Explanatory Bible. New Testament

Explanatory Bible of the New Testament Cathedral Epistle of the Holy Apostle James 1st Council Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 2nd Council Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 1st Council Epistle of the Apostle John the Theologian 2nd Council Epistle of the Apostle John the Theologian 3rd Council Epistle of the Apostle John the Theologian Council message of St. Jude the Apostle Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans 1st Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians 2nd Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Ephesians Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Philippians Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Colossians 1st Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians 2nd Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians 1st Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy 2nd Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to Titus Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to Philemon Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Hebrews Revelation of John the Evangelist The earliest division of the Bible, dating back to the times of the first Christian Church, was its division into two far from equal parts, called the Old and New Testaments. This division of the entire composition of biblical books was due to their relationship to the main subject of the Bible, i.e. to the personality of the Messiah: those books that were written before the coming of Christ and only prophetically prefigured Him were included in the Old Testament, and those that arose after the coming of the Savior into the world and were devoted to the history of His redemptive ministry and setting out the foundations of the Church established by Jesus Christ and His holy apostles formed the New Testament. All these terms, i.e. both the word “testament” itself and its combination with the adjectives “old” and “new” are taken from the Bible itself, in which, in addition to their general meaning, they also have a special meaning, in which we also use them when talking about famous biblical books. The word “covenant” (Heb. - takes, Greek - διαθήκη, Lat. - testamentum) in the language of Holy Scripture and biblical usage, first of all, means a well-known decree, condition, law on which two contracting parties agree, and from here - this agreement or union itself, as well as those external signs that served as its certification, a bond, as if a seal (testamentum). And since the sacred books in which this covenant or union of God with man was described were, of course, one of the best means of authenticating it and consolidating it in the people’s memory, the name “covenant” was also transferred to them very early on. It already existed in the era of Moses, as can be seen from the book of Exodus (Exodus 24:7), where the record of the Sinai legislation read by Moses to the Jewish people is called the book of the covenant (“sefer habberit”). Similar expressions, denoting not only the Sinai legislation, but the entire Mosaic Pentateuch, are found in subsequent Old Testament books (2 Kings 23:2, 21; Sir. 24:25; 1 Mac. 1:57). The Old Testament also contains the first, still prophetic indication of the New Testament, namely, in the famous prophecy of Jeremiah: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31). Subsequently, the term New Testament was repeatedly used by Jesus Christ himself and His holy apostles to designate the beginning of the history of redeemed and blessed humanity (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6, etc.). Just as the decalogue or the entire law was called a covenant, in the same way the expression “New Testament” began to be applied in the Christian Church to the sacred books that contain the teaching of Christ and the apostles 1 . However, the composition of the New Testament sacred books had other names in ancient times. Thus, it was called “The Gospel and the Apostle”, as consisting of four books of the Gospels and twenty-three works of sacred apostolic writing. Finally, like the Old Testament books, the composition of the New Testament books is often called simply Scripture by the fathers and teachers of the Church. The New Testament contains a total of 27 sacred books: four Gospels, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, seven Council Epistles, fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse of the Apostle John the Theologian. Two Gospels belong to two of the 12 apostles - Matthew and John, two - to the colleagues of the apostles - Mark and Luke. The Book of Acts was also written by a colleague of the Apostle Paul, Luke. Of the seven Council Epistles, five belong to the apostles from among the 12 - Peter and John, and two - to the brothers of the Lord in the flesh, James and Jude, who also bore the honorary title of apostles, although they did not belong to the 12. The Fourteen Epistles were written by Paul, who, although called late by Christ, nevertheless, as called by the Lord Himself to serve, is an apostle in the highest sense of the word, completely equal in dignity in the Church with the 12 apostles. The Apocalypse belongs to the apostle from among the 12, John the Theologian. Thus, it can be seen that there are eight writers of all New Testament books. The great teacher of the nations, the Apostle Paul, worked most hard in compiling the scriptures, who founded many churches that required written instruction from him, which he taught in his Epistles 2. Division of New Testament books by content According to their content, the sacred books of the New Testament are divided into three categories: 1) historical, 2) teaching and 3) prophetic. The historical books are the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospels give us a historical picture of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles gives us a historical picture of the life and work of the apostles who spread the Church of Christ throughout the world. Teaching books are the Apostolic Epistles, which are letters written by the apostles to different Churches. In these letters, the apostles explain various perplexities regarding the Christian faith and life that arose in the Churches, denounce the readers of the Epistles for various disorders they allowed, convince them to stand firmly in the Christian faith betrayed to them and expose the false teachers who disturbed the peace of the primal Church. In a word, the apostles appear in their Epistles as teachers of the flock of Christ entrusted to their care, being, moreover, often the founders of those Churches to which they address. The latter occurs in relation to almost all of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. There is only one prophetic book in the New Testament - the Apocalypse of the Apostle John the Theologian. It contains various visions and revelations that this apostle was awarded with and in which the future fate of the Church of Christ is foreshadowed before its glorification, i.e. until the kingdom of glory opens on earth. Since the subject of the Gospels is the life and teaching of the Founder of our faith - the Lord Jesus Christ, and since, undoubtedly, in the Gospel we have the basis for all our faith and life, it is customary to call the four Gospels books of law. This name shows that the Gospels have the same meaning for Christians as the Law of Moses - the Pentateuch - had for Jews. A Brief History of the Canon of Holy Books of the New Testament The word “canon” (κανών) originally meant “reed”, and then began to be used to designate what should serve as a rule, a pattern of life (Gal. 6:16; 2 Cor. 10:13–16). The Church Fathers and Councils used this term to designate a collection of sacred, inspired writings. Therefore, the canon of the New Testament is a collection of the sacred inspired books of the New Testament in its present form 3. What was the primacy of the Church guided by when it accepted this or that sacred New Testament book into the canon? First of all, the so-called historical tradition. They investigated whether this or that book had actually been received directly from an apostle or an apostolic co-worker, and, after strict research, they included this book among the inspired books. But at the same time, they also paid attention to whether the teaching contained in the book in question was consistent, firstly, with the teaching of the entire Church and, secondly, with the teaching of the apostle whose name this book bore. This is the so-called dogmatic tradition. And it has never happened that the Church, once recognizing a book as canonical, subsequently changed its view of it and excluded it from the canon. If individual fathers and teachers of the Church even after this still recognized some New Testament writings as inauthentic, then this was only their private view, which should not be confused with the voice of the Church. In the same way, it has never happened that the Church first did not accept any book into the canon, and then included it. If some canonical books are not indicated in the writings of the apostolic men (for example, the Epistle of Jude), this is explained by the fact that the apostolic men had no reason to quote these books. Thus, through critical examination, the Church, on the one hand, eliminated from general use those books that unlawfully enjoyed the authority of truly apostolic works, and on the other, established as a general rule that all churches should recognize as truly apostolic those books that, perhaps, were unknown to some private churches. From this it is clear that from the Orthodox point of view one can speak not of the “formation of a canon,” but only of the “establishment of a canon.” The Church did not “create anything out of itself” in this case, but only, so to speak, stated precisely verified facts of the origin of the sacred books from famous inspired men of the New Testament. This “establishment of the canon” continued for a very long time. Even under the apostles, there undoubtedly existed something like a canon, which can be confirmed by the Apostle Paul’s reference to the existence of a collection of the words of Christ and the Apostle Peter’s reference to the collection of Paul’s Epistles (2 Pet. 3:15–16). According to some ancient interpreters, for example Theodore of Mopsuestia, and new ones, for example Archpriest. A.V. Gorsky, the Apostle John the Theologian worked the most in this matter (“Addition to the works of the holy fathers.” T. 24. pp. 297–327). But the actual first period in the history of the canon is the period of the apostolic and Christian apologists, lasting approximately from the end of the 1st century until the year 170. During this period, we find for the most part quite clear indications of the books included in the New Testament canon, but the writers of this period still very rarely directly indicate which holy book they are taking this or that passage from, so we find from them so-called “blind quotations.” Moreover, as Barth says in his “Introduction to the New Testament” (ed. 1908, p. 324), in those days spiritual gifts were still in full bloom and there were many inspired prophets and teachers, so the writers of the 2nd century could look for primary sources for their teachings not in books, but in the oral teachings of these prophets and in general in oral church tradition. In the second period, lasting until the end of the 3rd century, more definite indications appear of the existence of the composition of the New Testament sacred books accepted by the Church. Thus, a fragment found by the scientist Muratorium in the Milan library and dating back to approximately 200-210. according to R.H., gives a historical overview of almost all New Testament books: only the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James and the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter are not mentioned in it. This fragment testifies, of course, mainly to the composition of the canon established by the end of the 2nd century in the Western Church. The state of the canon in the Eastern Church is evidenced by the Syriac translation of the New Testament, known as the Peshitta. This translation mentions almost all of our canonical books, with the exception of the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalypse. Tertullian testifies to the state of the canon in the Carthaginian Church. He certifies the authenticity of the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalypse, but does not mention the epistles of the Apostle James and the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter, and attributes the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons is a witness to the beliefs of the Gallic Church. According to him, in this Church almost all of our books were recognized as canonical, with the exception of the 2nd Epistle of the Apostle Peter and the Epistle of Jude. The Epistle to Philemon is also not quoted. Saints Clement of Alexandria and Origen testify to the beliefs of the Alexandrian Church. The former used all the New Testament books, and the latter recognizes the apostolic origin of all our books, although he reports that there was disagreement in his time regarding the 2nd Epistle of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus, in the second half of the 2nd century, the following sacred books were undoubtedly recognized as inspired apostolic works throughout the Church: the four Gospels, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the 13 Epistles of the Apostle Paul, 1 John and 1 Peter. Other books were less common, although they were recognized by the Church as authentic. In the third period, extending to the second half of the 4th century, the canon is finally established in the form in which it currently exists. Witnesses of the faith of the entire Church here are Eusebius of Caesarea, Saints Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, and others. The first of these witnesses speaks most thoroughly about the canonical books. According to him, at that time some books were recognized by the entire Church (τὰ ὁμολογούμενα), namely, the four Gospels, the book of Acts, the 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John. Here he includes, however with a reservation (“if it pleases”), the Apocalypse of John. Then he has a class of controversial books (ἀντιλεγόμενα), divided into two categories. In the first category he places books that are accepted by many, although controversial. These are the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. To the second category he includes forged books (νόθα), such as the “Acts of Paul” and others, as well as, “if it pleases,” the Apocalypse of John. He himself considers all our books to be genuine, even the Apocalypse. The list of books of the New Testament found in the Easter letter of St. received a decisive influence in the Eastern Church. Athanasius of Alexandria (367). Having listed all 27 books of the New Testament, St. Athanasius says that only in these books is the teaching of piety proclaimed and that nothing can be taken away from this collection of books, just as nothing can be added to it. Taking into account the great authority that St. had in the Eastern Church. Athanasius, this great fighter against Arianism, we can confidently conclude that the canon of the New Testament he proposed was accepted by the entire Eastern Church, although after St. Athanasius did not follow any conciliar decision regarding the composition of the canon. However, it should be noted that St. Athanasius points out two books that, although not canonized by the Church, are intended for reading by those entering the Church. These books are the teaching of the (twelve) apostles and the shepherd (Hermas). He rejects everything else as heretical fabrication (i.e., books falsely called apostolic). In the Western Church, the canon of the New Testament in its present form was finally established at the Councils in Africa - the Council of Hippo (393) and the two Councils of Carthage (397 and 419). The canon of the New Testament adopted by these Councils was sanctioned by the Roman Church by decree of Pope Gelasius (492–496). Those Christian books that were not included in the canon, although they expressed claims to this, were recognized as apocryphal and destined almost for complete destruction 4 . Order of New Testament books in the canon The New Testament books found their place in the canon according to their importance and the time of their final recognition. Naturally, the four Gospels took first place, followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles; The Apocalypse formed the conclusion of the canon. But in some codexes some books do not occupy the same place as they occupy in ours now. Thus, in the Codex Sinaiticus, the book of the Acts of the Apostles comes after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Until the 4th century, the Greek Church placed the Council Epistles after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The very name “conciliar” initially was borne only by the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, and only from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century) did this name begin to be applied to all seven Epistles. Since the time of Athanasius of Alexandria (mid-IV century), the Council Epistles in the Greek Church have taken their present place. Meanwhile, in the West they were still placed after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Even the Apocalypse in some codes is earlier than the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and even earlier than the book of Acts. In particular, the Gospels appear in different codes in different orders. Thus, some, undoubtedly putting the apostles in first place, place the Gospels in the following order: Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, or, giving special dignity to the Gospel of John, they put it in first place. Others put the Gospel of Mark last, as the shortest. Of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, initially the first place in the canon was occupied by two to the Corinthians, and the last by the Romans (a fragment of Muratorius and Tertullian). Since the time of Eusebius, the first place has been occupied by the Epistle to the Romans, both in its volume and in the importance of the Church to which it was written, truly deserving this place. The arrangement of the four private Epistles (1 Tim.; 2 Tim.; Tit.; Phil.) was obviously guided by their volume being approximately the same. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the East was placed 14th, and in the West - 10th in the series of Epistles of the Apostle Paul. It is clear that the Western Church, among the Council Epistles, put the Epistles of the Apostle Peter in first place. The Eastern Church, putting the Epistle of James in first place, was probably guided by the enumeration of the apostles by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2:9). History of the New Testament Canon since the Reformation During the Middle Ages, the canon remained undeniable, especially since the books of the New Testament were read relatively little by private individuals, and during divine services only certain parts or sections were read from them. The common people were more interested in reading the stories of the lives of saints, and the Catholic Church even looked with some suspicion at the interest that certain societies, such as the Waldenses, showed in reading the Bible, sometimes even prohibiting the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. But at the end of the Middle Ages, humanism renewed doubts about the writings of the New Testament, which were the subject of controversy in the first centuries. The Reformation began to raise its voice even more strongly against some of the New Testament writings. Luther, in his translation of the New Testament (1522), in the prefaces to the New Testament books, expressed his view on their dignity. Thus, in his opinion, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by an apostle, just like the Epistle of James. He also does not recognize the authenticity of the Apocalypse and the Epistle of the Apostle Jude. Luther's disciples went even further in the rigor with which they treated various New Testament writings and even began to directly distinguish "apocryphal" writings from the New Testament canon: until the beginning of the 17th century, Lutheran bibles did not even list 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the Apocalypse as canonical. Only later did this distinction of scriptures disappear and the ancient New Testament canon was restored. At the end of the 17th century, however, critical writings about the New Testament canon appeared, in which objections were raised to the authenticity of many New Testament books. The rationalists of the 18th century (Semler, Michaelis, Eichgorm) wrote in the same spirit, and in the 19th century. Schleiermacher expressed doubts about the authenticity of some of Paul's Epistles, De Wette rejected the authenticity of five of them, and F.X. Of the entire New Testament, Baur recognized only the four main Epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse as truly apostolic. Thus, in the West, Protestantism again came to the same point that the Christian Church experienced in the first centuries, when some books were recognized as genuine apostolic works, others as controversial. The view on the New Testament has already been established that it represents only a collection of literary works of early Christianity. At the same time, the followers of F.X. Baur - B. Bauer, Lohmann and Steck - no longer found it possible to recognize any of the New Testament books as a truly apostolic work... But the best minds of Protestantism saw the depth of the abyss into which Baur's school, or the Tübingen school, was taking Protestantism, and came out against its provisions with weighty objections. Thus, Ritschl refuted the main thesis of the Tübingen school about the development of early Christianity from the struggle of Petrinism and Paulinism, and Harnack proved that the New Testament books should be looked at as truly apostolic works. Scientists B. Weiss, Godet and T. Tsang did even more to restore the meaning of the New Testament books in the minds of Protestants. “Thanks to these theologians,” says Barth, “no one can now take away from the New Testament the advantage that in it and in it alone we have messages about Jesus and about the revelation of God in Him” (Introduction, 1908, p. 400). Barth finds that at the present time, when such confusion prevails in the minds, it is especially important for Protestants to have a “canon” as a guide given by God for faith and life, “and,” he concludes, “we have it in the New Testament” (Ibid.). Indeed, the New Testament canon has enormous, one might say, incomparable significance for the Christian Church. In it we find, first of all, such scriptures that represent Christianity in its relation to the Jewish people (the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of the Apostle James and the Epistle to the Hebrews), to the pagan world (1st and 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Corinthians). Further, we have in the New Testament canon writings that are intended to eliminate the dangers that threatened Christianity from the Jewish understanding of Christianity (Epistle to the Galatians), from Judeo-legalistic asceticism (Epistle to the Colossians), from the pagan desire to understand religious society as a private circle in which one can live separately from church society (Ephesians). The book of Romans indicates the worldwide purpose of Christianity, while the book of Acts indicates how this purpose was realized in history. In a word, the books of the New Testament canon give us a complete picture of the primacy of the Church, depicting life and its tasks from all sides. If, as a test, we wanted to take away any book from the canon of the New Testament, for example the Epistle to the Romans or Galatians, we would thereby cause significant harm to the whole. It is clear that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in the gradual establishment of the composition of the canon, so that the Church introduced into it truly apostolic works, which in their existence were caused by the most essential needs of the Church. In what language are the holy books of the New Testament written? Throughout the Roman Empire, during the time of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles, Greek was the dominant language, it was understood everywhere and spoken almost everywhere. It is clear that the writings of the New Testament, which were intended by the Providence of God to be distributed throughout all churches, also appeared in Greek, although almost all of their writers, with the exception of St. Luke, were Jews. This is also evidenced by some internal signs of these writings: a play on words possible only in the Greek language, a free, independent attitude to the translation of the Seventy, when Old Testament passages are cited - all this undoubtedly indicates that they were written in Greek and intended for readers who know Greek. However, the Greek language in which the books of the New Testament were written is not the classical Greek language in which Greek writers wrote during the heyday of Greek literature. This is the so-called κοινὴ διάλεκτος, i.e. close to the ancient Attic dialect, but not too different from other dialects. In addition, it included many Aramaisms and other alien words. Finally, special New Testament concepts were introduced into this language, for the expression of which, however, they used old Greek words that received a special new meaning through this (for example, the word χάρις - “pleasantness”, in the sacred New Testament language began to mean “grace”). For more information about this, see the article by Prof. S.I. Sobolevsky “Κοινὴ διάλεκτος”, placed in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 10. All the original New Testament books were lost, but copies of them had long been made (ἀντίγραφα). The Gospels were copied most often and the Apocalypse least often. They wrote with reed (κάλαμος) and ink (μέλαν) and more - in the first centuries - on papyrus, so that the right side of each papyrus sheet was glued to the left side of the next sheet. From here a strip of greater or lesser length was obtained, which was then rolled onto a rolling pin. This is how a scroll (τόμος) arose, which was stored in a special box (φαινόλης). Since reading these strips, written only on the front side, was inconvenient and the material was fragile, from the 3rd century New Testament books began to be copied on leather or parchment. Since parchment was expensive, many used the ancient manuscripts on parchment that they had, erasing and scraping out what was written on them and placing some other work there. This is how palimpsests were formed. Paper came into use only in the 8th century. Words in the manuscripts of the New Testament were written without accents, without breaths, without punctuation marks and, moreover, with abbreviations (for example, IC instead of Ἰησοῦς, RNB instead of πνεῦμα), so it was very difficult to read these manuscripts. In the first six centuries, only capital letters were used (uncial manuscripts from “uncia” - inch). From the 7th century, and some say from the 9th century, manuscripts of ordinary cursive writing appeared. Then the letters became smaller, but abbreviations became more frequent. On the other hand, accents and breathing were added. There are 130 of the first manuscripts, and 3,700 of the last (according to von Soden’s account). In addition, there are so-called lectionaries, containing either the Gospel or the Apostolic readings for use in worship (Evangeliary and Praxapostolic). There are about 1300 of them, and the oldest of them date back in origin to the 6th century. In addition to the text, manuscripts usually contain introductions and afterwords with indications of the writer, time and place of writing the book. To familiarize yourself with the contents of the book in manuscripts divided into chapters (κεφάλαια), the contents of each chapter are indicated before these chapters (τίτλα, αργυμεντα). The chapters are divided into parts (ὑποδιαιρέσεις) or divisions, and these latter into verses (κῶλα, στίχοι). The size of the book and its selling price were determined by the number of verses. This processing of the text is usually attributed to Bishop Euphalios of Sardinia (7th century), but in fact all these divisions took place much earlier. For interpretative purposes, Ammonius (3rd century) added parallel passages from other Gospels to the text of the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius of Caesarea (IV century) compiled ten canons or parallel tables, the first of which contained designations of sections from the Gospel common to all four evangelists, the second - designations (by numbers) - common to three, etc. to the tenth, where the stories contained in only one evangelist are indicated. In the text of the Gospel it was marked with a red number which canon this or that section belongs to. Our present division of the text into chapters was made first by the Englishman Stephen Langton (in the 13th century), and the division into verses by Robert Stephen (in the 16th century). Since the 18th century Uncial manuscripts began to be designated by capital letters of the Latin alphabet, and italic ones by numbers. The most important uncial manuscripts are the following: N – Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf in 1856 in the Sinai monastery of St. Catherine. It contains the entire New Testament, together with the epistle of Barnabas and a large part of the Shepherd of Hermas, as well as the canons of Eusebius. It shows the proofs of seven different hands. It was written in the 4th or 5th century. Stored in the St. Petersburg Public Library (now stored in the British Museum. - Ed.). Photographs were taken from it. A – Alexandria, located in London. The New Testament is not included here in its entirety, along with the 1st and part of the 2nd Epistle of Clement of Rome. Written in the 5th century in Egypt or Palestine. B - Vatican, concluded by the 14th verse of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was probably written by one of the persons close to Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century. Kept in Rome. S – Efremov. This is a palimpsest, so named because the treatise of Ephraim the Syrian was subsequently written on the biblical text. It contains only portions of the New Testament. Its origin is Egyptian, dating back to the 5th century. Stored in Paris. A list of other manuscripts of later origin can be seen in the 8th edition of Tischendorf's New Testament. Along with the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, translations of the sacred books of the New Testament, which began to appear already in the 2nd century, are also very important as sources for establishing the text of the New Testament. The first place among them belongs to the Syriac translations, both in their antiquity and in their language, which is close to the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ and the apostles. The Diatessaron (set of 4 Gospels) of Tatian (circa 175) is believed to have been the first Syriac translation of the New Testament. Next comes the Codex Syro-Sinai (SS), discovered in 1892 at Sinai by Mrs. A. Lewis. Also important is the translation known as Peshitta (simple), dating back to the 2nd century; however, some scientists date it back to the 5th century and recognize it as the work of the Edessa bishop Rabbula (411–435). Of great importance are also the Egyptian translations (Saidian, Fayyum, Bohairic), Ethiopian, Armenian, Gothic and Old Latin, subsequently corrected by Blessed Jerome and recognized as self-authentic in the Catholic Church (Vulgate). Quotations from the New Testament available from the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church and church writers are also of considerable importance for establishing the text. A collection of these quotes (texts) was published by T. Tsang. The Slavic translation of the New Testament from the Greek text was made by Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century and, together with Christianity, came to us in Russia under the holy noble prince Vladimir. Of the copies of this translation that have survived, the Ostromir Gospel, written in the middle of the 11th century for the mayor Ostromir, is especially remarkable. Then in the 14th century. Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow, translated the holy books of the New Testament while Saint Alexy was in Constantinople. This translation is kept in the Moscow Synodal Library in the 90s of the 19th century. published phototypically. In 1499, the New Testament, along with all biblical books, was corrected and published by Metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod. Separately, the entire New Testament was first printed in Slavic in Vilna in 1623. Then it, like other biblical books, was corrected in Moscow at the synodal printing house and, finally, published together with the Old Testament under Empress Elizabeth in 1751. In Russian, first of all, in 1819. The Gospel was translated, and the entire New Testament appeared in Russian in 1822, and in 1860 it was published in a revised form. In addition to the Synodal translation into Russian, there are also Russian translations of the New Testament, published in London and Vienna. In Russia their use is prohibited. The fate of the New Testament text The importance of the New Testament text, its rewriting for use in churches and the interest of readers in its content were the reason that in ancient times much in this text changed, which was complained about in their time, for example, Dionysius of Corinth, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Changes were made to the text both intentionally and unintentionally. The first was done either by heretics, like Marcion, or by the Arians, while the second was done by scribes who did not understand the words of the text or, if they wrote from dictation, who were unable to distinguish where one word or expression ends and another begins. However, sometimes changes were made by the Orthodox, who tried to remove provincialisms and rare words from the text, made grammatical and syntactical corrections, and explanatory additions. Sometimes changes resulted from the liturgical use of certain sections of the text. Thus, the New Testament text could very early, even during the 2nd-4th centuries, be completely damaged if the Church had not taken care of its preservation. It can be noted that already in early times, representatives of the Church tried to preserve the true appearance of the text. If Irenaeus, at the conclusion of his work “περὶ ὀγδοάδος,” asks to copy it in all accuracy, then, of course, this concern for accuracy was all the more recommended in relation to the books of the New Testament, which contained the most accurate text recognized by the Church. Origen was especially diligent in establishing the correct text of the New Testament, and after him his students Pierius and Pamphilus. Hesychius and Lucian are also known as the founders of the text, from whom he himself retained a rewritten copy of the New Testament, the text of which was adhered to in their interpretations by Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, as well as Blessed Theodoret. It is to these men that we owe the preservation of the New Testament text in its original form, despite the existence of many discrepancies (these discrepancies are given in Tischendorf in the 8th edition of the New Testament under the lines of the text). The text of the New Testament first appeared in printed form in the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes in 1544. A Latin translation was also included. Then, in 1516, the edition of Erasmus appeared (in Basel), in 1565 - the edition of Theodor Beza (in Geneva), which served as the original for the authorized translation of 1611. The editions of the New Testament by the booksellers of the Elsevier brothers (in Leiden), which began to appear in 1624, became even more widespread. The second edition of the Elseviers (1633) says: “So you now have a text accepted by all (ab omnibus receptum), in which we do not give anything changed or corrupted.” This bold statement of bookseller advertising was accepted by theologians of the 17th century as the complete perfect truth, and thus for a whole century this text received the rights of an inviolable universally accepted text (Textus Receptus, designated, after the initial letter of the name of Stephen, by the letter S). In our Russian Church, this translation has become a guideline and is still published by the Holy Synod. Until 1904, the English Bible Society also distributed only this text. Since the 18th century, however, they have already begun to abandon the admiration with which this text was previously treated, and new editions began to appear, more accurately reproducing the type of the most ancient text of the New Testament. The most famous are the editions of Griesbach (1777), K. Lachmann (1831), Tischendorf (1st edition 1811, the last - posthumous - 1894), who, in fact, reproduced the Codex Sinaiticus, which he found, Trijels, Westcott and Hort (1881), Nestle (1894), von Soden (1902, 1906). The latest research has shaken the trust that Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort and B. Weiss had in the most ancient uncial manuscripts, but at the same time it is recognized that neither the Syrian nor the Western texts of the New Testament, on which some scientists placed too exaggerated hopes, can serve to establish the original text. Therefore, biblical scholarship now urges all students of the New Testament to take into account the internal reasons for and against when establishing the reading of a particular passage. Even our synodal publishers in the latest quadrilingual edition of the New Testament are trying to verify the Greek text with various references with other texts, i.e. perform a certain critical work on the text. But from the publication itself it is not clear what rules guided the text’s correctors, and therefore it is useful to cite here the rules for text criticism developed by Western biblical scholarship, as set out in Barth (“Introduction,” pp. 442 et seq., ed. 1908). 1) A shorter type of reading is more original than a more extensive one, since it is clear that a brief and therefore often dark and difficult to understand position was explained by notes in the margins, and these notes could later be accepted into the text, while hardly a later copyist would have dared to shorten sacred sayings to the point of making them incomprehensible. 2) The more difficult type of reading is older than the easier one, because no one was interested in introducing difficulty into the text, while alleviating the difficulty was a need for many. 3) Meaningless types of reading should be rejected, even if they have evidence from manuscripts. Here, of course, we do not understand thoughts that do not correspond in any way to our view, but those that stand in clear contradiction with other thoughts of the same writer and generally contradict the connection of thoughts in his work. 4) Types of reading from which one can explain the emergence of discrepancies should be preferred to parallel types of reading. 5) Only where the previously listed internal reasons do not say anything positive, it is necessary to resolve the issue based on the most ancient manuscripts and other witnesses. 6) Amendments without the evidence of manuscripts can be made only where the text transmitted by antiquity does not allow any satisfactory explanation to be made at all. But such amendments should not be made to the text, but perhaps only placed under a line of text. (Of the new critics of the text, Blass offers many corrections in his writings.) For the Orthodox interpreter, of course, when establishing the type of reading in difficult places, it is necessary to be guided primarily by church tradition, as it is given in the interpretations of the fathers and teachers of the Church. For this, translations of the works of the holy fathers (for example, St. Cyril of Alexandria) published by the Moscow Theological Academy can serve as an excellent tool. The word "Gospel" (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) in classical Greek was used to designate: a) the reward that is given to the messenger of joy (τῷ εὐαγγέλῳ), b) the sacrifice sacrificed on the occasion of the receipt of some good news or a holiday celebrated on the same occasion and c) this good news itself. In the New Testament this expression means: a) the good news that Christ reconciled people with God and brought us the greatest benefits - mainly founded the Kingdom of God on earth (Matthew 4:23), b) the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by Himself and His Apostles about Him as the King of this Kingdom, the Messiah and the Son of God (2 Cor. 4:4), c) all New Testament or Christian teaching in general, first of all, the narration of the most important events from the life of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1–4), and then an explanation of the meaning of these events (Rom. 1:16). d) Being actually the message about what God has done for our salvation and good, the Gospel at the same time calls people to repentance, faith and changing their sinful lives for a better one (Mark 1:15; Phil. 1:27). e) Finally, the word “Gospel” is sometimes used to designate the very process of preaching Christian teaching (Rom. 1:1). Sometimes the word “Gospel” is accompanied by a designation and its content. There are, for example, phrases: Gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23), i.e. the joyful news of the Kingdom of God, the Gospel of peace (Eph. 6:15), i.e. about peace, the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive case following the word “Gospel” means the author or source of the good news (Rom. 1:1, 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:8) or the person of the preacher (Rom. 2:16). For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself did not leave any records of His speeches and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were “unlearned and simple people” (Acts 4:13), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic time there were also very few “wise according to the flesh, strong” and “noble” (1 Cor. 1:26), and for most believers oral stories about Christ were of much greater importance than written ones. In this way, the apostles and preachers or evangelists “transmitted” (παραδιδόναι) the stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, and the believers “received” (παραλαμβάνειν) - but, of course, not mechanically, only with memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinical schools, but with all their souls, like would be something living and giving life. But this period of oral tradition was soon to end. On the one hand, Christians should have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as we know, denied the reality of Christ’s miracles and even argued that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have genuine stories about Christ from those persons who were either among His apostles or who were in close communication with eyewitnesses of the deeds of Christ. On the other hand, the need for a written presentation of the history of Christ began to be felt because the generation of the first disciples was gradually dying out and the ranks of direct witnesses to the miracles of Christ were thinning. Therefore, it was necessary to secure in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His entire speeches, as well as the stories of the apostles about Him. It was then that separate records began to appear here and there of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ. They most carefully recorded the words of Christ, which contained the rules of Christian life, and were much more free in communicating various events from the life of Christ, preserving only their general impression. Thus, one thing in these records, due to its originality, was transmitted everywhere in the same way, while the other was modified. These initial recordings did not think about the completeness of the story. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John (John 21:25), did not intend to report all the speeches and deeds of Christ. This is evident, by the way, from the fact that they do not contain, for example, the following saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). The Evangelist Luke reports about such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compile narratives about the life of Christ, but that they lacked proper completeness and that therefore they did not provide sufficient “affirmation” in the faith (Luke 1: 1–4). Our canonical Gospels apparently arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined to be approximately thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three Gospels are usually called synoptic in biblical scholarship, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be viewed in one without much difficulty and combined into one integral narrative (synoptics - from Greek - looking together). They began to be called Gospels individually, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name began to be given to the entire composition of the Gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “Gospel of Matthew”, “Gospel of Mark”, etc., then more correctly these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “Gospel according to Matthew”, “Gospel according to Mark” (κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον ). By this the Church wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is a single Christian gospel about Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, another to Mark, etc. Thus, the ancient Church looked upon the portrayal of the life of Christ in our four Gospels, not as different Gospels or narratives, but as one Gospel, one book in four types. That is why in the Church the name Four Gospels was established for our Gospels. Saint Irenaeus called them the “fourfold Gospel” (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον – see Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses liber 3, ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleaü Irenée Lyon. Contre les hérésies, livre 3, vol. 2 [Sources chrétiennes 211]. The Fathers of the Church dwell on the question: why exactly did the Church accept not one Gospel, but four? So St. John Chrysostom says: “Couldn’t one evangelist write everything that was needed. Of course, he could, but when four people wrote, they did not write at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring with each other, and for all that they wrote in such a way that everything seemed to be uttered by one mouth, then this serves as the strongest evidence of the truth. You will say: “What happened, however, was the opposite, for the four Gospels are often found to be in disagreement.” This very thing is a sure sign of truth. For if the Gospels had exactly agreed with each other in everything, even regarding the words themselves, then none of the enemies would have believed that the Gospels were not written according to ordinary mutual agreement. Now the slight disagreement between them frees them from all suspicion. For what they say differently regarding time or place does not in the least harm the truth of their narrative. In the main thing, which forms the basis of our life and the essence of preaching, not one of them disagrees with the other in anything or anywhere - that God became a man, worked miracles, was crucified, resurrected, and ascended into heaven.” (“Conversations on the Gospel of Matthew”, 1). Saint Irenaeus also finds a special symbolic meaning in the fourfold number of our Gospels. “Since there are four countries of the world in which we live, and since the Church is scattered throughout the entire earth and has its confirmation in the Gospel, it was necessary for it to have four pillars, spreading incorruptibility from everywhere and reviving the human race. The All-Ordering Word, seated on the Cherubim, gave us the Gospel in four forms, but permeated with one spirit. For David, praying for His appearance, says: “He who sits on the Cherubim, show Yourself” (Ps. 79:2). But the Cherubim (in the vision of the prophet Ezekiel and the Apocalypse) have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God.” Saint Irenaeus finds it possible to attach the symbol of a lion to the Gospel of John, since this Gospel depicts Christ as the eternal King, and the lion is the king in the animal world; to the Gospel of Luke - the symbol of the calf, since Luke begins his Gospel with the image of the priestly service of Zechariah, who slaughtered the calves; to the Gospel of Matthew - a symbol of a person, since this Gospel mainly depicts the human birth of Christ, and, finally, to the Gospel of Mark - a symbol of an eagle, because Mark begins his Gospel with a mention of the prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit flew, as if an eagle on wings" (Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses, liber 3, 11, 11-22). Among other Church Fathers, the symbols of the lion and the calf were moved and the first was given to Mark, and the second to John. Since the 5th century. in this form, the symbols of the evangelists began to be added to the images of the four evangelists in church painting. Mutual relationship of the Gospels Each of the four Gospels has its own characteristics, and most of all – the Gospel of John. But the first three, as mentioned above, have extremely much in common with each other, and this similarity involuntarily catches the eye even when reading them briefly. Let us first of all talk about the similarity of the Synoptic Gospels and the reasons for this phenomenon. Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “canons,” divided the Gospel of Matthew into 355 parts and noted that 111 of them were found in all three weather forecasters. In modern times, exegetes have developed an even more precise numerical formula for determining the similarities of the Gospels and have calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters rises to 350. In Matthew, then, 350 verses are unique to him, in Mark there are 68 such verses, in Luke - 541. Similarities are mainly noticeable in the transmission of the sayings of Christ, and differences - in narrative part. When Matthew and Luke literally agree with each other in their Gospels, Mark always agrees with them. The similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew (Lopukhin - in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. V. P. 173). It is also remarkable that some passages in all three evangelists follow the same sequence, for example, the temptation and the speech in Galilee, the calling of Matthew and the conversation about fasting, the plucking of ears of corn and the healing of the withered man, the calming of the storm and the healing of the Gadarene demoniac, etc. The similarity sometimes even extends to the construction of sentences and expressions (for example, in the quotation of the prophecy Mal. 3:1). As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a lot of them. Some things are reported by only two evangelists, others even by one. Thus, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ and report the story of the birth and first years of Christ’s life. Luke alone speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Some things one evangelist conveys in a more abbreviated form than another, or in a different connection than another. The details of the events in each Gospel are different, as are the expressions. This phenomenon of similarities and differences in the synoptic Gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been made to explain this fact. It seems more correct to think that our three evangelists used a common oral source for their narrative of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere preaching and repeated in different places in a more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer to those entering the Church. Thus, a certain certain type of oral Gospel was formed, and it is this type that we have in written form in our synoptic Gospels. Of course, at the same time, depending on the goal that this or that evangelist had, his Gospel took on some special features, characteristic only of his work. At the same time, we cannot exclude the assumption that an older Gospel could have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. Moreover, the difference between the weather forecasters should be explained by the different goals that each of them had in mind when writing his Gospel. As we have already said, the Synoptic Gospels differ in very many ways from the Gospel of John the Theologian. So they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, and the Apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In terms of content, the Synoptic Gospels also differ significantly from the Gospel of John. They give, so to speak, a more external image of the life, deeds and teachings of Christ and from the speeches of Christ they cite only those that were accessible to the understanding of the entire people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot from the activities of Christ, for example, he cites only six miracles of Christ, but those speeches and miracles that he cites have a special deep meaning and extreme importance about the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, while the Synoptics portray Christ primarily as the founder of the Kingdom of God and therefore direct the attention of their readers to the Kingdom founded by Him, John draws our attention to the central point of this Kingdom, from which life flows along the peripheries of the Kingdom, i.e. on the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, whom John portrays as the Only Begotten Son of God and as the Light for all mankind. That is why the ancient interpreters called the Gospel of John primarily spiritual (πνευματικόν), in contrast to the synoptic ones, as depicting predominantly the human side in the person of Christ (εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν), i.e. The gospel is physical. However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that just as the weather forecasters knew about the activity of Christ in Judea (Matthew 23:37, 27:57; Luke 10:38–42), so John has indications of the continued activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, the weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity (Matthew 11:27), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man (John 2:1 et seq.; John 8:40, etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the weather forecasters and John in their depiction of the face and work of Christ. Although criticism has long been expressed against the reliability of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not recognize the existence of Christ at all), however, all the objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are broken at the slightest collision with Christian apologetics. Here, however, we will not cite the objections of negative criticism and analyze these objections: this will be done when interpreting the text of the Gospels itself. We will only talk about the most important general reasons for which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of a tradition of eyewitnesses, many of whom lived to the era when our Gospels appeared. Why on earth would we refuse to trust these sources of our Gospels? Could they have made up everything in our Gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is not clear why the Christian consciousness would want - as the mythical theory claims - to crown the head of a simple Rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he didn't create them. And from here it follows that if Christ is said to be the Great Wonderworker, then it means that He really was like that. And why would it be possible to deny the authenticity of Christ’s miracles, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see 1 Cor. 15)? Bibliography of foreign works on the Four Gospels Bengel – Bengel J. Al. Gnomon Novi Testamentï in quo ex nativa verborum VI simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Berolini, 1860. Blass, Gram. – Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen, 1911. Westcott – The New Testament in Original Greek the text rev. by Brooke Foss Westcott. New York, 1882. B. Weiss – Weiss B. Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Gottingen, 1901. Yog. Weiss (1907) – Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei älteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. [Adolf Jülicher; Johannes Weiss; Rudolf Knopf; Hermann Zurhellen]. 2. Aufl. Gottingen, 1907. Godet – Godet F. Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Johannes. Hanover, 1903. De Wette – De Wette W.M.L. Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums Matthäi / Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Band 1, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1857. Keil (1879) – Keil C.F. Commentar über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Leipzig, 1879. Keil (1881) – Keil C.F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1881. Klostermann – Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Gottingen, 1867. Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857. Lagrange – Lagrange M.-J. Etudes bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911. Lange – Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861. Loisy (1903) – Loisy A.F. Le quatrième èvangile. Paris, 1903. Loisy (1907–1908) – Loisy A.F. Les èvangiles synoptiques, 1–2. [s.l.]: Ceffonds, près Montier-en-Der, 1907–1908. Luthardt – Luthardt Ch.E. Das johanneische Evangelium nach seiner Eigenthümlichkeit geschildert und erklärt. Nürnberg, 1876. Meyer (1864) – Meyer H.A.W. Kritisch exegetisches Commentar über das Neue Testament, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 1: Handbuch über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Gottingen, 1864. Meyer (1885) – Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar über das Neue Testament hrsg. von Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Abteilung 1, Hälfte 2: Bernhard Weiss B. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas. Göttingen, 1885. Meyer (1902) – Meyer H.A.W. Das Johannes-Evangelium 9. Auflage, bearbeitet von B. Weiss. Gottingen, 1902. Merx (1902) – Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902. Merx (1905) – Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905. Morison – Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. London, 1902. Stanton – Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Tholuck (1856) – Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856. Tholuck (1857) – Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857. Heitmüller - see Yog. Weiss (1907). Holtzmann (1901) – Holtzmann H.J. Die Synoptiker. Tubingen, 1901. Holtzmann (1908) – Holtzmann H.J. Evangelium, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes / Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von H. J. Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius etc. Bd. 4. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908. Zahn (1905) – Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Matthäus / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 1. Leipzig, 1905. Zahn (1908) – Zahn Th. Das Evangelium des Johannes ausgelegt / Commentar zum Neuen Testament, Teil 4. Leipzig, 1908. Schanz (1881) – Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Marcus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1881. Schanz (1885) – Schanz P. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes. Tubingen, 1885. Schlatter – Schlatter A. Das Evangelium des Johannes: ausgelegt für Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1903. Schürer, Geschichte – Schürer E., Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 1–4. Leipzig, 1901–1911. Edersheim (1901) – Edersheim A. The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 Vols. London, 1901. Ellen – Allen W.C. A critical and exegetical commentary of the Gospel according to st. Matthew. Edinburgh, 1907. Alford - Alford N. The Greek Testament in four volumes, vol. 1. London, 1863. With this meaning we encounter the term New Testament at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century after the Nativity of Christ, namely, in Clement of Alexandria († 180), in Tertullian († 220) and in Origen († 260). Some Western theologians have suggested that the present composition of the New Testament books is not complete, that it does not include the lost letters of the Apostle Paul - 3rd Corinthians (supposedly written between the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Corinthians), to the Laodiceans, to the Philippians (2nd). But, as will be shown in the interpretation of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, those passages from the Epistles of this apostle, which Western theologians refer to in support of their assumption, can be explained not as indications of supposedly lost Epistles. Moreover, it is impossible to admit that the Christian Church, which treated the apostles with such respect, and, in particular, the Apostle Paul, could completely lose any of the apostolic works. According to the view of some Protestant theologians, the New Testament canon is something accidental. Some writings, even non-apostolic ones, were simply lucky enough to end up in the canon, since for some reason they came into use in worship. And the canon itself, according to the majority of Protestant theologians, is nothing more than a simple catalog or list of books used in worship. On the contrary, Orthodox theologians see in the canon nothing more than the composition of the sacred New Testament books, betrayed by the Apostolic Church to subsequent generations of Christians, already recognized at that time. These books, according to Orthodox theologians, were not known to all Churches, perhaps because they either had a too specific purpose (for example, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of the Apostle John), or too general (the Epistle to the Hebrews), so it was unknown which Church to turn to for information regarding the name of the author of one or another such epistle. But there is no doubt that these were books that truly belonged to those persons whose names they bore. The Church did not accidentally accept them into the canon, but quite consciously, giving them the meaning that they actually had. The Jews had the word “ganuz”, which corresponds in meaning to the word “apocryphal” (from ἀποκρύπτειν - “to hide”) and was used in the synagogue to designate books that should not have been used during worship. However, this term did not contain any censure. But later, when the Gnostics and other heretics began to boast that they had “hidden” books, which supposedly contained the true apostolic teaching, which the apostles did not want to make available to the crowd, the Church, which collected the canon, already condemned these “hidden” books and began to look at them as “false, heretical, counterfeit” (decree of Pope Gelasius). Currently, 7 apocryphal Gospels are known, 6 of which complement, with various embellishments, the story of the origin, birth and childhood of Jesus Christ, and the seventh - the story of His condemnation. The oldest and most remarkable of them is the 1st Gospel of James, the brother of the Lord, then there are: the Greek Gospel of Thomas, the Greek Gospel of Nicodemus, the Arabic story of Joseph the treemaker, the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood of the Savior and, finally, the Latin Gospel of the birth of Christ from St. Mary and the story of the birth of Mary of the Lord and the childhood of the Savior. These apocryphal Gospels were translated into Russian by Archpriest. P.A. Preobrazhensky. In addition, some fragmentary apocryphal tales about the life of Christ are known (for example, Pilate’s letter to Tiberius about Christ). In ancient times, it should be noted, in addition to the apocryphal ones, there were also non-canonical Gospels that have not reached our time. They, in all likelihood, contained the same thing that is contained in our canonical Gospels, from which they took information. These were: the Gospel of the Jews - in all likelihood, the corrupted Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, the apostolic memorial records of Justin the Martyr, Tatian's Gospel in four ("Diatessaron" - a set of Gospels), the Gospel of Marcion - a distorted Gospel of Luke. Of the recently discovered tales of the life and teachings of Christ, noteworthy is the “Λόγια,” or words of Christ, a passage found in Egypt. This passage contains brief sayings of Christ with a brief opening formula: “Jesus says.” This is a fragment of extreme antiquity. From the history of the apostles, the recently discovered “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” deserves attention, the existence of which was already known to ancient church writers and which has now been translated into Russian. In 1886, 34 verses of the Apocalypse of Peter, which was known to Saint Clement of Alexandria, were found. It is also necessary to mention the various “acts” of the apostles, for example Peter, John, Thomas, etc., where information about the preaching works of these apostles was reported. These works undoubtedly belong to the category of so-called “pseudo-epigraphs”, i.e. classified as counterfeit. However, these “acts” were highly respected among ordinary pious Christians and were very common. Some of them were included, after a certain alteration, in the so-called “Acts of the Saints”, processed by the Bollandists, and from there Saint Demetrius of Rostov transferred them to our Lives of the Saints (Cheti Menaion). This can be said about the life and preaching activity of the Apostle Thomas. You might be interested in: