomenon is characteristic almost exclusively of the reproductive departments, the speeches of the Lord, etc., meanwhile, in his own presentation, the writer always refers to the holy book of the synagogue and temple, not wanting to arouse the displeasure of his readers by evading its authority according to the letter. As for the first, the free composition of biblical expressions and their interpretation ad synesin [for understanding] are completely natural in the Savior, Who was the original author of the Bible and revealed its meaning to the fussed Judaism. Likewise, the proximity to the LXX has sufficient justification in adapting to the needs of Christ's listeners, for among them not all of them had access to the sacred language of the Old Testament, as evidenced by the existence of the position of interpreters at the synagogues and the observation that Josephus constantly follows the Alexandrian translation. Apparently the latter was more widespread in Palestine, and the Greek editor quite reasonably refers to it. If this were a man who wrote in Greek, but thought in Hebrew, one would rather expect that everywhere he would show exactly the same mentality in the same form of quotations, and therefore the difference convinces them that in some cases factual accuracy is observed, in others the general need is taken into account. All this reminds me of a translator. Finally, the examples of puns are not particularly significant and are quite possible in a good version. These are: μὴ βατταλογήσητε ἐν τ ῇ πολυλογί ᾳ [do not say too much in verbosity] (Matthew 6:7), ἀφανίζονσιν γὰρ τὰ πρόσωπα ἐαυτῶν, ὅ πως φανῶσιν [for they darken their faces in order to appear] (Matthew 6:16), κακούς κακῶς ἀπολέσει [evildoers will be put to an evil death] (Matthew 21:41), - but some of these verbal shades are quite consistent in the Vulgate: nolite multum loqui in multiloquio (Matthew 6:7), malos male perdet (Matthew 21:41). But Eusebius did not find any “deception” here and even saw evidence of the translator’s conscientious accuracy: ἐρμηνεύσαντος τὴν γραφήν · ὁ μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος Ἑ βραΐ δι γλώσση παρεδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον · ὁ δὲ τὴν Ἑ λλήνων φωνὴν μεταβολ ὼ ν αὐτὸ , τὴν ἐπιφωσκοῦσαν ὥ ραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν, ὀψὲ σαββάτων προσεῖπεν ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος ὀψὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ βράδιον · καὶ ὀψὲ τῆς νυκτὸς ὀνομάσας πρωΐ , ὁ διερμηνεύων ἐπήγαγε τὸ σκοτίας ο ὔ σης (Μ has no f., but cf. John 20:1), ἵ να μή τις τὸν ὄρθρον λέγειν αὐτὸν ὑπολάβοι [said “Saturday evening” from the translator; for the evangelist Matthew conveyed the gospel in Hebrew, and the one who translated it into Greek called the pre-dawn hour of the Lord's day "Sabbath evening"; Matthew uses "in the evening" instead of "later"; and, calling “in the evening of the night” “early in the morning,” the translator adds “when it was dark” so that no one would think that he is talking about dawn] 514. Then: Jerome’s view is only a personal philological guess of the exegete for purely harmonistic purposes; its lining, in all likelihood, was the Nazarene Gospel, which, as we know, is not particularly correct and cannot serve as a basis for criticism of the text of our Matthew. In any case, it was generally accepted that the Greek version was a double of the “Jewish” original, and only with this assumption alone is the complete oblivion of the latter understandable. Time of publication of the Greek translation and its “editor” 21, 20); but the very establishment of the institution of “deacons” with a predominant majority of Greek names assures us that there were many Hellenists even then (Acts 6, 1 ss.). Moreover, without a doubt, Matthew had in mind not just the population of Jerusalem, but was counting on the whole of Palestine, where there were even residents who spoke only Greek. Finally, at the very first stages it was discovered that, disobedient to the voice of the Lord, Israel was unable to accommodate the gospel word of His evangelists. The Apostolic Council already recognized that the main harvest of Christ lies outside the boundaries of the sacred land and that a new branching tree could grow only where Jewish sounds are ignorant and despised. All this should have encouraged the speedy publication of Matthew's Gospel in the Greek edition. The preaching of the Gospel lasted too long among Judaism; similarly, the existence of the Jewish Gospel was short-lived, although this fulfilled the Savior’s commandment that Jerusalem should be the starting point for the dissemination of His teachings both verbally and in writing. If in this matter we stand on the basis of probability, then even less is known positive about the person of the translator. Pseudo-Athanasius calls James, brother of the Lord 516, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigaben - John the Theologian 517, some of the newest scientists (J. B. Glaire, A. Bisping, Bacuez, Bengel, Guerike) - Matthew himself. Ancient manuscripts, confirming these guesses, add Bartholomew 518. But it goes without saying that here, more than anyone else, the blj. Jerome with his “non satis certum est, quis illum in graecum transtulerit” [but it is not clear enough who translated it into Greek] 519. To this we can add very little, and only of a hypothetical nature. It is most natural to see in the Greek interpreter some kind of converted Jew. We conclude this from the fact that although he explains Hebrew words, sometimes in his mind Greek and Hebrew speech merge so much that he does not do this - meanwhile, for a pure Greek this would be inevitable. In addition to Matt. discussed above. 1, 21, let us also refer to Matt. 23, 8: ὑμεῖς μὴ κληθῆτε Ῥ αββεί, ε ἷ ς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος [do not call anyone “Rabbi,” for you have one Teacher]. 22, 19 is called τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου [coin with which the tax is paid] - a duty, tax unit, denoted by other synoptics by the commonly used term “didrachm”, which, again, would be better to take for a person who simply cared about the Greek popularization of Scripture Matfeeva. Now everything on the question of the origin of the first Gospel is naturally formulated in a few brief provisions. 1) It was originally composed in Hebrew, but did not remain in this form for long and was soon replaced by Greek. 2) The original died very early - and none of the ancient writers knew it. 3) Some echoes of it are preserved in the “Gospel of the Jews”; but, in comparison with it, we have it more accurately in our Greek Matthew. 4) The latter is a translation, but so close to the original that it completely eliminated it - not due to any special advantages of content or presentation, but solely because, completely coinciding with it in these respects, it also had the advantage of making the language generally accessible. 5) For all reasons, the interpretation should have the value of the original as its punctual copy throughout its entire length and in all its parts, as can be seen from the nature of the current edition and from the fact that the existence of any later layers and extraneous additions in it has not been proven - and it all represents one integral work, imbued with the unity of material affinity and the sameness of grammatical structure and lexical apparatus. 6) It seems most likely that the translator was Matthew himself or one of the most authoritative members of the early Christian Church, who represented for her a guarantee of his competence and legal capacity for such work. In view of all this, when, according to scientific data, the current Greek edition acquires the dignity of authenticum [original], we can safely use it in the meaning of the original itself and in discussing further questions about the time, place, readers, purpose and character of the first Gospel. Time of writing of the first Gospel The general and consonant belief of the Church was that Matthew was the leader of the Gospel writing and his Gospel was published earlier than other synoptic narratives 520. It was also no less accepted that this [monument. -Ed.] was published before the removal of the apostle from Palestine 521, and Eusebius definitely states: “Matthew preached (the teaching of Christ) first to the Jews, and then, intending to go to other (nations), he set forth in the native language the Gospel now known under his name - so that to the Christians from whom he was moving away, this scripture could compensate for the lack of his personal presence” 522. Unfortunately, this chronological term remains unclear. Some manuscripts 523 and, together with them, Eusebius, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus indicate the eighth year after the ascension 524, Nikephoros Callistus takes the fifteenth 525. Thus, this point fluctuates between 36 and 44. AD. The testimony of Irenaeus is much more positive, but it also allows for different interpretations. He notes: “ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑ βραίοις τ ῇ ἰδί ᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτω ? Ῥ ώμ ῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν "[Matthew published among the Jews (lit.: brought out) a record of the Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul preached the gospel in Rome and strengthened the Church] 526. It turns out that Matthew’s writings appeared already after Paul’s arrival in the capital of the world in 62. There is nothing incredible in this assumption, however, this conclusion from the words of the said hereseologist is far from certain and their application to the publication of Matthew’s written work is hardly fair. The fact is that the intercalary καί [and] seems somewhat awkward in the flow of speech and interrupts it unnecessarily, and ἐξήνεγκεν [published; verb.: carried out] is placed in a row with εὐαγγελιζομένων [evangelized] and θεμελιούντων [strengthened] and expresses the same action. By all appearances, Irenaeus wants to talk about “carrying out”, the dissemination of the previously compiled gospel 527 at that time and just as in Rome the chief apostles did this orally. In this case, and at the beginning of the expression, some omission must be allowed, like τὰ ὑπ ᾿ αὐτοῦ κηρυσσόμενα ἔγραψε [wrote down what he preached]. After this we get the same hesitant date that Matthew's writings were composed by him before he retired to other countries, where he labored simultaneously with Paul and Peter, who labored in the center of the Greco-Roman Empire. Only one thing is clear - that this was before 62, and there is no reason to cross this line. Rather, we can push this moment back a little, for while he was in Jerusalem in 59, St. ap. Paul found there only James with the elders and presented to them a report on his exploits among the pagans (Acts 21:18-19), meanwhile, earlier he always turned to the apostles (Acts 15:4; Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9). It follows that the dispersion of the latter occurred before this chronological moment, and at the same time the composition of the first Gospel should also fall here. In it itself we have only the indication that it came out after a certain period of time after the strangulation of Judas (Matthew 27:8) and the resurrection of the Lord (Matthew 28:15), for it is said about a plot of land acquired for 30 pieces of silver and bribery that they knew about it “until this day.” All other evidence is unfairly applied to our subject and must at least be left in suspenso due to its obscurity. Thus, they cite that by Zechariah, the son of Barachias (Matthew 23:35), and the abomination of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15), they mean the rampages of the Zealots shortly before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans or even the bringing of pagan banners into the destroyed temple; but both interpretations are more than doubtful and exegetically hardly correct. It is only indisputable that Matthew wrote his work earlier than 59, even before leaving Palestine. Where the first Gospel was written This simply resolves the question of its place of origin. This was the promised land and, most likely, its capital. The latter was a gathering point, the center of the early Christian community, from where preachers of the gospel went out for their ministry and where they returned at the end of it to exchange thoughts and for meetings regarding the further direction of evangelical activity. Here it was more convenient to understand the impressions, summarize my experiences, supplement and verify them with eyewitness accounts. It seems that there is no need to prove that Matthew undertook such a new and extraordinary undertaking, of course, not without the consent of the other disciples and not without the approval of the pillars of the primal church. All this inclines us in favor of Jerusalem as the place of publication of the first Gospel. The thought of Pera 528 is a pure misunderstanding, for “πέραν του Ἰ ορδάνου” [on the other side of the Jordan] Matt. If Matthew composed his Gospel in Palestine, then it is clear that he was counting on the inhabitants of this country. Ancient writers try to more accurately identify these readers as converts from the Jews 529, who had already ceased to serve the legal canopy 530, and according to Chrysostom, the believers themselves asked him to put in writing what he taught them orally 531. But it goes without saying that, while satisfying the immediate needs of the Jewish Christians, Matthew could not forget about their relatives in the flesh and had to strive for them to become such in the spirit of faith. Israel had a primary right to the kingdom of God, and the apostle-publican wanted to do this de jure and de facto, so that “the whole house of Israel would know for sure that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). And Irenaeus testifies precisely in this sense: “The Gospel of Matthew was written for the Jews, 532 for they stubbornly waited for Christ from the seed of David. So, taking into account such a strong desire, Matthew tried in every possible way to convince them that Christ is really from the seed of David, which is why he began with His origin” 533. And it cannot be denied that this information finds sufficient justification in the work itself. It has long been noted that, in comparison with other weather forecasters, the first gives less explanations regarding the morals and customs of the Jews, for example, the unwashed hands (Matt. 15:20; cf. Mk. 7:2–4) and the corban (Matt. 27:6; cf. Mk. 7:11); He also avoids topographical indications about Nazareth, Bethlehem, Arimathea, Emmaus, and Jerusalem mostly appears under the title of “holy city,” which is most natural to think of in the minds of the faithful descendants of Abraham. True, Matthew says about the Sadducees that they reject the resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23), but he does this because this rich and aristocratic party stood far from the masses and, according to Josephus, their doctrine is known only to a few 534. In the first Gospel there are more than 70 references to the Old Testament, and up to 44 of them are literally given in the original or the Greek Alexandrian version, while Mark has only 22 such cases, Luke has 21, John has 12. In the first respect, the very view of the purpose of the Lord that is given in the very description of His entry into the world is very important. “She will give birth to a son,” says the Angel to Joseph, “and you will call His name Jesus: for he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). He is, therefore, the Messiah in the proper and literal sense - the desire of the tongues and a branch from the tree of Jesse. He is the embodiment of what was presented to the gaze of every pious Israeli, the implementation of those bright plans that were inscribed in fiery letters on the pages of Old Testament history, constituting its soul and giving strength to the progressive march forward. In a way, He is an inevitable phenomenon in it and a direct result of its development. With His roots He grows far into the depths of the past, With His life He makes the latter present, in close contact with modernity - either positively, when it corresponds to its ideal, or negatively, if the present reality distorts and darkens it. Hence, the course of His earthly existence is not random, but according to a strictly defined and systematically carried out plan. In turn, this orderliness is not the result only of personal genius, which independently creates its own environment and its entire destiny; it is first of all revealed in coincidence with a previously established pattern, in its complete and perfect implementation, despite any obstacles and in spite of all obstacles. With such a view, Christ could be the historical Messiah only to the extent and extent to which the promised Messiah is revealed in Him - since the fact expresses its idea. And this is conceivable only when the Lord is the living bearer of prophecy and duty, which finds its perfect fulfillment in His entire person and in everything that comes from it. Here, first of all, it is required that in this situation and on the purely national soil prepared in the Old Testament, He accurately reproduces His prototype. It is clear that Christ must be a historical person and appear before us primarily from the human side, as the embodiment of messianic traits in the conditions of space and time at all stages of his earthly existence. Such is Christ the historical Messiah, but since He is at the same time the true Messiah, it is necessary that for our eyes it should be vividly tangible, how what was once prophesied is realized in what is happening, what is read in the law and the prophets is revealed in what is happening before our eyes. Otherwise, He would not have been the Savior, if He had not converged with Him to the point of identity in every act, if the Messianic ideal had been the property of only the mind and had not been clothed in flesh and blood. And we see that what is born of the Spirit is Holy (Matthew 1:20), but this is the Son of Mary, the firstborn (Matthew 1:25); He is God, but God is with us - Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23), God is among us and in us. This is one of the noticeable features of Matthew's presentation, and nowhere is Jesus depicted in His human appearance more clearly and in detail than under the pen of the apostle-publican, who, as a sacred writer, has long been symbolized in the form of a man, for, in the words of the ancient scholiast, ἐξηγεῖται τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννησιν καὶ ἔστιν ἀνθρωπόμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον [this Gospel describes the birth of Christ according to humanity and is anthropomorphic] 536. But, being the incarnate Messiah, the Lord must naturally coincide with the promise always and in everything. His entire life from beginning to end could not be anything other than the continuous implementation of prophetic predictions - the actual exegesis of mysterious predictions. He is from the house of David, born in Bethlehem, and the basis of His activity is constantly one principle: this is how it is fitting to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). All His actions are formed in strict accordance with ancient plans, and in every slightest step of His there is something ῥ ηθέν [spoken]. Hence, in the life of Christ, a complete and deep parallelism is inevitably observed, penetrating every feature 537. And we see that the entire Gospel of Matthew is imprinted with such a typological character, all its pages are dotted with Old Testament quotations. But this is not enough. The harmonious combination of the present with the past and their mutual merging do not represent something accidental: they are necessary and foreseen. Christ acts in a certain way, not only actually fulfilling the prophecies, but also with the direct goal of achieving this fulfillment. “Ἵ να (ὅ πως) πληρωθ ῇ τὸ ῥ ηθέν” [so that what was spoken] is an ever-present factor in His activity, especially put forward by the first evangelist 538. And this is not simple accommodation; the reason for this lies in the very essence of the subject. That is, ῥ ηθέν [spoken], and therefore does not have true existence in itself, but it is spoken διὰ προφήτου [through the prophet] and, as the immutable word of God, must find application in the One who was in the plans of divine providence before the creation of the world. The power of this powerfully divine word is inseparable from the gift of prophetic insight, which knows the future no less than the present and is able to foresee and wisely prepare in advance. Nothing is hidden from His gaze: He anticipates His glory in the most shameful humiliation, in the splendor and radiance of national shrines He foresees the fire of destruction and the abomination of desolation, He prescribes lush development for the mustard seed, and foretells worldwide spread to the small flock. Many of the Jews had him as a prophet (Matthew 14:5; 21:46), exclaiming: this is Jesus the prophet, who is from Nazareth of Galilee (Matthew 21:11). True, a prophet is not without honor, only in his own country and in his own house (Matthew 13:57), but many prophets and righteous women longed to see what the apostles saw, and did not see, and to hear what they heard, and did not hear (Matthew 13:17). All this, taken together, promised that what was predicted with such confidence would not remain just a sound, but would one day be as real as it was vividly depicted in the speeches of the Lord - and then He would be no less the ruler of the fact as He declares Himself to be in the word. He teaches and foretells, and at the same time lays the foundation of His future dominion. This is His whole work. And Jesus, going through all Galilee, says Matthew, preached the Gospel of the kingdom (κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας - Μ f. 4, 23). The same “εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας” [Gospel of the Kingdom] was always proclaimed by Christ in cities, villages and in congregations (Matthew 9:35), and at the end of His earthly career he expressed his firm conviction: this Gospel will also be preached kingdom throughout the entire universe (Matthew 24:14). The kingdom of heaven is approaching (Matthew 4:17), the kingdom of God has come upon you (Matthew 12:28), the Son of man is coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28), - is constantly heard from the lips of Jesus; where is the king of the Jews born? - the wise men ask (Matthew 2:2); “You speak,” Christ answers the hegemon’s question: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matt. 27:11) - and over the shameful cross of the Crucified One, Pilate outlined His guilt: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37). It turns out that the Lord Savior in Matthew is portrayed primarily as the Messiah of Israel, the Deliverer of His people. He is a historical person and at the same time a national one, but the latter is unique to the extent that the Judeo-theocratic was divine and obligatory for everyone, just as all Jewish history in general has significance only in the sense of the custodian of the best covenants of all mankind. He is the true Messiah, not in the spirit of narrow national beliefs, earthly aspirations and vain racial pride: His greatness does not exclude a humiliated state, because regardless of national restrictions; it is higher than them, for the heavenly is not subject to earthly instability and itself gives it firmness. He is the ruler of Israel and the radiant radiance of its glory, but only insofar as in this Israel lies the divine seed by which it enjoys its prerogatives. As a result of this, everyone else can receive them in equal dignity, taking the place of the natural descendants of Abraham, who turned out to be worse than stepchildren. He is the son of David, but already the royal psalmist calls Him his Lord (Matthew 22:41–46). He is born in obscurity in Bethlehem, but this is what is written by the prophet (Matthew 2:5-6); His youth and adolescence pass in pitiful Nazareth, but this is only later, so that what has been said may be fulfilled (Matthew 2:23); He is diminished in everything, but Isaiah already said: we accepted our illness and suffered the disease (Matthew 8:17); His path lies to the cross on Golgotha, but He goes there as it is written about Him (Matthew 26:24). His modest appearance, like the descent of quiet rain on the fleece, is preceded by a wonderful star; His poor cradle is sung by hosts of Angels, always serving and strengthening Him; at His death the whole earth trembles and all the elements of the world are troubled; His resurrection is accompanied by heavenly radiance and is announced by the inhabitants of heaven. Based on all this, the Jews had to be convinced that the humble Nazarene is still Christ and, therefore, they are mistaken, imagining Him differently - believing that nothing good can come from Nazareth (John 1:46) and that a prophet does not come from Galilee (John 7:52). 16, 21), - and they will deliver Him up with the tongue to mock, and beating, and be crucified (Matthew 20, 19). This means that the reason for all these abnormalities is not in Christ himself, but in the stiff-necked and stony-hearted Judaism of that time, which was deeply darkened and degraded in all layers from top to bottom. They have lost the proper understanding of their messianic ideals: the law has become a killing letter, empty ritual has swallowed up inner piety, evil hypocrisy has eradicated all the makings of moral decency. Serpents, brood of vipers, they were subject to wrath, and the ax was already hanging over their criminal heads (Matthew 3:7-10; 23:33). They closed the kingdom of heaven, did not enter themselves and did not allow those who wanted to enter (Matthew 23:13). Naturally, in the midst of this darkness, a bright ray of light causes only insane rage and ferocious embitterment, but the blame for this lies solely with those who have closed their eyes to the divine radiance and sealed their ears so as not to hear the heavenly and saving voice. The sad fate of the Lord does not contradict His messianic purpose, for He always and clearly foresaw it; it testifies only that He is truly a divine Messiah, not stooping to the coarse tastes of the crowd and not flattering purely national whims. He is God - and therefore above racial and time frames: His mission is universal, universal. Thus, the unbelief of Israel only serves to ensure that the kingdom of God will be taken away from it and given to the tongue that produces His fruits (Matthew 21:43). Christ came in order to “save his people” (Matthew 1:21), but John the Baptist already warned: do not begin to say in yourself: the father of the imams is Abraham. I tell you that God is able from this stone to raise up a child for Abraham (Matthew 3:9). The Sons of Promise stood closer than others to the kingdom of grace, and the Savior directly stated: I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24), and to them he directed first of all his disciples, commanding them: do not go into the way of the tongue, and do not enter into the city of Samaritan (Matthew 10:5-6). But the basis for this is not in the nobility of blood - it lies in faith, which should have been purer and more receptive in the firstborn of God. Therefore, anyone who approaches them in this regard thereby acquires their rights. The signs of this were especially pronounced among the Jewish opposition and prompted the Lord to open the doors of mercy to the pagans: O woman, great is your faith: be it as you wish (Matthew 15:28), - He said to the Canaanite woman. Thanks to all this, the Messiah of Israel, rejected by his own, but the true Emmanuel, becomes the world's Savior. For this very reason, His work is alien to national exclusivity. The Jewish ideal is again maintained, only elevated to the level of universality. He preaches the Gospel of the kingdom - this was predicted by the prophets, this is what the Jews desired. However, in their minds it was too thickly colored by the features of national desires and almost did not extend beyond the borders of Palestine and the descendants of their forefather. It was political and limited; Christ declared it religious and made it publicly available. He came to save “His” people, but “from their sins.” There is nothing worldly in His mission, and He Himself commands to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's (Matthew 22:21). It is purely spiritual and therefore all-human, for on this side everyone is equal. Its universalism becomes even broader, since it means the abolition of human sinfulness, and in this regard all ordinary advantages are insignificant. On the contrary, weakness and the humble consciousness of one’s weakness are most rewarded with the mercy of God: where sin has multiplied, grace abounds (Rom. 5:20). Therefore, publicans and fornicators boil in the kingdom of God (Matthew 21:31), and then every human soul has the right to participate in the feast of God if it follows the call: repent (Matthew 4:17). This opens the entrance to the Church of Christ to everyone, including pagans on an equal basis with others, since now they are no longer required to pour Jewish blood into themselves. The only condition necessary for everyone and available to everyone is humble faith, thirsting for mercy (Matthew 9:13), and repentance is the way to enter a new society (Matthew 4:17), because it is not earthly. The persistence of the evangelist here is remarkable. He uses ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ( שָׁמַיִם מַלְכוּת ) [kingdom of heaven] up to 32 times - meanwhile, in the parallels of other weather forecasters we read only ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ [kingdom of God]. In both cases, the new system is characterized from its divine side, but at the same time, Matthew clearly deliberately denies its national isolation and purely worldly properties, which it was endowed with in the highest learned Jewish spheres. The Kingdom of Christ is heavenly in the sense that it comes from where the deity dwells, and must be distinguished by the qualities that this very source has. For this reason, by its very essence it abolishes the Pharisaic-Jewish dreams; it is alien to racial exclusivity and national egoism. “Thy kingdom come: Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10) - this is the motto of this world order 544. Its members are all to whom God is the Father; It is not the property of any people. He, of course, is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but not because he belonged only to them, but because they themselves, first and more than others, clung to Him, recognized Him in divinely all-encompassing dignity. From this point of view, anyone who imitated them took their place in equal dignity. Thus, on the basis of the Jewish one, a system of universal views develops, just as on the soil and in the Jewish environment the Redeemer of the whole world arose. He is a Jew by blood, but this is because Israel was more prepared to receive Him. He is a Jew in His teaching, but because it was eternal, imperishable, obligatory for everyone. He is the Messiah of Israel, but only in the sense that He embodied in Himself the divine ideal of the Redeemer, once communicated to the people of God. He is the king of the Jews, but only because His kingdom will be the highest realization of theocratic principles, when everything will be - a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy language, people's renewal (1 Pet. 2:9), when the word of the prophet will be fulfilled: and I will have mercy on the one who did not have mercy and the river that is not mine people: you are my people, and they will say: Lord our God, you are ecu (Hos. 2, 23 in 1 Pet. 2, 10). Thus, in strict connection with national Jewish history, based on theocratic Jewish principles, initially confined to the narrow borders of Palestine, the work of Christ naturally and inevitably acquires a universal character. The old shell turns out to be no longer suitable: new wine is not poured into old wineskins... The old national forms have served their purpose; the Jewish shell preserved the divine grain during the winter of unbelief and the storms of atheism, but spring has come, the sun of truth has risen on the horizon, and the new sprout breaks its fetters. The Temple and Jerusalem are collapsing (Matthew ch. 24), rotten Israel will be rejected (chapter 19), with the destruction of the accommodative nature of the law it becomes universal (chapter 5 ss.), its pedagogical-temporal decrees, for example on divorce, are deprived of force (Matthew 5, 31 ss.; 19, 8 ss.), external cleansing is replaced by the internal renewal of the sinful soul ( Matthew 9:6), the Passover lamb gives way to the divine atoning sacrifice (Matthew 26:26 ss.). In general, on the ruins of the randomly adaptive, gloomily educational, with the roar of rabbinical scholasticism, bookish formalism, Pharisaic ritual, something eternal is being erected. It is divine in its essence and venerable: the wise men from the east bring gifts to the born Child, although He is the king of the Jews; it is unlimited in its purpose: go and learn all languages, said the one sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 28:19); it is infinite in its everlasting obligation and saving influence: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age - such is the promise of Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 28:20). Returning to the beginning - to the characteristics of the content of Matthew's Gospel - we find that it is imbued with a Jewish flavor, with which the universal tendency harmoniously merges. It stands in close relation to national history and the Old Testament theocracy, but only to the extent that they contained divine principles. 1. Christ is the promised Messiah of Israel: this is how it should have been, this is how the Jewish Christians wanted it, this is how it had to be presented to their unbelieving brethren. 2. He is Immanuel, and therefore His greatness does not depend on external splendor: in His humiliation lies both His messianic glory and His messianic triumph. The benefit of the readers demanded that they indicate the true meaning of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, which the foolish Judaism of that time did not understand. 3. He is the true Messiah, and as a result is alien to national prejudices. It is Israel's fault if it rejected "the joy of Israel." 4. He is the divine Messiah and, as such, fills heaven and earth, raising children for Himself everywhere, even from stone, when the latter turns out to be worthy - in its receptivity - to become a child of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Characteristics of the First Gospel as Literary Scripture We see from here that the content of Matthew's Gospel logically consistently develops from a general idea that bears a Jewish-theocratic imprint. All this was reflected in a typical way on the very writing of the apostle-publican as a literary monument. It is not a narrative-chronological work, but a scientific-pragmatic one, expressing the very essence of the subject, and therefore objectively historical, highly reliable. It is also noted that in Matthew the transitional and connective τότε [then] is especially common, like the Hebrew אָז [then], which does not have a strictly precise temporal content. It is read here more than 90 times, and Luke (14) and Mark (6) use it very rarely. And his other expressions of this kind are equally unstable, Ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ( הָהֵם בַּיָּמִים ) [in those days], ἐν ἐκείν ῳ τῷ καιρῷ ( ??? ??? λαλοῦντος [when he spoke] - all these phrases do not have chronological or topographical-indicative force and receive such only when combined with parallels from other weather forecasters and St. ap. John. Rather, they reflect the desire for coherence of the story, for the continuity of its flow in the development of the main point. Indeed, the lack of chronological consistency is more than compensated by the high pragmatism of the first Gospel. The writer's main point of view significantly absorbed realistic detail, but it connected all the incidents into one inseparable whole. The soul of the entire work of Christ is His messianic ministry, and from this angle all individual moments are inevitably placed into related groups according to the concept dominant in them. From here we find in Matthew an extensive collection of speeches in a coherent and logical presentation, such as the mount (chap. 5-7) and eschatological (chap. 23-25) conversations, the instruction to the twelve apostles (chap. 10), the teaching about the properties of members of the Church (Matthew 18, 3-11) and its power over sinners (Matthew 18, 15–22), connecting parables according to their internal content, for example, by revealing the idea of the kingdom of God according to its source (Matthew 13:3–30), development (Matthew 13:31–33) and attitude towards people (Matthew 13:44–50) or from the responsibilities of believers (love: Matthew 18:12–14, 23–35; subordination: Matthew 20, 1-16; activity: Matthew 21, 28-41; responsibility: Matthew 25, 1-30), the arrangement of miracles with the visible intention of highlighting the idea that Christ is the Lawgiver, the prophet and the king 548. But this pragmatism does not completely exclude chronological continuity and is easily reconciled with it upon impartial comparison with other known dates 549. Even less can it harm historical truthfulness. On the contrary, it is the most historical work even among all the Gospels. The life of every great man lies not in the abundance and splendor of his exploits, but in their qualities - in what is embodied in them and animates them. A true genius declares himself to be a special principle, which is the driving principle of his being. His deeds may be modest, he himself often remains unknown and rejected by his contemporaries, but he is an integral personality who has left the indelible stamp of his great spirit everywhere. The same applies to Christ. He was the Messiah, and this is the whole essence of His earthly presence on every day and hour, in every word, everywhere - both in small and in great. But if in purely scientific experiments it is most important to capture what is most typical in an individual’s appearance and to illuminate all the details in connection with and in comparison with it, then in the Gospel narratives this requirement should take first place. In doing so, Matthew gives us the only scientific historical reproduction of the establishment of the kingdom of God by the Only Begotten Son. True, in ordinary biographical works there is a lot of chronological and topographical detail and extraneous episodes, but this is because mortal geniuses are still created by history, are dependent on it and, not alien to human limitations, do not immediately and not always clearly recognize their calling and cannot fully realize it in everything, do not carry it out with unwavering systematicity. Christ was above centuries, peoples, positions and states: His life was inscribed in heaven by a divine hand, before even Abraham was quick (John 8:58), and was prepared from the beginning of the world; therefore, de facto, it was revealed outside the influence of the environment, independently of it and - sometimes - in spite of it. He rules over it, for He Himself creates times and seasons and is revealed in them in perfect completeness and consistency according to divine plans. Drawing Him from this side, St. ap. Matthew, for objectively undoubted reasons, eliminated punctuality that was unnecessary for him, without compromising the truthfulness and fidelity of his portrayal. His biblical quotes can serve as clear evidence of this. It is noted that in the transmission of speeches he is more inclined to the Greek version (Matthew 3, 3; 4, 4, 6, 7, 10; 15, 4, 8–9; 19, 5 (18–19); 21, 42 (22, 32); 22, 39, 44; 23, 39; 24, 15; 27, 46) - and this, of course, because he retains as much as possible the character of the original. Instead, in the narrative parts there is a closeness to the Jewish original (Matthew 1, 23; 2, 15, 18; 4, 15–16; 8, 17; 12, 18 ss.; 13, 35; 21, 5; 27, 9–10; cf. Matt. 2, 6), since this is written by a Jew and for Jews It is clear that the Gospel of Matthew is a historical work in the highest and most perfect sense, since the writer strives to give it such organic coherence as could only reproduce in human language the essential unity of the Deliverer in His earthly ministry. There may be some disagreements about the plan of the first Gospel, and they exist: some divide it into three parts (Thomas Aquinas, Wieser, Schantz, Bacuez, Fillion), others into four (R. Comely), others even into five (Kleutgen). But in all these cases, the external side of the subject is taken according to the place or nature of the Lord’s activity, while for the apostle-publican it was mainly its internal being that was important - the reflection, revelation and development in it of the Old Testament ideal of the Redeemer of the world. And first of all, Christ is the Messiah of Israel: this constitutes the content of the introductory section, where it is proven that He is truly a descendant of David by His birth from Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem, having to conquer all nations, foreshadowed by the Forerunner, crushing the enemy and the local (Matt. 1 - Matt. 4:11). At the same time, He is the true Messiah (part two: Matt. 4, 12 - Matt. 14, 12), enlightening those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, proclaiming a new law, testifying to Himself with signs and wonders, establishing His kingdom through the apostles (Matthew 9, 35 - Matt. 10, 42), which causes opposition the Pharisees and the leaders of the people in general (Matthew 11:1 - Matt. 12, 50), because spiritual; but still it is invincible, growing from a small mustard seed and capturing everything and everyone in its depths (Matthew 13:1-58), which even arouses awe in the godless murderer of the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-12). He is the divine Messiah (part three: Matt. 14, 13 - Matt. 20, 28), the lord of the elements and elements; miraculously feeding and walking on the waters (Matthew 14:13-36), which is why His disciples must move away from the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in all its forms (Matthew 15:1 - Matt 16:12), recognizing Him as the Son of the Living God, even if He had to suffer, for He is the radiance of ever-bearing glory and, as a free man, is not subject to taxes to anyone (Matt. 16, 21 - Matt. 17, 27); as a result of this, His kingdom is alien to the usual distinctions between greater and lesser, with equal forgiveness it accepts the poor, weak and repentant, not knowing the conventional forms of local life (Matthew 18:1 - Matthew 19:12): it is so elevated in everything and above everyone that the only way to it is self-abasement and self-sacrifice, which will never exceed the benefits bestowed upon it ( Matt. 19, 13 - Matt. 20, 28). For all this (part four: Matt. 20, 29 - Matt. 28, 20), He is the universal Deliverer, the eternal sacrifice, saving for everyone and always. This plan is simple, natural and at the same time artistically majestic. It penetrates all the parts, which themselves are arranged according to mutual affinity, everywhere and gradually expressing one thought, as great as it is fruitful, due to its complete correspondence to the subject in essence. The entire first Gospel represents an indissoluble unity and organic completeness. Even more sober critics cannot deny this. “The impression of harmony,” says Keim, for example, “in general and most importantly, is so perfect that the componist should be called a miracle worker, who so artistically, both from the outside and from the inside, merged together the disparate, mutually unrelated and indifferent. Therefore, theories are impossible here, which with their mechanical plane kill the organic life of this Gospel and themselves decay in the hands of their inventors 550. So: St. ap. Matthew depicts the life of the Lord not as a simple chronicler, he illuminates it from an elevated point of view and, eliminating chronicle punctuality and chronological disorder, gives us its meaning, shows its significance, which was inherent in all particular facts. His work is a historical deduction, since it represents a conclusion from events: it is impeccable in its objective integrity, for it expresses the very essence of the history of the Son of David; it is perfect in a purely literary sense, because it powerfully subjugates its material, without distorting reality, but capturing it at the most important moment. All this is the result of a guiding idea that bears a Jewish-Biblical stamp; hence, and by the very method of presentation, the Gospel of the Apostle Publican typically reflects some of the properties of national sacred writing. The history of Christ is γένεσις [nativity] (Matt. 1, 18) 551, like the Hebrew תּוֹלָדוֹת [genealogy, history] embracing the life of a famous person not in his individuality, but in connection with the past, as the revelation and development of what was laid down by his ancestors, which formed the basis of the existence of his family. In this case, each member of it is characterized in its private activities mainly in relation to it either as a worthy representative, or as a shame and disgrace to its predecessors. So Christ, with his being (γένεσις), embodies all the best - that is why the whole world with heaven and earth existed (Gen. 2:4), why Adam existed and there were descendants from him (Gen. 5:1), why there was every generation in the world (Gen. 37:2). Therefore, the Gospel description is [the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham] (Matthew 1:1); this is תּוֹלְדֹת [genealogy] (Gen. 5, 1; in LXX: ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως): his task is to trace the roots of the messiahship of the Son of Man to the very beginning, to find here the germ of the national and world-theocratic idea that animated him, to indicate the ramifications and implementation of it in a historical concrete manifestation, in the activity of the “son” and bearer of the crown of David. Scripture of St. ap. Matthew is a work of the Jewish type, imprinted with the pragmatism of the Old Testament sacred-narrative writing. His preface is not classical, like Luke’s: it is of a purely biblical nature, introducing the reader into the story not with preliminary purely literary remarks, but with a genealogy, where literary propaedeutics coincides with the real origin of the Lord as the Messiah. His presentation is alien to the plasticity of the eyewitness and the scientific rigor of the scientist - and in this respect it is lower than other weather forecasters - but it is imbued with a connecting thought, which was destined where the earthly genealogy of Christ goes back, and which was embodied in the facts of His historical existence. Biblical in its basic views, the Gospel of Matthew remains so in its external form. His style is very characteristic and bears traces of the strict unity 552 of a Jewish writer, brought up on the law and the prophets and accustomed to Jewish expressions, so that his first words are an echo of the Old Testament language 553 . True, many resolutely reject this 554, but the Hebraisms of the first Gospel are an indisputable fact 555, visible even where others find its direct denial 556. The entire work is full of the peculiarities of the Hebrew style, Jewish construction and is abundantly sprinkled with Hebrew expressions - in accordance with the essence of the narrative. So in this regard, the usual integrity and organic combination in Matthew are noticeable. In general, his Gospel is sublimely unified in its content, harmoniously coherent in its plan, consistent in its presentation. Typically individual as the work of a famous person, it is at the same time universal and all-encompassing, since the Lord was unlimitedly divine and since the power of Christ was infused into the publican-apostle. Based on national Old Testament ideas, St. ap. Matthew thereby satisfied the demands of his contemporaries by reproducing before them the true Messiah in the Crucified Redeemer. But at the same time, in the divine image of the Deliverer, he revealed the Savior of the world, Who with His heavenly power subjugates all people to Himself, and attracts everyone with His infinite goodness. In this capacity, He everywhere creates for Himself a new Israel and everywhere opens the gates to His eternal kingdom, establishing on earth a lasting present, full of hopes for a glorious future. Through this, the need arises - to show His life-giving effectiveness to every person, even those rejected for their atheism and who have lost their way, who have no support in today, who do not know tomorrow. It is precisely this task that Mark and Luke take upon themselves, who testify that Christ is the power of God, transmuting all corruption, and God’s wisdom, elevating all that is evil into the abode of the heavenly Father. Other forecasters continue the work of Matthew, starting from the idea he argued that Jesus of Nazareth is the hope of the tongues. This refers to Henri Didon, whose work Glubokovsky cited earlier, see note. 50 per p. 171. -Ed. Glubokovsky uses Tischendorf's reading, Λευείς. We leave this spelling, although in modern editions of Nestlé-Åland (eg Greek-English NT) the name of the publican is written Λευίς. As for the variant Λεβής, we managed to find it only in one of the lists of Origen’s “Against Celsus” (14th century codex Venetus Marcianus 45; see the place that Glubokovsky quotes below: Contra Celsum I, 62, PG 11, 773). -Ed. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 32, 3, PG 57, 381. [In the indicated fragment, Chrysostom says that Matthew and James were tax collectors together; nothing is said about their relationship. Glubokovsky does not provide a reference to Theodoret, and we were unable to establish which place was meant. In Interpretatio in Psalmos, in Ps. 67, 28, PG 80, 1393 only states that “Matthew and James lived in Capernaum.” -Ed.] Somewhere in Mk. 2, 14 even directly reads Ἰ άκωβον [Jacob] (see Westcott V. F., Hort F J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. V40; ol. 2. London, 2 1896. P. 23–24, ad loc.), which is marked in the margin by Westcott-Hort. [Such a reading (“Jacob” instead of “Levi”) is found, in particular, in the codes of Beza and Corideti. Nevertheless, the Editorial Committee has no doubt that this version arose under the influence of Mk. 3, 18: see Textual Commentary on the NT. P. 66. -Ed.] Also Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. § 35. S. 57; Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 230; etc. Lightfoot J. Horae hebraicae et talmudicae, in Matt. X, 3 (Lipsiae, 1684. P. 325). Wed. Farrar F.V. The Life of Jesus Christ. Note 410–411, on p. 563 translations by Lopukhin. [The work was republished many times; it is unknown which edition Glubokovsky quotes. For example: Farrar F.V. The Life of Jesus Christ / Trans. and preface A. P. Lopukhina. St. Petersburg, 1887. -Ed.] In the Synodal translation, “they gave glory to God” is one of the examples when Glubokovsky “corrects” the translation. The original Greek uses the word ἐδικαίωσαν, which is really closer in meaning to “justified.” The authoritative BDAG dictionary comments on the meaning of the verb in this verse in this way: “having been convinced of the righteousness of God and thereby realizing that they themselves were in unrighteousness, they changed” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature / Ed. F. W. Danker. Chicago, 3 2000. s.v. δικαιόω). Barnabas (Barnabae epistula, 5, PG 2, 736: ὑπὲρ π ᾶ σαν ἁ μαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρσυς [lawless above all sin]) and Celsus in Origen (Contra Celsum II, 46, PG 11, 868: τούς ἐξωλεστάτους μόνους ε ἶ λε [attracted only the most wicked]) characterize the tax collectors and Matthew himself too harshly. Several questions are associated with the name of the Evangelist Matthew, but we give the most likely solution. In Luke's story it reads: καὶ ἐθεάσατο (Ἰ ησοῦς) τελώνην ὀνόματι Λευείν [and Jesus saw a publican named Levi] (Luke 5, 27). This shows that the nomen proprium [proper name] is from birth (cf. Matt. 1:21: ησοῦν [she will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus]) was Levi, Λευείς ( Λεβής ), λευεί , λευί , לֵוִי (from לָוָה ) – devoted, attached, clinging to God (cf. Gen. 29:34: “And Leah conceived again and gave birth to a son, and said: now my husband will cleave to me. From this his name is called Levi”), On the other hand, in the first Gospel the called tax collector is designated as Μαθθαῖος λεγόμενος [called Matthew] (Matthew 9:9), which epithet is never used in relation to proper names, but only to nicknames (Matthew 1:16; 27, 17, 22: Ἰ ησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός [Jesus, called Christ]; Matt. 4, 10, 2: Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον [Simon, called Peter]; Matthew 26:3: τοῦ λεγομένου Καϊάφα [called Caiaphas] 26, 14: ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰ ούδας Ἰ σκαριώτης [called Judas Iscariot]; Matt. 27, 16: λεγόμενον Βαραββ ᾶ ν [called Barabbas]; In. 11, 16: Θωμ ᾶ ς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος [Thomas called the Twin]). Thus, in the Gospel text itself there is not the slightest reason to distinguish between Levi and Matthew as two special persons who are identified by almost all of Christian antiquity. True, Valentinov’s student Heracleon in the 2nd century. lists them separately (cf. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata IV, 9, PG 8, 1281), but his single opinion cannot drown out the general church tradition - especially since doubt is still conceivable whether by Λευείς he does not mean the apostle who, according to Origen (Commentariorum in epistolam ad Romanos praefatio, PG 14, 836–837), in Matthew he is called Levway, and in Mark Thaddeus, in Luke Judas Jacob. Likewise, Origen himself admitted that, although the publican Λεβής followed Christ, among the disciples he is found only in some copies of Mark’s Gospel (Contra Celsum I, 62, PG 11, 773). This place is very dark and only testifies that Levi was not included in the lists of the apostles under this name and that instead of the current Θαδδαῖον in Mark. 3, 18 under Origen it was read not only Λεββαῖον (which is in Westcott-Hort’s field), but also Λευῆν [as in Glubokovsky’s text; there should probably be Λεβήν here; see also editorial note in PG 11, 773, not. 87. -Ed.]. Therefore, it does not follow from anywhere that this implied the actual identity of Levi with Levway-Thaddeus, as Westcott and Hort are inclined to think (Westcott V. F., Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2. London, 2 1896. P. 12, “Notes on Select Readings”, ad Matt. 10, 3). In any case, in the Commentariorum in epistolam ad Romanos praefatio (PG 14, 836–837), Origen clearly unites Levi and Matthew. Therefore, it is completely in vain to try (Wilkinson J. N. Were Matthew and Zacchaeus the Same Person? // The Expositor. 1898. Ser. 5. Vol 8 (7). P. 37-42) to prove that not these persons are identical, but Matthew and Zacchaeus, and the second was a nomen gentilicum [family name] (cf. 1 Ezra 2:9: זַכָּי בְּנֵי [sons of Zacchaeus]) and was used in the sense of a nickname. The only hint of this kind is in the news of Clement of Alexandria that, according to some authorities, the name of the publican Lk. 19, 1–10 was Ματθίας (Stromata IV, 6, PG 8, 1248); however, here, of course, it is more likely Matthias, who was among the candidates for the place of the fallen Judas (Acts 1:23). The same church writer also says that “The Lord commanded the rich men and tax collectors to support Him (with their estates), as can be seen from the stories about Matthew and Zacchaeus” (Quis dives salvetur, 13, PG 9, 617) [free translation by Glubokovsky; in fact, Clement says this: “He allowed Zacchaeus and Matthew, who were rich men and tax collectors, to hospitably receive Him.” -Ed.], but from here it more naturally follows that these are different people, and not one person with nomen and praenomen [generic and personal name]. The gospel messages do not allow Zacchaeus and Matthew to be conflated. This means: the only question can be whether this last nickname was given to the Capernaum tax collector by Christ himself, like Simon, or whether he had it earlier. “Λεγόμενος” is used equally here and there, but the second is more likely, for the evangelists nowhere note such an action on the part of the Lord as they convey about Peter and the Zebedee brothers (Mark 3:16-17). Then, they object (see Grimm W. Ueber den Namen Matthäus//Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1870. S. 726 ss.), another name was allowed among Jews only as a cognomen patronymicum [paternal name] (Bartholomew Nathanael [meaning coming from the 9th century. identification of the Apostle Bartholomew mentioned by the weather forecasters (Matt. 10:3, etc.) and appearing in John Nathanael (John 1:45–49). -Ed.], Barsaba Joseph: Acts. 1, 23), gentilicium [by genus] (Iscariot) [Glubokovsky is not entirely accurate: the nickname “Iscariot” is usually considered to indicate the place of birth, “from Kerioth,” and Grimm gives this example in this sense, “bezeichnet den Ort der Herkunft” (S. 727). -Ed.], or in the sense of a nickname to designate some property or quality of a famous person (Joseph Barnabas: Acts 4, 36). But, firstly, this is not entirely true, as can be seen from the examples: GideonJerubbaal (Judges 7:1), Ziya Azariah (2 Kings 14:21; cf. 2Chronicles 26:1) and the sons of Mattathias, John Gaddis, Simon Thassi, Judah Maccabee, Eleazar Avaran, Joanathan Apphus (1 Mac. 2, 2–5). Secondly, the circumstances of the birth of the first evangelist could easily lead to the fact that he was always both Levi and Matthew. According to a more likely opinion, coming from the blzh. Jerome (De nominibus hebraicis, PL 23, 842), the name Μαθθαῖος is based on the root נָתַן [to give] and it itself, through מָתָה, comes from the form מָתַי (used in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 43a for one of the disciples of Jesus), which is the abbreviation מַתְּנַי [Mafnai] (1 Ezra 10, 33, 37; Neh. 12, 19; in the Septuagint Ματθανία, Ματθανα, Ματθανά) and either מַתַּנְיָה [Matthania] (1 Ezra 10, 26, 27, 30, 37; Neh. 11, 17, 22; 12, 8, 25; 13, 13; 2 Kings 24, 17; 1 Chronicles 9, 15; 25, 4, 16; 2 Chron. 20, 14; in the Septuagint Ματθανία, Ματθαναΐ, Μαθαθά, etc.), or (Gesenius N. F. W. Thesaurus philologicus criticus Hebraeae et Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti. T. 2. Lipsiae, 1840. S. 929; מַתִּתְיָה [Mattithias, Mattathias] (1Ezra 10:43; Nehemiah 8:4; 1Chronicles 9:31; 16:5; 15:18:21; 25:3:21; in the Septuagint Ματθανίας, Ματθαθίας, Ματθανία). But whatever is considered fair, the meaning is the same everywhere: “gift of God,” Θεόδωρος, Θεοδώρητος. The Jews liked to express the peculiarities in the birth of their children with some appropriate nicknames - like how Judas is also called Λεββαῖος לִבַּי (“my heart”) and Θαδδαῖος תַּדַּי (“my charms” [the Aramaic word literally means “breast nipple.” -Ed.]) or as Rachel called her son בֶּן־אוֹנִי (filius doloris mei [son of my sorrow]), and Jacob בִנְיָמִין (filius dexterae - son of the right hand, happiness) (Gen. 35:18). Likewise, our Levi could still receive the cognomen [name] Matthew, for example, because his father and mother considered them to be obliged to them exclusively by the mercy of God. It goes without saying how much more strongly it manifested itself in the calling of the Capernaum publican, why it is natural that after this the name of Matthew was established for him. Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus II, 1, PG 8, 406 [as in Glubokovsky; obviously the link is wrong. -Ed.]; Wed Nicephorus callistus. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 45, PG 145, 881. Cm. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 24, PG 20, 265: ἕ τεροι. Probably the following fragments are meant: Rufinus. Historia Ecclesiastica 1.9, PL 21, 478; Gregorius Magnus. In primum Regum expositiones IV, 4, 13, PL 79, 243; Eucherius Lugdunensis. Instructions ad Salonium 1, 2, PL 50, 809; Socrates Scholasticus. Historia Ecclesiastica I, 19, PG 67, 126; Ambrosius Mediolanensis. In psalmum XLV enarratio, 21, PL 14, 1143; Isidorus hispalensis. De ortu et obitu Patrum, 76, PL 83, 153; Paulinus Nolanus. Poema 19, 81, PL 61, 514; Symeon Metaphrastes. Vita sancti Matthaei evangelistae, PG 115, 819–820; Nicephorus callistus. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 41, PG 145, 866. -Ed. Note that Clement of Rome calls Zacchaeus the first bishop of Caesarea, which no one reports about Matthew. [Cm. writings originally attributed to St. To Clement of Rome: Recognitionum III, 66, PG 1, 1311; Homilia 3, 63, PG 2, 152. -Ed.] Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus II, 1, PG 8, 405. Idem. Stromata IV, 9, PG 8, 1281. Acta Sanctorum. September. T. 6. P. 206. Bamabae epistula, 4 [a similar phrase is found in the medieval Latin translation of the Epistle of Barnabas, placed in Minh’s “Patrology”: “sicut scriptura est” (PG 2, 734). The full Greek text of this work was first discovered by Tischendorf in the Codex Sinaiticus: the message is recorded here immediately after the Revelation of John the Theologian. -Ed.], cf. Tischendorf S. Warm wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? Leipzig, 4 1866. S. 94. Didache XII Apostolorum, 8, 2; Ibid. 15, 3–4; Hilgenfeld A. Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum. Teil 4. Leipzig, 2 1884. S. 94 ss.; Harnack A. Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel (TU 2). Heft 1. Leipzig, 1884. S. 26, 59, 60. Lightfoot J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2. London, 1890. P. 194–197, 202. Clemens Romanus. Epistula 2 ad Corinthios, 2, PG 1, 333. Ibid., 14 [in PG the text ends at chapter 12. -Ed.]; Lightfoot J. V. Op. cit. P. 215, 245. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses V, 33, 4, PG 7, 1214; cp. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 39, PG 20, 296. According to Lightfoot, he was born in 60 or 70 (Lightfoot J.B. Op. cit. R. 150), but Abbott indicates 80–90. (Abbott E. A. The “Elders” of Papias // The Expositor. 1895. Ser. 5. Vol. 1 (5). P. 339–341). Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. III, 36, PG 20, 288. However, these words are considered by many to be interpolation: Abbott E. A. Op. cit R. 340. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. III, 39, PG 20, 296. For Matthew cf., for example, Matt. 1, 21; 2, 6–18 Justinus Martyr. Apologia I, 33–34, PG 6, 381–384; "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew" Judaeo, 78, PG 6, 657–660. [In these places the expression “ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων” is not present. However, it actually appears many times in St. much Justina: Apologia I, 67, PG 6, 429; Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 100, PG 6, 709; Ibid., 101, PG 6, 712; etc. -Ed.] Theophilus Antiochenus. Ad Autolycum III, 13–14, PG 6, 1140; cp. Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, prologus, PL 26, 20; Idem. Epistula 121, ad Algasiam, 6, PL 22, 1020. Eusebius replaces this term with συγγράμματα [scriptures] (Historia Ecclesiastica III, 39, PG 20, 296), and Irenaeus with βιβλία [books] (Adversus haereses V, 33, 4, PG 7, 1214). See De Boor C. Neue Fragmente des Papias, Hegesippus und Pierius (TU 5/2). Leipzig, 1888. S. 170. Lightfoot J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2. London, 1890. P. 242. Josephus Flavius. De bello judaico VI, 5, 4. Clemens Romanus. Epistula 1 ad Corinthios, 19, PG 1, 248; cp. Ibid., 53: ἐπίστασθε τὰς ἱεράς γραφάς καὶ ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ [you know the Holy Scriptures and delve into the sayings of God] (PG 1, 316); Ibid., 62 [this chapter is missing from PG. -Ed.]: ἤ δειμεν γράφειν καὶ ἐγκεκυφόσιν εἰς τὰ λόγια τῆς παιδείας τοῦ θεοῦ [we knew that we were writing to those who had delved into the sayings of God’s instructions] (Lightfoot J. B. Op. cit. R. 59, 156, 183). Clemens Romanus. Epistula 2 ad Corinthios, 13 (Lightfoot J. B. Op. cit. P. 241–242). Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses I, praefatio, PG 7, 437; cp. Funk II, p. 280; Schanz, P. von. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Matthäus. Freiburg, 1879. S. 27–31. These words of Papias are preserved by Eusebius Pamphilus: Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 39, PG 20, 300. -Ed. See Passow [meaning the repeatedly reprinted dictionary Passow F. Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache. -Ed.], which shows that λόγιον means (in Euripides, Heraclitus, Aristophanes, Herodotus) primarily the sayings of oracles, and the scholiast to Thucydides 2, 8 notes that, in contrast to the poetic χρησμός [sayings of the oracle], λόγιον was presented in prosaic form. Kautzsch E. Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Leipzig, 1884. § 6. S. 18–19. E. Kautzsch calls it “Palestinian-Aramaic,” because its surviving monuments for the most part arose on the soil of Palestine (Kautzsch E. Op. cit. S. 18). Strack N. L. Grammatik des biblischen Aramäisch: Mit den nach Handschriften berichtigten Texten und einem Wörterbuch. Leipzig, 2 1897. § l. S. 9. Kautzsch E. Op. cit. S. 1. This probably refers to the publication: Anecdota syriaca. Collegit, edit, expliciut J. P. N. Land. T. 4. Lugduni Batavorum, 1875. As for the “Jerusalem Evangelistarium”, it was published several times, for example in the book: Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino deprompsit edidit Latine vertit prolegomenis ac glossario adornavit Comes F. M. Erizzo. T. 1–2. Veronae, 1861–1864. -Ed. Delitzsch F. J. The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Leipzig, 1883, pp. 30–31. Likewise, A. Resch believes that the Mother of God spoke Hebrew: Resch A. Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. Hf. 4: Paralleltexte zu Johannes (TU 10/4). Leipzig, 1896. S. 224; Ibid. Hf. 5: Das Kindheitsevangelium nach Lucas und Matthaeus (TU 10/5). Leipzig, 1897. S. 223. Lately, Prof. Gustav Dalman: Dalman G. Die Worte Jesu. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1898. S. 9–10. Cp. Blass F. Philology of the Gospels. London, 1898. P. 47: “The Gospels were destined from the beginning to be read in the weekly assemblies of the congregations, as we have testimony to their having been read as early as Justinʼs time.” Dahlmann thinks differently, saying: “...ware an hebräische Abfassung nur dann zu denken gewesen, wenn man beabsichtigt hätte, die Zahl der hebräischen heiligen Schriften um eines zu vermehren. Das 1st aber bei der Stellung der “Hebraisten” zum Alttestamentlichen Kanon fur die Zeit, um die es sich hier handeln müsste, nicht anzunehmen” [... one could think about writing in Hebrew if the goal was to increase the number of Hebrew sacred books by one more. But, taking into account the position of the “Hebraists” on the Old Testament canon for the period in question, this cannot be allowed] (Dalman G. Op. cit. S. 12). Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the apostles and believers themselves saw in the Gospel writings the sacred truth of divine revelation, in which the new books, in any case, were supposed to be equal to the old ones. Erasmus, Desiderius. In Matthaeum, VIII, 17 (Opera omnia. T. 4. Leiden, 1705. P. 47); Cajetanm. In Matthaeum, prologus (Opera omnia. Lyon, 1639. T. 4. P. 1); Hug J. L. Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Bd. 2. Tübingen, 1809. § 8–12. S. 16 ss. In a slightly different sense, Prof. admits something similar. Gustav Dahlmann, assuming a written Greek source for the weather forecasters and thinking that “eine griechische Evangelienquelle braucht wegen ihrer Sprache nicht jünger zu sein als eine semitisch geschriebene” [judging by the language, the Greek source of the Gospel should not be considered younger than the Semitic], why “das älteste christliche Schriftwerk könnte griechisch abgefasst gewesen sein” [the oldest work of Christianity could have been composed in Greek] (Dalman G. Op. cit. S. 56–57). Cp. Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche / Hrsg. J. J. Herzog e. a. Bd. 9. Leipzig, 2 1881. S. 401. Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. § 42. S. 78 ss. Wed. Keim Th. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Bd. 1. Zürich, 1867. S. 55. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica V, 10, PG 20, 456. Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 36, PL 23, 651. Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum I, PG 13, 829 (apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 25, PG 20, 581). Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 844; Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 24, PG 20, 265 (cp. Idem. Quaestiones evangelicae ad Marinum II, 1, PG 22, 941); Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Catechesis 14, 15, PG 33, 844; Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 30, 3, PG 41, 409; Ibid., haeres. 51, 5, PG 41, 896; Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 3, PG 57, 17; Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, prologus, PL 26, 18 (cp. Idem. Commentaria in Isaiam, in 6, 10, PL 24, 98; Idem. Commentaria in Osee, in 11, 2, PL 25, 915; Idem. Epistula 20, ad Damasum, 5, PL 22, 379; Idem. Epistula 120, ad Hedibiam, 4, PL 22, 988, etc.); Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum I, cap. 2, PL 34, 1044; Ibid. II, cap. 66, PL34, 1139. Assemani J. S. Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticana. T. 3. 1. Roma. P. 8. Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 3, PL 23, 613. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses I, 26, 2, PG 7, 686–687; Ibid. III, 11, 7, PG 7, 884. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 27, PG 20, 273. Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 30, 3, PG 41, 409; Ibid., haeres. 30, 13, PG 41, 428. Ibid., haeres. 30.3: ὡ ς τὰ ἀληθῆ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν , ὅ τι Ματθαῖος μόνος Ἑ βραϊστὶ καὶ Ἑ βραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν ἐν τ ῇ καιν ῇ διαθήκ ῃ ἐποιήσατο τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔκθεσίν τε καὶ κήρυγμα [since it will be correct to say that in the New Testament only Matthew expounded the preaching and teaching of the Gospel in Hebrew and in Hebrew letters] (PG 41, 409). Ibid., haeres. 29, 9, PG 41, 405. Ibid., haeres. 30, 13, PG 41, 428. If recently A. Harnack confirms Zahn’s opinion about the independence of the “Gospel of the Jews” from the first canonical Gospel (Harnack A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Theil 2: Die Chronologie. Bd. 1: Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenaeus. Leipzig, 1897. S. 625), then others with no less they are right to say the opposite. See Robinson J. A. Three Notes on the Gospel According to the Hebrews // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 5 (3). P. 194–200. Robinson says: “There is a prima facie case for the dependence of the Gospel according to the Hebrews at this point on the canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew. It is certainly appears as though the writer of the former had based his phrase on a false reading and a false interpretation of the latter” [It is clear at first glance that the Gospel of the Hebrews is here dependent on the canonical Gospel of Matthew. It is easy to see that the author of the first constructs this phrase based on an incorrect reading and incorrect understanding of the second] (R. 198; cf. R. 200). Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica IV, 22, PG 20, 384; cp. Handmann R. Das Hebraeer-Evangelium (TU 5/3). Leipzig, 1888. S. 30. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. III, 39, PG 20, 300. Cp. Handmann R.Op. cit. S. 30–31. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. IV, 22, PG 20, 384. Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata II, 9, PG 8, 981; Origenes. In Jeremiah hom. 15, 4, PG 13, 433; Idem. Commentaria in Joannem II, 6, PG 14, 132; Idem. Commentaria in Matthaeum XV, 14, PG 13, 1293 [here see the text of the ancient Latin translation of Origen's commentary. -Ed.]; Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 30.13, PG 41, 428–429; Hieronymus stridonensis. Dialogus adversus Pelagianos III, 2, PL23, 570–571; Idem. Commentaria in Isaiam, in 11, 1–2, PL 24, 144–145; Idem. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, in 12, 13, PL 26, 78; Idem. De viris illustribus, 2, 16, PL 23, 633–635. Ignatius Antiochenus. Epistula ad Smymaeos, 3, PG 5, 709 (cp. Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 16, PL 23, 633); Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 103, PG 6, 717 (cp. Epiphanius Constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 30,13, PG 41, 429). Origenes. In Jeremiah hom. 15, 4, PG 13, 433; Idem. Commentaria in Matthaeum XV, 14, PG 13, 1293. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 25, PG 20, 269. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 12. [So in Glubokovsky. The link appears to be incorrect. -Ed.] Idem. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, in 12, 13, PL 26, 78; (390). Idem. Dialogus adversus Pelagianos III, 2, PL 23, 570. Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca, cod. 177, PG 103, 514. [Jerome's name does not appear here explicitly. However, “what Photius writes about Theodore’s opponent allows us to establish with certainty who he was: we can only talk about the blj. Jerome, and the “speeches” quoted here, which were “composed in the East,” are nothing more than “Dialogues against the Pelagians,” explains René Henry in a commentary to his translation of “The Library” (Photius. Bibliothèque. Vol. 2. Paris, 1960. R. 178). -Ed.] Apud Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum XV, 14, PG 13, 1293. Handmann. Op. cit. S. 119–123. Rome. 1, 3; 9, 5; Gal. 4, 4. Cp. Keim Th. Op. cit. S. 39. Handmann. Op. cit. S. 133. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses I, 26, 2: “Ebionaei apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatem eum legis dicentes” [Ebionites reject the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law] (PG 7, 686–687). Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum XV, 14, PG 13, 1295. Origenes. Commentaria in Joannem II, 6, PG 14, 132; Idem. In Jeremiah hom. 15, 4, PG 13, 433; Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Michaeam, in 7, 6, PL 25, 1221–1222; Commentaria in Isaiam, in 40, 9–11, PL 24, 405. Wed. Dalman G. Die Worte Jesu. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1898. S. 35: “Die Aussage des Papias von der Übersetzung der “Logia” des Matthäus sich nicht auf schriffliche Arbeiten dieser Art beziehen muss” [Papias’ statement about the translation of Matthew’s “Logia” does not necessarily refer to written works of this kind]. Wed. Philo Judaeus. De septenario, apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Praeparatio evangelica VIII, 7: « τῶν ἱερέων δέ τις ὁ παρ ὼ ν ἢ τῶν γερόντων ε ἶ ς ἀναγινώσκει τούς ἱερούς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ καθ ᾿ ἕ καστον ἐξηγεῖται μέχρι σχεδὸν δείλης ὀψίας "[and one of the priests or one of the elders read them the sacred laws and each one separately explained them almost until evening] (PG 21, 605); Idem. Quod omnis probus liber sit, 82: “ἕ τερος (different from the reader) τῶν ἐμπειρότατων” [another of the most experienced], etc.; OK. 4, 16 ss. (Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue); Acts 13, 15 (Paul in the Pisidian synagogue). The rabbis in the same sense distinguished between דַּרְשָׁן “scientific researcher” and אֲמוֹרָא, “talker” - the one who expounds the words of the teacher to the people in a popular form, with explanations. The Evangelist Luke more often uses a different spelling of the name of the city: “Ἰ ερουσαλήμ.” -Ed. Josephus Flavius. De bello judaico V, 9, 2; VI, 2, 1. Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, in 27, 16, PL 26, 206. Hieronymus stridonensis. Epistula 120, ad Hedibiam, 4, PL 22, 988. Eusebius Caesariensis. Quaestiones evangelicae ad Marinum II, 1, PG 22, 941. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica IV, 5, PG 20, 309. Pseudo-Athanasius Alexandrinus. Synopsis scripturae sacrae, 76, PG 28, 432. Theophylactus Bulgariae archiepiscopus. Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei, praefatio, PG 123, 145. [In Euthymius Zigabenus, see Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentarius in Matthaeum, praefatio, PG 129, 116.–Ed.] Tischendorf C. Novum Testamentum, editio octava critica maior. T. 1. Leipzig, 1869. S. 212–213. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 844–845; Clemens Alexandrinus apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 14, 5, PG 20, 552; Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum I, PG 13, 829; Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 24, PG 20, 265; Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51, 5, PG 41, 893; Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 4, 1, PG 57, 39; Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 3, PL 23, 613; Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum I, cap. 2, PL 34, 1043; etc. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 3, PG 57, 17; Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, prologus, PL 26, 18; etc. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 24, PG 20, 265. Tischendorf C. Novum Testamentum, editio octava critica maior. T. 1. Leipzig, 1869. S. 212. Hieronymus stridonensis. Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili, PL 27, 578 (second year of the 204th Olympiad); Theophylactus Bulgariae archiepiscopus. Enarratio in Evangelium Matthaei, praefatio, PG 123, 145; EuthymiusZigabenus. Commentarius in Matthaeum, praefatio, PG 129,116. Nicephorus callistus. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 45, PG 145, 881. Irenaeus Lugdunensis apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica V, 8, PG 20, 449. Lutteroth N. Essai dʼinterprétation de quelques parties de lʼÉvangile selon saint Matthieu. Paris, 1876. P. 366 ss.; cp. Schanz, P. von. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Matthäus. Freiburg, 1879. S. 48. Delitzsch F. J. // Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherischeTheologie und Kirche. 1850. Hf. 3. S. 430 ss. [Glubokovsky does not indicate the title of the article. Most likely this refers to Delitzsch's only publication in this issue of the journal, “Die Entstehung des Matthaüs-Evangeliums”, but it begins on p. 456. -Ed.]; Köstlin K. R. Der Urspnmg und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien. Tubingen, 1853; etc. Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum I, PG 13, 829; cp. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 25, PG 20, 581. Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 3, PL 23, 613; Idem. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, prologus, PL 26, 18. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 3, PG 57, 17. "πρὸς Ἰ ουδαίους "; cp. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Carmina, lib. 1, sect. 1, 12, de veris Scripturae libris, PG 37, 474. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Fragmenta, 29, PG 7, 1244. Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae XVIII, 1, 4. Aberle (Aberle, M. von. Ueber den Zweck des Matthäusevangelium // Theologische Quartalschrift. 1859. Hf. 4. S. 567–588; Idem. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Freibuig im Breisgau, 1877. S. 20–32) considers such a refutation of slander members of the Sanhedrin, as if the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matthew 28, 11-15), relying on the testimony of Justin Martyr that special legates were sent from Jerusalem to spread this fiction - undermining the apostolic preaching (Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 17, PG 6, 512; Ibid., 108, PG 6, 725; Ibid., 117, PG 6, 748). In the Gospel itself there is not the slightest sign of such a polemic-apologetic tendency. See Novum Testamentum, XII tomis distinctum graece et latine/ Ed. C. F. Matthäi. Riga, 1788. P. 10. [The volumes of this twelve-volume edition of the “New Testament” are not numbered. This is probably why Glubokovsky does not provide the volume number in the link. Surely the part containing the Gospel of Matthew is quoted: in addition to the context of the quotation, it should be taken into account that only in this volume, dated 1788, is the general title of this edition of the New Testament (“Novum Testamentum ...”) indicated. -Ed.] In Glubokovsky-1932, the author explains that we are talking about the parallelism of “the actual with the ideal.” -Ed. With ἵ να – 8 times (Matthew 1, 22; 2, 15; 4, 14; 12, 17; 21, 4; 26, 56), and with ὅ πως – twice (Matthew 2, 23; 8, 17). In Mark, “ἀλλ ᾿ ἵ να πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί” [but let the scriptures be fulfilled] (Mark 14:49), along with the statement “ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα "[the scripture was fulfilled that says] (Mark 15:28), as the latter is also in Luke (Luke 4:21: σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ α ὕ τη [today this scripture has been fulfilled]), which affirms the necessity of such a fulfillment (Luke 24:44: ἐν τῷ νόμ ῳ Μωϋσέως [everything written in the law of Moses must be fulfilled]), completely coinciding here with Matthew, who does not allow any other possibility for the realization of messianic prophecies (Matthew 26, 54: πῶς ο ὖ ν πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί; [how will the scriptures be fulfilled?]), except for their implementation in the facts of the life of Christ (Matt. 2, 17: τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥ ηθὲν διὰ Ἰ ερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου [then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled]). John has 6 cases (John 12, 38; 13, 18; 15, 25; 17, 12; 19, 24, 36) in the sense of the Matthew principle that what happened to Christ was arranged for the direct purpose of the actual embodiment of prophetic verbs (John. 19, 36: ἐγένετο γὰρ ταῦτα ἵ να ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθ ῇ [for this happened that the scripture might be fulfilled]). This means that all the evangelists agree in the basic view of the historical appearance of Christ as intended and serving for the realization of prophetic messianism, but in Matthew this view is expressed more clearly and is carried out more consistently and clearly. [In Glubokovsky-1932 this footnote is much more complete and therefore is given here according to this edition. -Ed.] So in Glubokovsky-1899. In the 1932 edition we read: “...and therefore He is always the unchangeable πληρῶν [fulfilling].” -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author notes that “in solidarity with this, He [Christ] is characterized in Matthew in the Gospel, which carries out precisely this concept,” and then makes a footnote: “In his articles about the “Four Gospels,” published in the “Theological Bulletin” for 1899 and 1900, Prof. M.D. Muretov, through a detailed analysis of the content, tries to imagine that the first Gospel gradually and deliberately portrays Christ as a prophet, king and high priest. See separate print, pp. 52 ff.” See also: Muretov M.D. The Four Gospels // Selected Works. M., 2002 (Orthodox Theological Library. Issue 3). pp. 150–192 (see p. 185). -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932 the thought is expanded: “This means that Christ is not an opponent of the old and not a usurper under cover and on its behalf, since he professes nomystical inviolability. In this case, it will be the implementer of the Old Testament ideal, the highest and all-perfect exponent of the latter, as its ruler, filling the old mandatory principles with new life-giving content.” -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author expresses himself somewhat differently: “The soil for the kingdom of Christ remains theocratic-Jewish, and it will be twelve-throne, but His followers, who are seated with the glorified Christ in the rebirth, will begin to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28), as having turned out to be unsuitable in their title, which passes to worthy successors outside the old environment, that is, to believers from the non-Jewish world or to believers in general.” -Ed. In Glubokovsky-1899 and Glubokovsky-1907, instead of “Rahab” there is “Rachel”, which is obviously incorrect: Rachel, unlike Rahab (Rahab), belonged by blood to the “people of God” (cf. Josh. 2, 1 SS.). In Glubokovsky-1932 the inaccuracy has been corrected. -Ed. Here in Glubokovsky-1932 is the Greek text of Matthew. 6,10: γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡ ς ἐν οὐρανφ καὶ ἐπὶ (τῆς) γῆς, – and a footnote is made: “The difference between the prepositions ἐν and ἐπί is noteworthy: the first notes the constant presence of the kingdom in heaven, the second states the descent from there to the earth and the spread over it, secured, but gradual.” -Ed. In this evangelist we find it 15 times, in Mark only twice, and in Luke it is not found at all, except for Luke. 11, 2, not recognized by critics in the textus receptus as an authentic reading. [In Glubokovsky-1932 more precise figures are given and specific places are indicated: “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς” is found in Matthew 13 times (Matthew 5, 16, 45; 6, 1, 9; 7, 11, 21; 10, 32, 33; 16, 17; 18, 10, 14, 19), “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος “- 6 times 32; 15, 13; 18, 35). Further, Glubokovsky notes that the second expression is not found in other evangelists, the first is found only in Mark twice (Mark 11, 25, 26); Luke once uses the expression “ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ σὐραναῦ” (Luke 11:13).-Ed.] See, for example: Lamy V. Commentarius in “Harmoniam sive concordiam quatuor evangelistarum”. Paris, 1699. Praef., p. VI. Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum II, cap. 42, PL 34, 1120. For detailed diagrams, see Westcott: Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858, pp. 388–390. Therefore, some unfairly deprive Matthew of any chronological significance. See Grimm J. Die Einheit der vier Evangelien. Regensburg, 1868. S. 121–127; and against him Knabenbauer J. [Rezension] // Stimmen aus Maria-Laach. Vol. 24 (1883). S. 207. – Rez. op.: Grimm J. Das Leben Jesu. Bd. 3. Regensburg, 1882. Keith Th. Geschichte Jesu von Nazara. Bd. 1. Zürich, 1867. S. 57. This reading, according to critics (Tischendorf, Westcott), is the only correct one. [A century later, the position of the “critics” has not changed. The publishers of the Greek-English NT, giving preference to γένεσις rather than γέννησις, explain their choice: “... not only do older manuscripts belonging to several types of text contain γένεσις, but one should also take into account the tendency of copyists to substitute a word with a less broad meaning instead of what was used in a different sense in verse 1, especially considering that γέννησις is in closer connection with the verb γενν ᾶ ν, so often used in the previous genealogy" (Textual Commentary on the NT. P. 7) -Ed.] Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. §37. S. 62–68. Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P.315–316. Westcott B. F. Op. cit. P. 363, not. Eichhorn J. G. Bd. 1. S. 167 ss., 281 ss. [in Glubokoesky’s editions the title of the cited work is not indicated; perhaps the book Einleitung in das Neue Testament is meant. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1804. – Ed.]; Bertholdt L. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sämmtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des alten und neuen Testaments. Bd. 3. Erlangen, 1813. S. 1260. You might be interested in: