New Testament in the second century

Most of the second century, in relation to the New Testament, can be called the prehistoric period. The history of the New Testament for the first half of the second century cannot be successfully written simply due to the lack of historical sources. The church writing of the 2nd century that has survived to this day consists of apologetic and polemical works. Church writers of the 2nd century, on the one hand, defended and justified Christianity before pagan society and even before the Roman government; on the other hand, they conducted polemics with internal enemies, with heretics. The apologetic writings of church authors, obviously, cannot be sources for the history of the New Testament, since, turning to a pagan society or government, the apologists had no need or benefit to talk about their Christian sacred books, which had no meaning for the readers of the apologia. In polemical writing, on the contrary, the books of the New Testament were often the subject of direct discussion, precisely when heretical error itself concerned the New Testament books of the Christian Church. But this kind of heretical movements affecting the New Testament appeared already in the middle of the 2nd century. These heretical movements not only prompted church writers of the second century to talk about the books of the New Testament, but undoubtedly had a great influence on the very formation of the New Testament canon of the Church. The main heretical movements of the 2nd century concerning the New Testament were Marcionism and Montanism. The founder of Marcionism, Marcion, directly began with the question of the Holy Scriptures. From the very beginning, the Church adopted the Old Testament books as its doctrinal authority, along with the New Testament books. Marcion resolutely rejected the Old Testament, which, according to his teaching, originated from the prince who created the world, that is, from the Demiurge 1. There is no need to pour new wine into old wineskins; there is no need for new patches for old clothes - this means that there is no need to combine the New Testament with the Old 2. The two Testaments not only do not agree with each other, they are opposite in every way. Marcion wrote a special work, “Antitheses,” where he proved the difference between the New and Old Testaments 3 . Comparing certain passages of the Old and New Testaments, Marcion sometimes exclaims: “You see the difference between the law and the Gospel, Moses and Christ!” 4 The separation of the Gospel from the law was Marcion's main concern 5 . The voice of our God, said Marcion, did not speak about Moses or the prophets, but about Christ, saying: Hear ye Him 6. Christ Himself said: “Why do you think that I came to fulfill the law or the prophets? “I did not come to fulfill, but to destroy,” - this is how Marcion reworked Matthew 5:17, trying to bring the two Testaments into conflict 7. It is quite understandable that it was not easy for Marcion to prove the complete opposite of the two Testaments; There was much in the New Testament that contradicted its basic position about the enmity of the two Testaments. But Marcion was brave and consistent. It is not in vain that Tertullian says about him that he taught to believe the Gospel according to the “Antitheses” 8, since it agrees with his own thoughts. If “historical Christianity” is now so readily contrasted with the New Testament, then Marcion went even further: he contrasted Christ and the apostles. He convinced his disciples that he was more worthy of trust than the apostles 9, and even boasted, calling himself the corrector of the apostles 10. For Marcion, only Paul alone was a true apostle, and the others were pseudo-apostles, since they practiced Judaism in the gospel preaching and introduced Jewish concepts into it 11 . Therefore, along with the Old Testament, the apostolic writings should be discarded, except for the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Paul’s disciple and follower of Luke. Based on his tendentious views on the opposition of the Old and New Testaments, Marcion subjected a critical revision to the church New Testament, and the revision was bold and decisive: Marcion rejected entire books and remade in his own way those that he left. Tertullian wittily notes that in his critical work on the New Testament, Marcion used not style, but a sword, not a pen, but an ax 12. Marcion composed his own special New Testament for his churches. This New Testament consisted of two parts: εὐαγγέλιον and ἀποστολικόν (of course βιβλίον), the Gospel and the Apostle. Marcion's Gospel did not have any other inscription, for example with the name of the author, but it was a fairly significant revision of the Gospel of Luke 13. “He accepts only the Gospel according to Luke, truncated at the beginning, because it tells about the conception of the Savior and His coming in the flesh. But not only did he cut off the beginning, damaging himself more than the Gospel, but at the end and in the middle he cut off many words of truth, and added other things beyond what was written. And he uses this one type of Gospel according to Luke” 14. Marcion omitted more than 300 verses from the Gospel of Luke; made changes to the text in 60 verses of the Gospel 15. “He has ten epistles of the holy apostle; He uses only these, and not everything written in them, but he cuts off some chapters in them and changes others. Here are the two books he uses. The epistles recognized by him are the following: first - Epistle to the Galatians, second - Epistle to the Corinthians, third - Epistle to the Second Corinthians, fourth - Epistle to the Romans, fifth - Epistle to the Thessalonians, sixth - Epistle to the Second Thessalonians, seventh - Epistle to the Ephesians, eighth - Epistle to the Colossians, ninth - Epistle to Philemon, tenth - Epistle to the Philippians. He also accepts in parts the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans” 16. These words of Epiphanius require some correction. Epiphanius himself just spoke about the ten epistles of Paul accepted by Marcion, but at the end he adds another epistle to the Laodiceans and then even calls this epistle the eleventh 17 . But from this epistle Epiphanius twice cites only one verse, which completely coincides with Eph.4:5 18. Epiphanius obviously has a misunderstanding, and it can be corrected on the basis of Tertullian, who devotes the entire fifth book of his work “Against Marcion” to the analysis of ἀποστολικόν. Here Tertullian definitely states that under the name of the epistle to the Laodiceans (obviously, on the basis of Col. 4:16), Marcion knew the Epistle to the Ephesians 19. In addition, Epiphanius puts the Epistle to the Philippians in last place, and in the penultimate place - to Philemon; for Tertullian it is the other way around. Tertullian's order may be preferred, since the epistle to Philemon, written to one person, naturally had to take place after the epistles addressed to entire Churches. After all, Marcion rejected the epistles to Titus and Timothy, by the way, because they were written to individuals 20 . Marcion gave the epistles of the Apostle Paul a special order in his “Apostle”, placing first the Epistle to the Galatians, an epistle that was especially important for him due to the information about the “discord” between the Apostles Paul and Peter over the observance of Jewish customs. This “feud” served as Marcion’s starting point 21. Marcion declared the New Testament compiled in this form to be the only legal one (legitima) 22. Thus, Marcion acted as a decisive critic and reformer of the New Testament: he reduced its composition by no less than half. It is quite understandable that the struggle with Marcion prompted him to defend the belonging to the New Testament of those books that Marcion removed from it. The Montanists had a different attitude towards the New Testament. Montanism was a new prophecy. This is what the Montanists themselves called themselves, and this is what their opponents—church writers—said about them. The church historian Eusebius cites a message from an unknown author (“anonymous”) about the beginning of Montanism. “Someone named Montanus, from among the new believers, from an excessive desire for primacy was influenced by the enemy and suddenly, having entered into a state of obsession and frenzy, began to speak and tell strange things, that is, prophesying contrary to the custom that had been faithful since ancient times” 23. The birthplace of Montanism is Phrygia, where frenzied eastern cults, such as the cult of Cybele, were widespread. Montanistic prophecy is a phenomenon of the same order. According to historical data, it was exclusively ecstatic. Montanist prophets did not control themselves, “speaking senselessly, inappropriately and strangely” 24. Their words were the words of ecstatics - ἐκστατικοῦ όηματα 25. Montand said: “Here is a man - like a lyre, and I touch him, as if it were rattling; the man is asleep, and I am awake; behold, the Lord brings people’s hearts into a frenzy and gives people a heart” 26 . It was not in vain that in defense of the Montanistic prophecy, Tertullian wrote (which has not reached us) the work “On Ecstasy” 27. For Tertullian, ecstasy was deprivation of senses, a kind of madness 28. “When a person is in the spirit, especially when he contemplates the glory of God or when God speaks through him, he necessarily emerges from feeling, darkened (obumbratus) by Divine power; there is a dispute about this between us and the psychics” 29. Indeed, church writers, for example Miltiades, first of all rejected the ecstatic form of prophecy, arguing that the prophet should not speak in a frenzy - μή δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν 30. Because of its ecstatic form, Montanist prophecy was called “new.” According to Tertullian, what makes Montanists spiritual is the recognition of spiritual gifts, which “psychics” do not recognize 31 . The recognition and defense of the Paraclete separated the Montanists from the Church 32. The ecstatic prophets of Montanism made very great claims. “I am the Lord God Almighty, abiding in man,” said, for example, Montanus 33 . “Don’t listen to me, but listen to Christ,” cried Maximilla; obviously indicating that Christ speaks through her mouth 34 . “I am the Father, and the Son, and the Paraclete,” Montanus said 35. Among the Montanists, their prophets enjoyed very high authority, as St. Hippolytus of Rome says. “They, heretics by nature, Phrygians by birth, conquered by women, a certain Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom they consider to be prophetesses, saying that in them they received the Spirit of the Paraclete, have gone astray, and before them a certain Montanus is equally glorified as a prophet; having their endless books (βιβλίους ἀπε ί ρους), they wander, not discussing with reason what they say and not listening to those who can judge, but without reasoning they are guided by faith in them, saying that from them they have learned something more than from the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels. These women are exalted above the apostles and every spiritual gift, so that some of them dare to say that there is something greater than Christ in them” 36 . The writer who supplemented Tertullian’s work “De praescriptione haereticorum” also claims about the Montanists that they said that the Apostles had the Holy Spirit, but there was no Paraclete; The paraclete through Montana said more than Christ in the Gospel, and not only more, but even better and higher 37. A zealous defender of Montanism, Tertullian tries to assure that the new prophets do not deny Christ with His New Testament revelation. Heresy always distorts the Rule of Faith 38, and the Paraclete does not introduce anything new 39. The paraclete is only the vicar of the Lord 40. “We and they (psychics) have the same faith, the same God, the same Christ, the same hope, the same sacrament of baptism. In a word, we are one Church" 41. However, church opponents of Montanism did not agree with this, and not only because, as Tertullian venomously notes, Montanist prophets teach to fast more often than to marry, 42 that is, they establish strict discipline. After all, Tertullian himself developed a special theory of the gradual improvement of revelation, comparing revelation to a tree that gradually grows from grain. At first the truth of God was in its infancy, then through the law and the prophets it was brought to infancy; then through the Gospel - until youth; finally, through the Paraclete she comes to adulthood 43. But if so, then, obviously, the Paraclete replaces Christ with His revelation. Tertullian only avoids openly making such a conclusion, although he speaks of the advantages of the Paraclete over the apostles. If Christ rejected the institutions of Moses, why should the Paraclete not reject what Paul established? 44 The Apostle Paul speaks of the future age: When that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away with (1 Cor. 13:10). Montanists saw here a prophecy about the times of the Paraclete, when the perfect will come. Didymus of Alexandria 45 argues with this opinion of the Montanists. This opinion is also noticeable in Tertullian, who calls the Apostle Paul the promise of future gifts 46. Obviously, Montanism came forward with a new revelation, which was supposed to replace the revelation of Christ and the apostles contained in the New Testament. Members of a Church that does not recognize the Paraclete are people of one soul and flesh, without spirit 47 , while Montanists are spiritual people 48 . The faith of psychics is spiritual, animalis 49. Thus, the Montanists even more sharply slandered the entire catholic celestial Church 50 . For us in the present case, it is especially important that the Montanistic revelation may have created its own sacred books, so to speak, of the “newest testament.” The question of whether the Montanists had special sacred books is controversial, since there is not enough historical data to resolve it. One thing is certain: the sayings of the Montanist prophets were an authority and were preserved in one way or another. We have already seen that even later church writers - Epiphanius of Cyprus and Didymus of Alexandria - cite literally the sayings of the Montanist prophets. Hippolytus of Rome testifies that from Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla the Montanists have “endless books”, that they honor the words of the prophets above the Gospels (see above). Tertullian himself repeatedly quotes the words of the Paraclete literally, moreover, as if he were taking them from some collection. In his essay “On Flight in Persecution,” after the words of the New Testament, he cites the words of the Paraclete. “So and in another place...” (Sic et alibi). Another saying 51 follows. Otherwise, the words of the Paraclete are given as follows: “I have the Paraclete himself speaking in the new prophets” 52. Or: “About them and the Paraclete through the prophetess Prisca...” 53 Anonymous in Eusebius quotes the words of Maximilla with the following remark: “Let not the spirit speak through Maximilla in the same word according to Asterius Orvanus” 54. There was some kind of book, probably with the following Greek title: Λόγος κατὰ Ἀστέπιον Ὀρβανόν. The title resembles the inscription of the Gospels. The late 2nd century writer Apollonius reports about the Montanist Themison: “He dared, imitating the Apostle, to compose a certain catholic epistle (καθολικήν τινα ἐπιστολήν), to instruct those who believe better than he, to defend vain doctrine, to blaspheme the Lord, apostles and the Holy Church" 55. At the very beginning of the 3rd century, the most learned man Guy conducted a debate in Rome with the Montanist Proclus. The dispute was recorded, and the record was preserved until the time of the historian Eusebius. Eusebius incidentally reports that Gaius in this conversation denounces the rashness and insolence of his opponents in compiling new writings (καινὰς γραφάς) 56. Perhaps all these historical data are not enough to recognize that the Montanists compiled a third, “newest testament,” but there is no doubt that the sayings of the Montanist prophets were no less authoritative for the Montanists than the words of Christ and the apostles, and sometimes even were the highest authority. Sometimes Tertullian himself is inclined to call the entire Holy Scripture of both Testaments, in comparison with the revelation of the Paraclete, “previous scripture,” pristina instrumenta, and the new prophecy will reveal everything incomprehensible in Scripture, all parables, and Tertullian calls for drawing perfect teaching from this source 57 . Subsequently, we will see that church writers, in contrast to Montanism, insist on the completeness of the New Testament revelation and the New Testament canon. Obviously, it was precisely from this side that the danger of Montanism lay: it fundamentally opened the door to the composition of the sacred books to the latest sayings of exalted prophets. So, two prominent heretical movements of the second half of the 2nd century - Marcionism (partly Gnosticism) and Montanism - significantly affected the church treasure of the New Testament: the Marcionites shortened the New Testament; the Montanists, on the contrary, were inclined to spread it. The church writers had a double task: against the Marcionites to defend the belonging of the sacred books rejected by Marcion to the New Testament, and against the Montanists to count more accurately the New Testament books and protect their composition from the invasion of the newest works of false prophecy. In both cases, church writers were forced to talk about the composition of the New Testament. Such reasoning by church writers begins precisely in the second half of the 2nd century and is very important for the history of the New Testament in the ancient Church. In addition, when polemicizing with heretics, church writers sometimes cite many New Testament passages. These quotes also make it possible to judge the composition of the New Testament in one or another Local Church of that time. One should only constantly remember that the absence of mention of one or another New Testament book does not always mean that the church writer or his Church did not have this book. Writers do not quote some books simply because there was no reason to do so. Yes, some New Testament books provide too little reason to mention them or quote texts from them. These are the little epistles of Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, to Philemon. It is quite possible that we will not find a single text from such messages in the complete collection of works of some of our contemporary church epistles and writers, and this will not, of course, mean that [they] are not in our church use. One might think that Marcionism and Montanism not only encouraged church writers to talk about the composition of the New Testament, but also generally forced the Church to more accurately calculate its written apostolic inheritance. The independence of local church life in the 2nd century also affected the New Testament. Individual Churches differed among themselves and in the composition of the New Testament canon. After all, the New Testament was not defined in a compulsory composition for everyone, and the books of the New Testament Holy Scripture were distributed gradually. In addition, church writers quite freely used sources other than the original apostolic writings. The writers of the 2nd century received many different and oral traditions, sometimes corresponding to reality, and sometimes deviating from it. These traditions were often used on a par with the books of the apostles. However, the legends soon became embellished with inventions and additions. Legends of a legendary nature appeared. Especially many such legends appeared among the Gnostics. Each Gnostic sect had its own tradition, either from James, the brother of the Lord 58, then from the Apostle Philip 59, then from Matthias, chosen to replace Judas 60, then from Glaucius, the translator of Petrov, or from Theudas, Pavlov’s companion 61. Even the ineffable verbs that the Apostle Paul heard when he was caught up to the third heaven were conveyed here (see: 2 Cor. 12:2–4) 62. It is quite clear that with the previous difference in the New Testament canon in individual Churches and with a free attitude towards Scripture and tradition, the Church, after the appearance of the Gnostics (especially the Marcionites) and Montanists, could no longer remain. It was necessary to accurately draw a definite boundary between the canonical, truly apostolic and sacred, and between the non-canonical, not truly apostolic, sometimes useful and edifying, and sometimes positively harmful and false. That is why the history of the New Testament canon in the full sense of the word begins from the time of the Church’s struggle with Gnosticism and Montanism. Earlier lies the prehistoric period, when the composition of the New Testament was almost not a church-wide issue, but was only a local church issue. The polemical writings of church writers of the 2nd century give us the opportunity to find out what the composition of the New Testament was at the end of the 2nd century in different Churches. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient and definite information about all Churches. In particular, news about the Eastern Churches is very insufficient. New Testament in the Church of Lyons towards the end of the second century Regarding the apostolic time, we, based on the data of the New Testament itself, made the assumption that the New Testament books should first of all have been collected in Ephesus, and there, earlier than anywhere else, the New Testament canon of sacred books could have been compiled under the supervision of the Apostle John the Theologian and Timothy. But we know least about the state of the New Testament at the end of the 2nd century in the Church of Ephesus, as well as in the Churches of Asia Minor in general. We can look for echoes of the Asia Minor canon in the West, with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the most prominent writers of the time in question. The Churches of Asia Minor generally had some special connection with the Church of Lyons, in southern Gaul. When, for example, around 177, persecution broke out in Lyon, the Lyon Christians sent a special essay on the martyrs to the Asian and Phrygian Churches, where they told about everything that happened 63 . At the end of the 2nd century, the Lyons Church was ruled by Saint Irenaeus, who was born and raised in Asia Minor, probably in Smyrna, and in his early youth listened to Polycarp, a disciple of John the Theologian 64. Saint Irenaeus was in constant contact with the Roman Church, where he had close acquaintances, since he himself had visited Rome. Living up to his name, Saint Irenaeus acted as a peacemaker in the dispute over the celebration of Easter between the Roman Bishop Victor and the Christians of Asia Minor 65. Thus, Saint Irenaeus can be for us a witness not only of the Lyon Church, but partly of the Roman Church and Asia Minor. He, one might say, connects the end of the 2nd century with the apostolic time. What does St. Irenaeus tell us about the New Testament? We do not find in him a detailed calculation of all the New Testament books, but his extensive polemical work “Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge,” written in the 80s of the 2nd century, is filled with texts of the New Testament. St. Irenaeus has more than a thousand texts, sometimes quite extensive. Saint Irenaeus speaks precisely and definitely about the number of Gospels. The talk about the Gospels in Irenaeus is prompted precisely by the attitude of various Gnostics towards them. Heretics themselves turn to the Gospels for confirmation of their teachings, but choose one from the total number of Gospels. The Ebionites use only the Gospel of Matthew. Marcion shortened the Gospel of Luke for himself. “Those who separate Jesus from Christ and say that Christ did not suffer, but Jesus suffered, give preference to the Gospel of Mark.” The followers of Valentine mainly use the Gospel of John 66. In contrast to the heretics, Saint Irenaeus asserts that there are, and should be, exactly four Gospels, no more and no less. “Since there are four countries of the world in which we live, and four main winds, and since the Church is scattered throughout the whole earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, then it must have four pillars, breathing incorruption from everywhere and reviving people. From this it is clear that the Logos, who arranges everything, sits on the Cherubim and contains everything, having revealed himself to people, gave us a four-shaped Gospel (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), but imbued with one Spirit - the Cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of activity Son of God. Such is the mode of action of the Son of God, such is the form of animals, such is the character of the Gospel. The animals are four-shaped, and the Gospel and the activity of the Lord are four-shaped. And therefore, four main covenants were given to humanity: one - under Adam before the flood, another - after the flood under Noah, the third - legislation under Moses, the fourth, renewing man and leading everything in itself - through the Gospel. In this state of affairs, all those who distort the idea of ​​the Gospel and introduce types of the Gospel more or less than what have been said are vain and ignorant and, moreover, impudent.”67 Here we see in Irenaeus not a historical study of the Gospels, but a symbolic reasoning about their fourfold number. For Irenaeus, the fourfold number of the Gospels seems to be a well-known fact for a long time. He is already delving deeper into reflection on this fact and notices the coincidence of the number of Gospels with the general, so to speak, plan for the peacemaking activity of the Divine Logos. Even earlier, Saint Irenaeus spoke about when and under what circumstances each of the Gospels was written. “We learned about the arrangement of our salvation not through anyone else, but through those through whom the Gospel came to us, which they then preached, and then, by the will of God, handed over to us in the scriptures as the future foundation and pillar of our faith. After our Lord rose from the dead and they were clothed from above with the power of the descending Holy Spirit, they were filled with everything and received perfect knowledge, they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good news that was [given] to us from God, and proclaiming heavenly peace to people who, both together and individually, have the Gospel of God. So, Matthew wrote to the Jews in their own language and published the gospel scriptures when Peter and Paul preached in Rome and founded the Church. After their departure, Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, himself, conveyed to us in writing what Peter preached. And Luke, Paul’s companion, set out the Gospel he preached in a book. After John, a disciple of the Lord and reclining on His chest, he published the Gospel while staying in Ephesus in Asia 68 . It should be noted here that, according to Saint Irenaeus, the evangelists handed over their Gospels to the Church as the foundations of faith. For the sake of the Church, the Gospels were written and the Church was deposited. The Church, which existed continuously, genuinely observed the Scriptures, not accepting any addition or subtraction from the reading of the Scriptures without distortion 69. So, first of all, Saint Irenaeus seems to have a completely defined and complete canon of the four Gospels. In his polemic with Marcion, Saint Irenaeus persistently proves that the book of the Acts of the Apostles belongs to the New Testament. Luke was not only a companion, but also a collaborator of the apostles, especially Paul, as the Apostle Paul himself speaks about this (see: 2 Tim. 4:10–11). In his book he described what he himself saw 70. Marcion accepted the Gospel of Luke as Paul's companion, but rejected the book of Acts. Irenaeus brings this inconsistency to light. It is necessary either to accept everything said by Luke, or to abandon the Gospel. If Marcion's followers reject Acts, then they are left with no Gospel 71. Unfortunately, Saint Irenaeus does not name the number of epistles of the Apostle Paul, but he has many texts from almost all of Paul’s epistles: up to 78 from the Epistle to the Romans, up to 78 from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, up to 15 from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, up to 28 from the Epistle to the Galatians, up to 26 from the Epistle to the Ephesians, up to 10 from the Epistle to the Philippians, up to 15 from Colossians, 2 from 1 Thessalonians, 9 from 2 Thessalonians, 5 from 1 Timothy, 5 from 2 and 3 from Titus. It should be noted, however, that Saint Irenaeus does not cite the texts dumbly, but with reference to a specific letter of the Apostle Paul. Here are examples of such links. “Paul explained this by writing to the Romans - scribens ad Romanos” 72. “The apostle showed very clearly in the Epistle to the Corinthians - in epistola quae est ad Corinthios” 73. “Paul said openly in 2 Corinthians – in secunda ad Corinthios” 74. “In the Epistle to the Galatians (quae est ad Galatas), he says” 75. “Blessed Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ἐν τ ῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολ ῇ) says” 76. "Paul speaks to the Philippians" 77. “In the Epistle to the Colossians he says” 78. “The Apostle explained in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians saying - in prima epistola ad Thessalonicenses” 79 . “The Apostle in the Epistle, which is the second to the Thessalonians, says so” 80. “Paul mentions this Line in his letters to Timothy - ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολαῖς" 81. “Paul said: deny the heretic of man at the first and second admonition - Titus 3:10" 82. Saint Irenaeus makes no mention of the Epistle to Philemon, but this, of course, is only because he did not have the opportunity to quote any text from this short epistle. In terms of its content, the Epistle to Philemon is not at all such that it is necessary to cite evidence from it in the fight against heretics of the 2nd century. In the other Churches of the West during the time of St. Irenaeus, the Epistle to Philemon was undoubtedly among the books of the New Testament. The question of the attitude of St. Irenaeus to the Epistle to the Hebrews requires special research. Saint Irenaeus does not mention this epistle as much as he does other epistles of the Apostle Paul. From it he does not cite a single text denouncing heretics. The only text (13, 15) from the Epistle to the Hebrews is found in only one of the so-called Pfaffian passages, but these passages (three in number) are undoubtedly forged. By chance, texts from the Epistle to the Hebrews (as is permissible in relation to the Epistle to Philemon) could not have been absent from St. Irenaeus, since in the fight against heretics there were many reasons to quote the words of the Apostle Paul from this epistle. Consequently, for St. Irenaeus, the Epistle to the Hebrews does not belong to the New Testament, it is not a sacred New Testament book that can be referred to as an indisputable sacred authority. However, in the surviving writings of the holy father one can find traces of his acquaintance with the Epistle to the Hebrews. Point out up to ten passages that resemble the words of the book of Hebrews. We will present those places where the coincidence is most noticeable. Hebrews 1:3: Upholding all things by the word of His power... St. Irenaeus: God, who by the Word of His power creates and creates everything visible and invisible 83 . Hebrews 1:13: Whenever he said to one of the angels... sit on the right hand... To the Word to whom alone He said: Sit at My right hand, etc. (Ps. 109:1) 84. Hebrews 3:5: Moses was faithful in all His house, as a servant... To the faithful servant of God and prophet Moses 85. Hebrews 10:1: The Law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of things... External purifications were given as an image of the future, since the law depicted, as it were, a shadow and represented the eternal in the temporal 86. Thus, Saint Irenaeus knew the Epistle to the Hebrews, but did not refer to it as a book of the New Testament. This same position is confirmed by some later evidence. Eusebius of Caesarea read the works of St. Irenaeus that have not survived to this day and reports: “There is (St. Irenaeus) a book of various discussions (διαλέξεων sermons?), in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, citing some sayings from them” 87. As St. Irenaeus mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, Eusebius does not say, but Patriarch Photius in his famous “Library” describes the work of Stephen Tovar, where, among other things, it was reported about Irenaeus that he did not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Paul’s (οὐκ ἐκείνου ε ἶ ναι) 88 . Stefan Tovar, therefore, says that Irenaeus still knew the Epistle to the Hebrews. So, in the New Testament of the Lyons Church under St. Irenaeus there were thirteen epistles of the Apostle Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews was also known, but it was not considered to belong to the books of the New Testament. If at the head of the Lyons Church there was a bishop of Asia Minor, who through his teacher Polycarp was even connected with the Apostle John the Theologian, then we can assume in advance that the New Testament of the Lyons Church should contain all the writings of the Apostle John. Saint Irenaeus does not name the number of John’s conciliar epistles, but he has literally quoted texts from the first two epistles, although he expresses himself as if he knows only one epistle. Saint Irenaeus writes: “John, the disciple of the Lord, in his epistle testifies to us in this way.” The following is an extract from the First Epistle of John (1 John 2:18–22). A little lower we read: “John commanded in his above-mentioned letter.” But here we already meet 7th and 8th Art. The Second Epistle of John. And then directly: “And he speaks again in the epistle,” two verses from the First Epistle are cited (1 John 4:1-2). A few lines later: “...He also says in the epistle,” and again a verse from the First Epistle (1 John 5:1) 89. Obviously, there is a common inaccuracy of expression here, which is why we often say now: “The Apostle Paul writes in his Epistle to the Corinthians,” etc. etc., as if we only know one Epistle to the Corinthians. There is no doubt, therefore, that in the New Testament of St. Irenaeus there were two letters of the Apostle John the Theologian 90. But we can assume that all three John’s epistles were there. The third epistle of John, in its content, like the Epistle to Philemon, gives too little reason to quote texts from it; Moreover, it is so short. The absence of texts from the Third Epistle in Saint Irenaeus may be a simple coincidence. Meanwhile, it is difficult to admit that Saint Irenaeus in his New Testament had the Second Epistle of John and did not have the Third; in the history of the New Testament canon, as we will see many times later, these two epistles seem to be inextricably linked: they are either absent together, or together they are included in the New Testament of one or another Church. The Apocalypse of John the Theologian is undoubtedly ranked by St. Irenaeus among the books of the New Testament. Saint Irenaeus has up to 29 texts from the Apocalypse. There is one saying from it in the letter of the Lyons and Vienne Churches to the Asian and Phrygian Churches about persecution. Usually, citing texts from the Apocalypse, Saint Irenaeus expresses himself as follows: “John (sometimes added: disciple of the Lord) speaks in Revelation” 91. Saint Irenaeus also calls the Apocalypse “Scripture” 92, considering its revelations announced by the Holy Spirit 93. The Apocalypse is also called Scripture (γραφή) in the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne 94. Saint Irenaeus also speaks about the origin of the Apocalypse. “The revelation was not long before our time, but almost in our century (ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς), at the end of the reign of Domitian 95. Saint Irenaeus even mentions the best and most ancient lists of the Apocalypse, where the number of the beast is 666, and not 616 96. Of the other conciliar epistles, Saint Irenaeus definitely speaks of only one First Epistle of the Apostle Peter, to which he has up to 9 references. Sometimes Saint Irenaeus quotes texts from this epistle as “As Peter says in his epistle” 97. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that Saint Irenaeus had only one Epistle of Peter in his New Testament; however, nothing is known at all about whether his New Testament also contained the Second Epistle of Peter. Saint Irenaeus does not mention the epistles of Jude and James and does not cite texts from them. About the Epistle of Jude it can still be assumed that Saint Irenaeus knew it. This can be assumed on the basis that, as we will see, this message was generally known in the West (in Rome and Carthage) among the New Testament books. Regarding the Epistle of James, on the contrary, it can be assumed that it was not in the New Testament of the Lyons Church; it is unknown in other Western Churches, not only in the 2nd century, but for a long time after. In addition, there is reason to assume that St. Irenaeus in his New Testament had some other books as authoritative and sacred. In one place of his essay “Against Heresies,” Saint Irenaeus proves that the world was created by God, and proves this with various texts of Holy Scripture. First, he cites a verse (Gen. 1:26) from the book of Genesis; then he continues: “...The Scripture speaks well (ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα) - follows an extract from the first commandment of the “Shepherd” of Hermas, the work of one of the charismatic prophets, written around the middle of the 2nd century. Further: “The prophet Malachi also says well...” (Mal.2:10). “According to this the apostle also says...” (Eph.4:6). “Likewise the Lord said...” (Matthew 11:27) 98. Thus, Saint Irenaeus refers to “The Shepherd” along with the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The words from the “Shepherd” stand among the words of the book of Genesis and the prophet Malachi, and the “Shepherd” itself is called Scripture. Eusebius says about Irenaeus that he not only knew the “Shepherd”, but also accepted him 99. Summarizing everything that has been said about the Lyon Church, we can draw the following general conclusion: by the end of the 2nd century in the New Testament of the Lyon Church there were four Gospels, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of the Apostle Paul (except the Epistle to the Hebrews), the Apocalypse, three epistles of John the Theologian, one of Peter and, perhaps, the Epistle of Jude, as well as the “Shepherd” of Hermas. Although the Epistle to the Hebrews was known to St. Irenaeus, it did not belong to the New Testament canon. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of James were also not in the canon. New Testament in the second century The article is a continuation of the study of the history of the formation of the canon of New Testament Scripture. Archimandrite Hilarion considers the place of the books of the New Testament in the Christian Church in the next historical period - the time of apologists and authors of anti-Gnostic polemics. Epiphanius. Panarius. 42, 4. Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV, 1, 6. PL. T. 2. Col. 390A, 397A. Ibid. IV, 34.PL. T. 2. Col. 472B. Ibid. I, 19.PL. T. 2. Col. 293A. Ibid. IV, 34.PL. T. 2. Col. 473 C-D. Isidore Pelusiot. Book 1. Letter 371. Adv. Marc. IV, 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 390A. Iren. Contra haer. I, 22, 3. Adv. Marc. V, 19.PL. T. 2. Col. 532C. De praescr, 38. PL. T. 2. Col. 62C. Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV, 2.PL. T. 2. Col. 392C. Epiphanius. Panarius. 42, 9. See more details: Theological Bulletin. 1911. T. 2. pp. 500–503. Right there. 42, 11. PG. T. 41. Col. 721C. Creations. Part 2. M., 1864. P. 159. Right there. See also: Ibid. Col. 812B. P. 254. Adv. Marc. V, 11: "Epistola, quam nos ad ephesios habemus, haeretici vero ad laodicenos." P.L. T. 2. Col. 532C. Cfr.: Ibid. V, 17: “Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit.” Col. 544–545. Ibid. V, 21.PL. T. 2. Col. 556B. Ibid. IV, 3; Ibid. V, 2.PL. T. 2. Col. 393B-C, 502B. Iren. Contra haer. III, 12, 12. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 16, 7. Epiphanius. Panarius. 48, 4. Hieron. Devir. ill. 40, 53. De anima cap. 45: extasin dicimus excessum sensus et amentiae instar. P.L. T. 2. Col. 770A. Adv. Marc. IV, 22.PL. T. 2. Col. 443B. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 17, 1. See also Epiphanius (Panarius. 48, 3), who here uses an ancient anti-montanist work. De monog. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 979B, 980A. Adv. Prax. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 179A. Epiphanius. Panarius. 48, 11. Didum. Alex. De Trinit. III, 41, 1. PG. T. 39. Col. 984B. Philos. VIII, 19. PG. T. 16, 3366C-D. Cfr.: Ibid. X, 25: "Τοῖς λόγοις ύπὲρ τὰ εὐαγγέλια προσέχοντες πλανῶνται." Col. 3439C. Ibid. 52.PL. T. 2. Col. 91A. De monog. 2.PL. T. 2. Col. 980–981. Ibid. 3.PL. T. 2. Col. 983B. De virg. vel. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 937C. Ibid 2.PL. T. 2. Col. 939A. De iieun. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 1005A. De virg. vel. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 938A-B. De monog. 14.PL. T. 2. Col. 1000A. De Trinit. III, 41, 2. PG. T. 39. Col. 984C sgg. De anima. 9.PL. T. 2. Col. 701B. De iieun. 17.PL. T. 2. Col. 1029A. De pudic. 21.PL. T. 2. Col. 1080B. De iieun. 1.PL. T. 2. Col. 1004C. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 16, 9. De fuga. 9.PL. T. 2. Col. 133C-D. De pudic. 21.PL. T. 2. Col. 1078B. De resurr. carn 11.PL. T., 3. Col. 854–855. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 16, 17. De resurr. carn 63.PL. T. 2. Col. 934B-C. Hippol. Philos. V, 7. PG. T. 16. Col. 3126C. Epiphanius. Panarius. 26, 13. Hippol. Philos. VII, 20. PG. T. 16. Col. 3302B. Clem. Alex. Strom. II, 9, 45; VII, 13, 82; VII, 17, 108. Clem. Alex Strom. VIII, 17, 106. Hippol. Philos. V, 8. PG. T. 16. Col. 3146C-3147A. Tertull. De praescr. 24.PL. T. 2. Col. 43A. Iren. Contra haer. II, 30, 7. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 1. Contra haer. III, 11, 7. Cfr.: Ibid. 1, 20, 2; Ibid. III, 12, 13; Ibid. III, 14, 4. Ibid II, 28, 7. Both Saint Irenaeus and the Apostle Paul speak of the superiority of the Word in comparison with all creatures, and both cite the same text from the psalm. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 26. Cod. 232. Pholii Bibliotheca ex recensione immanuelis Bekkeri. Berolini, 1824. P. 291b. Omitted from original p. 389 However, Eusebius claims that Irenaeus mentions only the First Epistle of John, citing a lot of evidence from it. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 8, 7. See: Contra haer. I, 26, 3; IV, 14, 2; IV, 17, 6; IV, 18, 6; IV, 20, 11; IV, 21, 3; IV, 30, 4; V, 26, 1; V, 28, 2; V, 35, 2. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 1, 58. Contra haer. V, 30, 3. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 8, 6. Contra haer. V, 30, 1. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 8, 5. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. V, 8, 7. You might be interested in: