Dear users and visitors of our site! We have decided to remove from our library the writings of Protestant theologian from Scotland, Professor William Barclay. Despite the popularity of the works of this author among inquisitive readers, we believe that his works should not be placed on a par with the works of Orthodox writers and preachers, including the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church.

Many of William Barclay's thoughts can be judged as sound. Nevertheless, in his writings, in fundamental moments, there are such ideas that are a conscious deviation from the Truth, being "a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey." Here is what the English Wikipedia writes about his views:

skepticism about the Trinity: for example, "Nowhere identifies Jesus with God";

faith in universal salvation;

evolution: “We believe in evolution, slowly rising up from the human to the level of the beast. Jesus is the end and culmination of the evolutionary process, because in Him people meet God. The danger of the Christian faith is that we have created Jesus as a kind of secondary God. The Bible never makes a second God to Jesus, but rather emphasizes Jesus' complete dependence on God."

For example, in analyzing the prologue of the Gospel of John and speaking of Christ, Barclay writes, “When John says that the Word was God, he does not say that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so the same as God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is, ”which gives reason to believe that he recognized the Evangelist’s attitude to Christ not as to one of the Persons of the absolutely One and Indivisible God, Who is one with the Father (), but only as equal to God. This perception of the gospel sermon gave reason to critics to suspect him of a penchant for tritheism.

Other statements of his also encourage a similar perception. For example: "Jesus is the revelation of God" (Comments on the Gospel of John). Or another, where the Holy Spirit is reported as an ally of Christ: "He speaks of His Ally– Holy Spirit” (Comments on the Gospel of John).

It is possible to conditionally distinguish biblical commentaries into spiritual, pastoral, theological, popular science and technical.

Most patristic commentaries can be classified as spiritual.

An example of "pastoral" comments is the sermons of Fr. Dmitry Smirnov.

There can be both classical “theological” comments (for example, the Saint wrote many comments for polemical purposes), and modern ones.

In "popular science" commentary, knowledge from biblical studies or history or biblical languages ​​is conveyed in popular language.

Finally, there are "technical" comments, which are most often intended for biblical scholars, but can be used by a wide range of readers.

Barkley's comments are a typical example of "popular science" comments. He was never a great or major biblical scholar. Just an average professor with a good work capacity. His comments were never particularly popular, even among the Protestant milieu. And his popularity with us is due to the fact that his comments were translated into Russian at the very moment when there was nothing at all in Russia as “popular science” comments.

***

W. Barclay's comments on the Books of Holy Scripture of the New Testament are widely known both in the countries of the Western world and in Russia. Strange as it may seem, many Russians who identify themselves with Orthodoxy not only find food for thought in his comments, but often take them as the surest guide to a deep understanding of the Gospel. It's hard to understand, but it's possible. In the course of presenting his views, the author gives many arguments, including historical and scientific-linguistic ones. Many of them seem convincing and indisputable. However, not all of them are. A significant drawback of the works of this author is the excessively weak consistency of their content with the Holy Tradition of the Church, and in some cases a direct contradiction to this source of Christian knowledge. W. Barclay's deviation from the purity of the gospel teaching affects a number of serious, fundamental issues of Christianity.

One of the most drastic digressions has to do with the question of the Church. Let's start with the fact that W. Barclay does not share the position on the existence of the One True Church, approved by the Lord Jesus Christ, and, going against the Gospel, insists on the existence of many saving Christian churches. At the same time, which is natural for such an approach, he accuses communities that claim to be called the only true one (in fact, there is only one such community - the Ecumenical Orthodox Church) of monopolizing Divine grace.

“Religion,” writes W. Barclay, “ should bring people together, not divide them. Religion should unite people into one family, and not split them into warring groups. The doctrine that claims that any church or any sect has a monopoly on the grace of God is false, for Christ does not divide, but unites Bible

It is clear that this statement, accepted by Protestants, cannot but arouse indignation among Orthodox Christians. After all, firstly, the Ecumenical Orthodox Church was founded by the Redeemer Himself, moreover, it was founded precisely as the only and only true; and it is to her that is entrusted the fullness of the saving doctrine, the fullness of the saving gifts of the Holy Spirit. And secondly, the Orthodox Church has always called and still calls people to unity, true unity in Christ, which cannot be said about the ideologists of Protestantism, who insist on the possibility of the coexistence of many "saving", "Christian" "churches".

Meanwhile, W. Barclay compares God's with the Pharisees: No, the Pharisees did not want to lead people to God; they led them into their own Pharisaic sect. That's where their sin was. Is this one expelled from the earth, if even today they insist that a person leave one church and become a member of another before he can take a place at the altar? The greatest of heresies lies in the sinful belief that one church has a monopoly on God or His truth, or that some church is the only gate to the Kingdom of God » Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/23/).

The true unity of Christians implies, among other things, the unity of faith. The Orthodox have always professed the doctrine entrusted to it by the apostles, while the Protestant communities - that which they received as a legacy from the founders of these communities. It would seem that in the fact that the Church keeps the truths of faith intact, one can see that it is she who is the pillar and affirmation of the truth (). However, such an attitude to the truth is assessed by W. Barclay as one of the symptoms of a protracted chronic illness. Accordingly, those “churches” that allow the perversion of true (“old”) dogmas and the introduction of so-called new dogmas are considered to be healthy.

“In the Church,” he insists, “ this feeling resentment against the new has become chronic, and attempts to squeeze everything new into old forms have become almost universal"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/9/).

Perseverance in upholding the truths of the dogma W. Barclay refers to as a fossil: “ It really happened very often that a person who came with a message from God met with hatred and enmity. petrified orthodoxy » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible

Speaking in favor of free-thinking thinkers like the Protestants (and, of course, in favor of the Protestants themselves), the author seeks to assure his potential followers that the opposition that he shows against them is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and that it is as if the Redeemer Himself warned about it: Jesus warned His disciples that in the future they can unite against them society, Church and family"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/10/).

Recall what exactly unites the disciples of Christ, while the Protestant communities are the disciples of their leaders.

Speaking against the ancient church traditions, W. Barclay also denounces the tradition of monasticism, insisting that the doctrine of monasticism tends to separate "religion from life", and, therefore, it is false.

Here are his words: The teaching is false if it separates religion from life. Any teaching that says that a Christian has no place in life and in worldly activities is false. This was the mistake of monks and hermits. They believed that in order to live the Christian life, they must retire to the desert or to a monastery, to get out of this all-consuming and seductive worldly life. They believed that they could only be true Christians by leaving the worldly life. Jesus prayed for His disciples: “I do not pray that You take them out of the world, but that You save them from evil.” () » (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/7/).

Concerning the problems of man's struggle with sinful thoughts and desires, the author points to the activities of the monks as an illustration of a strange and irregular form of struggle. Like, the monks, without realizing it, fencing themselves off from the real temptations of this world, fell into even greater temptations that were born in their memory or imagination. With his negative criticism, he did not bypass even the founder (one of the founders) of monasticism, an outstanding Christian ascetic, St. Anthony the Great.

In history, he believes, there is one notable example mishandling such thoughts and desires: stylites, hermits, monks, hermits in the era of the early Church. These were people who wanted to be free from everything earthly and, in particular, from carnal desires. To do this, they went to the Egyptian desert with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bliving alone and thinking only about God. The most famous of them is Anthony. He lived as a hermit, fasted, spent his nights vigilant, torturing his body. He lived in the wilderness for 35 years, which was an ongoing battle with his temptations... It is quite obvious that if anyone behaves carelessly, it applies to Antony and his friends.. Such is human nature that the more a person tells himself that he will not think about something, the more it will occupy his thoughts."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/5/).

W. Barclay's mistake, in this case, is seen in the fact that he incorrectly looks both at monasticism itself and at the attitude of the Church to monastic life. The fact is that while recognizing monasticism as one of the forms of service to God, the Orthodox Church has never taught that a Christian has no life in the world. As you know, among the canonized saints there are many who became famous precisely for their life in the world: warriors, doctors, teachers, etc. Again, monastic life, which implies a removal from worldly pleasures, worldly fuss, does not imply a complete spiritual break with the world. Suffice it to recall that for many centuries the monasteries played the role of spiritual centers not only for monks and monks, but also for the laity: the monasteries served as places of pilgrimage for them; libraries were created at monasteries, theological schools were opened; often, in difficult times, the monks helped the laity with bread and a ruble.

Finally, completely unaware of why monastic work was associated with spiritual exploits, and the monks themselves were often called ascetics, he defines the monastic life as very easy, and describes the monks themselves as fugitives from the real difficulties of life: “ It's easy to feel like a Christian in moments of prayer and meditation, it is easy to feel the closeness of God, when we are away from the world. But this is not faith - this is an escape from life. Genuine faith is when you get up from your knees to help people and solve human problems."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/17/).

In the end, the interpreter seeks to bring Christian worship and worship under the humanitarian doctrine: “ Christian ministry - this is not the service of a liturgy or ritual, this is a service to a human need. Christian service is not a monastic retreat, but an active participation in all the tragedies, problems and demands that people face"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/12/).

The author shows a rather peculiar attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the one hand, he does not seem to mind that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God the Father. In any case, some of his words, such as: “ When Glory came to this earth, He was born in a cave where people sheltered animals. Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/2/).

« God sent His Son into this world, - testifies W. Barkley, - Jesus Christ, so that He would save man from the quagmire of sin in which he was mired, and free him from the chains of sin with which he bound himself, so that man could through Him regain the friendship with God he had lost.(From chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/1/)

On the other hand, he ascribes to the Redeemer such features as, for example, uncertainty about His chosenness (not to mention “uncertainty” in Divine dignity), ignorance of how to accomplish His mission, “which He entrusted.”

“Thus,” Barclay prompts the reader, “ and in the act of baptism, Jesus received double certainty: that He really is God's Chosen One and that the way before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to be King"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/3/)

"Jesus," he continues his line, " went to the desert to be alone. spoke to him now He wanted to think about how to fulfill the mission that he had entrusted to Him. "(From the head - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/40/4/).

Already at the first acquaintance with these and similar statements one gets the impression that they are on the verge of admissible and inadmissible theologizing. The position of the interpreter is more clearly revealed in his attitude to the testimony of the Evangelist John the Theologian that Christ is none other than God the Word Incarnate. While formally recognizing that “the Word became flesh” (), W. Barclay, nevertheless, explains this gospel truth not in the spirit of the Gospel. Whereas the Orthodox teaches that the Word is a Hypostasis of the One Trinity God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, equally perfect and equal in honor to the other two Divine Hypostases, Barclay seeks to convince his readers of something else.

“Christianity,” he shares his reasoning, “ arose in Judaism and at first all members of the Christian Church were Jews... Christianity arose in the Jewish environment and therefore inevitably spoke their language and used their categories of thinking... The Greeks had never heard of the Messiah, they did not understand the very essence of the aspirations of the Jews - Messiah. The concepts with which Jewish Christians thought and imagined Jesus said nothing to the Greeks. And this was the problem - how to represent in the Greek world? ... Around the year 100, there lived a man in Ephesus who thought about this. His name was John; he lived in a Greek city, he communicated with the Greeks, to whom Jewish concepts were alien and incomprehensible, and even seemed strange and rude. How can we find a way to introduce Christianity to these Greeks in a way that they will understand and welcome? And it was revealed to him. Both in the Jewish and in the Greek worldview there was a concept the words. Here it could be used in such a way that it corresponded to the worldviews of both the Hellenic and the Jew. It was something that lay in the historical heritage of both races; both of them could understand it"(From chapter - Barclay's commentary - Bible

It is known that in the understanding of (many) Jews it was conceived as the One, but not as the Trinity. The Word of God was comprehended in their minds as an active force, but not as a Divine Hypostasis (cf.: and God said...). Something similar was thought about the Logos (Word) and the mentioned Greeks.

“And so,” he develops his thought, “ when John was looking for a way to present, he found that in his faith and in the history of his people there was already an idea the words, word, which in itself is not just a sound, but something dynamic -word God, by whom he created the earth; word from Targumi – Aramaic translation of the Bible – expressing the very idea of ​​God's action; wisdom from the books of Wisdom - the eternal, creative and enlightening power of God. So John says, "If you want to see Word God's, if you want to see the creative power of God, if you want to see Word, through whom the earth was created, and by whom gives light and life to every man, look at Jesus Christ. In him Word God has come to you" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

As if confirming what was said above, U Barkley signals: “ . ..In the Greek world and in the Greek worldview, there is another name that we must get to know. In Alexandria lived a Jew named Philo, who devoted his life to the study of the wisdom of two worlds: the Greek and the Jewish. None of the Greeks knew as well as he did the Holy Scripture of the Jews, and not a single Jew knew as well as he did the greatness of Greek thought. Philo also loved and used this idea logos, words, reason God's. He believed that nothing in the world is older logos and what logos It is the instrument by which the world was created. Philo said that logos- this is the thought of God, imprinted in the universe; logos created the world and everything in it; God is the pilot of the universe, He holds logos like a helm and directs everything. According to Philo logos imprinted in the human brain, it gives a person reason, the ability to think and the ability to know. Philo said that logos mediator between the world and God, and that logos is a priest who presents the soul to God. Greek philosophy knew all about logos, she saw in logos the creative, leading and directing power of God, the power that created the universe and thanks to which life and movement are preserved in it. And so John came to the Greeks and said: “For centuries you have been thinking, writing and dreaming about logos, about the power that created the world and keeps order in it; about the power that gave man the ability to think, reason and know; about the power through which people entered into a relationship with God. Jesus is this logos, descended to earth." "The Word became flesh' John said. We can also express it like this: The Mind of God Incarnated in Man"" (From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Finally, Barclay explicitly points out that the Savior was identical with God, but was not “one” with God: “ When John says that the Word was God, he is not saying that Jesus was one with God, He was identical with God; he says that He was so much like God in mind, heart and being, that in Him we perfectly see what God is"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

And elsewhere: "The Word became flesh - in this, perhaps, as nowhere else in the New Testament, the human essence of Jesus is wonderfully proclaimed. In Jesus we saw the creative Word of God, directing the Mind of God, Who Himself incarnates in man. In Jesus we see how God would live this life if He were a man. If we had nothing more to say about Jesus, we could still say that He shows us how to live the life we ​​need to live."(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/)

How does W. Barclay explain that Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father? He boils it down to the fact that Jesus is unique and most loved by God the Father. Here is how he says it himself: Jesus - only begotten Son. In Greek it is monogenesis, What means only Son, only begotten and in this case it fully corresponds to the Russian translation of the Bible. But the fact is that long before the fourth Gospel was written, this word lost its purely physical meaning and acquired two special meanings. It began to mean unique, special in its own way and especially loved, it is quite obvious that the only son also occupies a special place in the heart of the father and enjoys special love, and therefore this word has come to mean, first of all, unique. The writers of the New Testament are absolutely convinced that Jesus is unique, that there was no one like Him: He alone can lead God to people and people to God"(From the chapter - Barclay's comments - the Bible: https:/bible.by/barclay/43/1/).

Explanatory Bible
New Testament

All these terms, i.e. both the word “covenant” 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 one, in which we use them when speaking about well-known bible books.

The word "covenant" (Heb. - berite, Greek - διαθήκη, Latin - testamentum) in the language of Holy Scripture and biblical usage primarily means a known decree, condition, law, on which the two contracting parties converge, and from here already - this very treaty or union, as well as those external signs that served as his certificate, a staple, as it were, a seal (testamentum). And since the sacred books, which described this covenant or the union of God with man, were, of course, one of the best means of verifying it and fixing it in the memory of the people, the name “covenant” was also transferred to them very early. It already existed in the era of Moses, as can be seen from the book of Exodus (), where the record of the Sinai legislation read by Moses to the Jewish people is called the book of the covenant (“sefer hubberit”). Similar expressions, denoting not only the Sinai legislation, but the entire Mosaic Pentateuch, are also found in subsequent Old Testament books (; ; ). The Old Testament also owns the first, still prophetic indication of, 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" ().

Division of the New Testament books by content

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, while the book of the Acts of the Apostles gives us a historical picture of the life and work of the apostles, who spread Christ's message throughout the world.

Teaching books are the Apostolic Epistles, which are letters written by the apostles to different Churches. In these letters, the apostles clarify various perplexities regarding the Christian faith and life that arose in the Churches, denounce the readers of the Epistles in various disorders they allow, convince them to stand firm in the Christian faith devoted to them, and expose the false teachers who disturbed the peace of the primordial 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 takes place in relation to almost all the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

There is only one prophetic book in the New Testament - the Apocalypse of the Apostle John the Theologian. Here are various visions and revelations that this apostle was honored with and in which the future fate of the Church of Christ before her glorification, i.e., is foreshadowed. before the opening of the kingdom of glory on earth.

Since the subject of the content of the Gospels is the life and teachings of the very 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 law-positive. This name shows that the Gospels have the same meaning for Christians as the Law of Moses - the Pentateuch had for the Jews.

A Brief History of the Canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament

The word "canon" (κανών) originally meant "cane", and then began to be used to denote what should serve as a rule, a model of life (;). The Fathers of the Church and the Councils used this term to designate a collection of sacred inspired writings. Therefore, the canon of the New Testament is a collection of sacred inspired books of the New Testament in its present form.

What guided the first, accepting this or that sacred New Testament book into the canon? First of all, the so-called historical legend. They investigated whether this or that book was actually received directly from an apostle or a collaborator of the apostle, and, after a rigorous study, they included this book in the list of inspired books. But at the same time, attention was also paid to whether the teaching contained in the book under consideration, firstly, with the teaching of the entire Church and, secondly, with the teaching of the apostle whose name this book bore on itself. This is the so-called dogmatic tradition. And it never happened that, once recognizing a book as canonical, it subsequently changed its view of it and excluded it from the canon. If individual fathers and teachers of the Church even after that still recognized some New Testament writings as unauthentic, 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 did not first accept a book into the canon, and then included it. If there are no references to some canonical books in the writings of the apostolic men (for example, to the Epistle of Jude), then this is due to the fact that the apostolic men had no reason to quote these books.

The order of the 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. In the first place, of course, were the four Gospels, followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles; The Apocalypse formed the conclusion of the canon. But in some codices, some books do not occupy the place they occupy with us 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 Catholic Epistles after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. The very name "cathedral" was originally used only by the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, and only from the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) did this name begin to be applied to all seven Epistles. Since the time of Athanasius of Alexandria (mid-fourth century), the Catholic Epistles have taken their present place in the Greek Church. Meanwhile, in the West they were still placed after the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Even the Apocalypse in some codices is earlier than the Epistles of the Apostle Paul and even earlier than the book of Acts. In particular, the Gospels go in different codices in a different order. So, some, undoubtedly putting the apostles in the first place, place the Gospels in this order: Matthew, John, Mark and Luke, or, giving special dignity to the Gospel of John, they put it in the first place. Others put the Gospel of Mark last, as the shortest. Of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, initially two letters to the Corinthians occupied the first place in the canon, and the last to the Romans (a fragment of Muratorius and Tertullian). Since the time of Eusebius, the Epistle to the Romans has occupied the first place, both in its volume and in the importance of the Church to which it is written, indeed, deserving of this place. In the arrangement of the four private Epistles (1 Tim.; 2 Tim.; Tit.; Philp.), apparently, they were guided by their volume, 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 has put the Epistles of the Apostle Peter in the first place among the Catholic Epistles. The Eastern Church, putting the Epistle of James in the first place, was probably guided by the listing of the apostles by the Apostle Paul ().

History of the New Testament Canon since the Reformation

During the Middle Ages, the canon remained indisputable, especially since the books of the New Testament were read relatively little by private individuals, and only certain chapters or sections were read from them during divine services. The common people were more interested in reading the stories of the lives of the saints, and the Catholic even looked with some suspicion at the interest that certain societies, such as the Waldensians, showed in reading the Bible, sometimes even forbidding 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 certain New Testament writings. Luther, in his translation of the New Testament (1522), in the prefaces to the New Testament books, expressed his view of their worth. Thus, in his opinion, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by an apostle, as well as the Epistle of James. Nor does he recognize the authenticity of the Apocalypse and the Epistle of the Apostle Jude. Luther's disciples went even further in the strictness with which they treated various New Testament writings and even began to directly single out "apocryphal" writings from the New Testament canon: until the beginning of the 17th century, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 were not even considered canonical in Lutheran bibles. -e of John, Jude and the Apocalypse. Only later did this distinction between scriptures disappear and the ancient New Testament canon was restored. At the end of the 17th century, however, writings of a critical nature about the New Testament canon appeared, in which objections were raised against the authenticity of many New Testament books. The rationalists of the 18th century (Zemler, Michaelis, Eichgorm) wrote in the same spirit, and in the 19th century. Schleiermacher expressed doubts about the authenticity of some of the Pauline Epistles, De Wette rejected the authenticity of five of them, and F.X. Baur recognized only the four main Epistles of the Apostle Paul and the Apocalypse from the entire New Testament as truly apostolic.

Thus, in the West, in Protestantism, they again came to the same place that the Christian Church experienced in the first centuries, when some books were recognized as genuine apostolic works, others were controversial. It was already established that it was only a collection of literary works of early Christianity. At the same time, the followers of F.X. Bauer - B. Bauer, Loman and Steck - no longer found it possible to recognize any of the New Testament books as truly apostolic works ... But the best minds of Protestantism saw the depth of the abyss into which the Baur school, or Tübingen, carried Protestantism, and opposed its provisions with strong objections. Thus, Ritschl refuted the main thesis of the Tübingen school about the development of early Christianity from the struggle between Petrinism and Peacockism, and Harnack proved that the New Testament books should be regarded as truly apostolic works. Scientists B. Weiss, Gode and T. Tsang did even more to restore the significance of the New Testament books in the view of Protestants. “Thanks to these theologians,” says Barth, “no one can now take away from the New Testament the advantage that in it, and only in it, 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 Protestantism to have a "canon" as a guide given from God for faith and life, "and," he concludes, "we have it in the New Testament" (There same).

Indeed, the New Testament canon is of great, one might say, incomparable significance for the Christian Church. In it we find, first of all, such writings that present 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 to the Thessalonians, 1st to the Corinthians ). Further, we have in the New Testament canon writings that aim to eliminate the dangers that threatened Christianity from the Jewish understanding of Christianity (Epistle to the Galatians), from the Jewish-legalistic asceticism (Epistle to the Colossians), from the side of the pagan desire to understand religious society as a private circle in which one can live apart from church society (Epistle to the Ephesians). The Epistle to the Romans indicates the worldwide purpose of Christianity, while the book of Acts indicates how this appointment was realized in history. In a word, the books of the New Testament canon give us a complete picture of the primordial Church, depict life and its tasks from all sides. If, as a test, we wanted to take away from the canon of the New Testament any book, for example, the Epistle to the Romans or the Galatians, we would thereby cause significant harm to the whole. It is clear that the Holy Spirit led 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.

What language are the holy books of the New Testament written in?

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 it was spoken almost everywhere. It is clear that the writings of the New Testament, which were intended by the Providence of God for distribution to 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 Greek, a free, independent attitude to the translation of the Seventy, when Old Testament passages are given - all this undoubtedly indicates that they are written in Greek and are intended for readers. who know Greek.

However, the Greek language in which the books of the New Testament are written is not the classical Greek language in which the Greek writers of the heyday of Greek literature wrote. This so-called κοινὴ διάλεκτος , i.e. close to the Old Attic dialect, but not too different from other dialects. In addition, it included many Arameisms and other alien words. Finally, special New Testament concepts were introduced into this language, for the expression of which, however, old Greek words were used, which 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 details, see the article by prof. S.I. Sobolevsky " Κοινὴ διάλεκτος ”, placed in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 10.

New Testament text

All the originals of the New Testament books perished, but copies (ἀντίγραφα ) had long been taken from them. Most often, the Gospels were written off and least often - the Apocalypse. They wrote with reed (κάλαμος ) and ink (μέλαν ) and more - in the first centuries - on papyrus, so that the right side of each papyrus leaf 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) appeared, which was kept 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 old manuscripts on parchment that they had, erasing and scraping out what was written on them and placing some other work here. This is how palimpsests were formed. Paper came into use only in the 8th century.

The words in the manuscripts of the New Testament were written without stress, 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. Letters in the first six centuries were used only in capital letters (uncial manuscripts from "ounce" - inch). From the 7th, and some say, from the 9th century, manuscripts of ordinary cursive writing appeared. Then the letters decreased, but abbreviations became more frequent. On the other hand, accents and breaths were added. There are 130 first manuscripts, and the last (according to von Soden) - 3700. In addition, there are so-called lectionaries containing either gospel or apostolic readings for use in worship (evangeliaries and praxapostles). There are about 1300 of them, and the oldest of them date back in their origin to the VI 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 get acquainted with the content of the book in manuscripts divided into chapters (κεφάλαια ), these chapters are preceded by the designations of the content of each chapter (τίτλα , αργυμεντα ). The chapters are divided into parts (ὑποδιαιρέσεις) or sections, and these last into verses (κῶλα, στίχοι). According to the number of verses, the size of the book and its selling price were determined. This processing of the text is usually attributed to Bishop Euphalia 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 (4th century) compiled ten canons or parallel tables, on the first of which the designations of the sections from the Gospel, common to all four evangelists, were placed, on the second - designations (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 to which canon this or that section belongs. Our present division of the text into chapters was first done by the Englishman Stephen Langton (in the thirteenth century), and the division into verses by Robert Stephen (in the sixteenth century).

Since the 18th century uncial manuscripts began to be denoted by capital letters of the Latin alphabet, and cursive manuscripts by numbers. The most important uncial manuscripts are as follows:

N - Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf in 1856 in the Sinai Monastery of St. Catherine. It contains the whole, together with the epistle of Barnabas and a significant part of the "Shepherd" of Hermas, as well as the canons of Eusebius. It shows the proofreading of seven different hands. It was written in the 4th or 5th century. Kept in the St. Petersburg Public Library (now kept in the British Museum. – Note. ed.). Photographs were taken from it.

A - Alexandria, located in London. The New Testament is placed here, not 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, which concludes with the 14th verse of the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was probably written by someone close to Athanasius of Alexandria in the 4th century. Stored 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 passages from the New Testament. Its origin is Egyptian, dates 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.

Translations and quotations

Together 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 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 approaches the Aramaic dialect spoken by Christ and the apostles. It is believed that Tatian's Diatessaron (circa 175) was the first Syriac translation of the New Testament. Then comes the Syro-Sinai codex (SS), discovered in 1892 in Sinai by Mrs. A. Lewis. Also important is the second-century translation known as the Peshitta (simple) translation; however, some scholars attribute it to the 5th century and recognize it as the work of the Bishop of Edessa Rabbula (411-435). Of great importance are also the Egyptian translations (Said, Fayum, Bohair), Ethiopian, Armenian, Gothic and Old Latin, subsequently corrected by Blessed Jerome and recognized as self-reliant in the Catholic Church (Vulgate).

Of no small importance for the establishment of the text are quotations from the New Testament, which are available from the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church and church writers. The collection of these quotes (texts) was published by T. Tsan.

The Slavic translation of the New Testament from the Greek text was made by the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century and, together with Christianity, passed to us in Russia under the holy noble prince Vladimir. Of the copies of this translation that we have preserved, the Ostromir Gospel, written in the middle of the 11th century for the mayor of Ostromir, is especially remarkable. Then in the XIV century. Saint Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow, translated the sacred books of the New Testament while Saint Alexis was in Constantinople. This translation is stored in the Moscow Synodal Library and in the 90s of the XIX century. published in phototype. In 1499, together with all the biblical books, it was corrected and published by Metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod. Separately, the entire New Testament was first printed in Slavic in Vilna in 1623. Then, like other biblical books, it was corrected in Moscow at the synodal printing house and, finally, published together with the Old Testament under Empress Elizabeth in 1751. First of all, in 1819, the Gospel was translated into Russian, and the New Testament appeared in full in Russian in 1822, in 1860 it was published in a corrected 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

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 (),

c) all the New Testament or Christian teaching in general, first of all, the narrative of the events from the life of Christ, the most important (), and then the explanation of the meaning of these events ().

d) Being actually the news of what he did for our salvation and good, the Gospel at the same time calls people to repentance, faith and change of their sinful life for the better (; ).

e) Finally, the word "Gospel" is sometimes used to refer to the very process of preaching the Christian doctrine ().

Sometimes the designation and content of it is attached to the word "Gospel". There are, for example, phrases: the gospel of the kingdom (), i.e. joyful news of the Kingdom of God, the gospel of peace (), i.e. about the world, the gospel of salvation (), i.e. about salvation, etc. Sometimes the genitive case following the word "Gospel" means the originator or source of the good news (; ; ) or the person of the preacher ().

For quite a long time, stories about the life of the Lord Jesus Christ were transmitted only orally. The Lord Himself left no record of His words and deeds. In the same way, the 12 apostles were not born writers: they were "people unlearned and simple"(), although literate. Among the Christians of the apostolic age there were also very few "wise according to the flesh, strong" and "noble" (), and for the majority of believers, oral stories about Christ were much more important than written ones. Thus the apostles and preachers or evangelists "transmitted" (παραδιδόναι ) stories about the deeds and speeches of Christ, while the faithful "received" (παραλαμβάνειν ), but, of course, not mechanically, only by memory, as can be said about the students of rabbinical schools, but whole soul, as if something living and giving life. But soon this period of oral tradition was to end. On the one hand, Christians must have felt the need for a written presentation of the Gospel in their disputes with the Jews, who, as you know, denied the reality of the miracles of Christ and even claimed that Christ did not declare Himself the Messiah. It was necessary to show the Jews that Christians have authentic stories about Christ of those persons who were either among His apostles, or who were in close communion with eyewitnesses of Christ's deeds. 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 of the miracles of Christ were thinning out. Therefore, it was necessary to fix in writing individual sayings of the Lord and His whole speeches, as well as the stories about Him of the apostles. It was then that separate records of what was reported in the oral tradition about Christ began to appear here and there. The most meticulously recorded the words Christ's, which contained the rules of Christian life, and were much more free to transfer various events from the life of Christ, retaining 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 notes did not think about the completeness of the narrative. Even our Gospels, as can be seen from the conclusion of the Gospel of John (), did not intend to report all the words and deeds of Christ. This is evident, among other things, from what is not included in them, for example, such a saying of Christ: “It is more blessed to give than to receive”(). The evangelist Luke reports such records, saying that many before him had already begun to compose narratives about the life of Christ, but that they did not have the proper completeness and that therefore they did not give sufficient “confirmation” in the faith ().

Evidently, our canonical gospels arose from the same motives. The period of their appearance can be determined at about thirty years - from 60 to 90 (the last was the Gospel of John). The first three gospels are commonly referred to in biblical scholarship synoptic, because they depict the life of Christ in such a way that their three narratives can be easily viewed in one and combined into one whole narrative ( weather forecasters- from Greek - looking together). They began to be called gospels each separately, perhaps as early as the end of the 1st century, but from church writing we have information that such a name was given to the entire composition of the gospels only in the second half of the 2nd century. As for the names: “The Gospel of Matthew”, “The Gospel of Mark”, etc., then these very ancient names from Greek should be translated as follows: “The Gospel according to Matthew”, “The Gospel according to Mark” ( κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον ). By this I wanted to say that in all the Gospels there is single the Christian gospel of Christ the Savior, but according to the images of different writers: one image belongs to Matthew, the other to Mark, etc.

four gospel

As for the differences observed among weather forecasters, there are quite a few of them. Others are reported only by two evangelists, others even by one. So, only Matthew and Luke cite the conversation on the mount of the Lord Jesus Christ, tell the story of the birth and the first years of Christ's life. One Luke speaks of the birth of John the Baptist. Other 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 well as the expressions.

This phenomenon of similarity and difference in the synoptic gospels has long attracted the attention of interpreters of Scripture, and various assumptions have long been put forward to explain this fact. A more correct opinion seems to be that our three evangelists enjoyed a common oral source for his account of the life of Christ. At that time, evangelists or preachers about Christ went everywhere with a sermon and repeated in different places in more or less extensive form what was considered necessary to offer those who entered into. In this way a well-known definite type was formed oral gospel, and this is the type we have in writing 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, only characteristic of his work. At the same time, one cannot rule out the possibility that an older gospel might have been known to the evangelist who wrote later. At the same time, the difference between synoptics 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 are very different from the gospel of John the Theologian. Thus they depict almost exclusively the activity of Christ in Galilee, while the apostle John depicts mainly the sojourn of Christ in Judea. In regard to content, the synoptic gospels also differ considerably 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 whole people. John, on the contrary, omits a lot of 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 their readers' attention to the Kingdom he founded, 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 depicts 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 predominantly spiritual (πνευματικόν) in contrast to synoptic ones, as depicting a predominantly human side in the person of Christ ( εὐαγγέλιον σωματικόν ), i.e. bodily gospel.

However, it must be said that the weather forecasters also have passages that indicate that just as the weather forecasters knew the activity of Christ in Judea (;), so John has indications of the continuous activity of Christ in Galilee. In the same way, weather forecasters convey such sayings of Christ that testify to His Divine dignity (), and John, for his part, also in places depicts Christ as a true man (and others; etc.). Therefore, one cannot speak of any contradiction between the synoptics and John in the depiction of the face and deed of Christ.

Reliability of the Gospels

Although criticism has long been expressed against the authenticity of the Gospels, and recently these attacks of criticism have become especially intensified (the theory of myths, especially the theory of Drews, who does not at all recognize the existence of Christ), however, all objections of criticism are so insignificant that they are shattered 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 speak about the main general grounds on which we recognize the Gospels as completely reliable documents. This is, firstly, the existence of the tradition of eyewitnesses, of whom many survived until the era when our Gospels appeared. Why should we refuse to trust these sources of our gospels? Could they have made up everything that is in our gospels? No, all the Gospels are purely historical. Secondly, it is incomprehensible why the Christian consciousness would want - so the mythical theory asserts - to crown the head of a simple rabbi Jesus with the crown of the Messiah and the Son of God? Why, for example, is it not said about the Baptist that he performed miracles? Obviously because he did not create them. And from this 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 the miracles of Christ, since the highest miracle - His Resurrection - is witnessed like no other event in ancient history (see)?

Bibliography of Foreign Works on the Four Gospels

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. Göttingen, 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. Göttingen, 1901.

Yog. Weiss (1907) - Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, von Otto Baumgarten; Wilhelm Bousset. Hrsg. von Johannes Weis_s, Bd. 1: Die drei alteren Evangelien. Die Apostelgeschichte, Matthaeus Apostolus; Marcus Evangelista; Lucas Evangelista. . 2. Aufl. Göttingen, 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 A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867.

Cornelius a Lapide - Cornelius a Lapide. In SS Matthaeum et Marcum / Commentaria in scripturam sacram, t. 15. Parisiis, 1857.

Lagrange M.-J. Études bibliques: Evangile selon St. Marc. Paris, 1911.

Lange J.P. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Bielefeld, 1861.

Loisy (1903) - Loisy A.F. Le quatrième evangile. Paris, 1903.

Loisy (1907-1908) - Loisy A.F. Les evangeles synoptiques, 1–2. : Ceffonds, pres 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. Göttingen, 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. Göttingen, 1902.

Merckx (1902) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Matthaeus / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte, Teil 2, Hälfte 1. Berlin, 1902.

Merckx (1905) - Merx A. Erläuterung: Markus und Lukas / Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Teil 2, Hälfte 2. Berlin, 1905.

Morison J. A practical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Morison Matthew. London, 1902.

Stanton – Stanton V.H. The Synoptic Gospels / The Gospels as historical documents, Part 2. Cambridge, 1903. Toluk (1856) - Tholuck A. Die Bergpredigt. Gotha, 1856.

Tolyuk (1857) - Tholuck A. Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. Gotha, 1857.

Heitmüller - see Jog. 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 fur 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. The Church, with such respect for the apostles, and, in particular, for the apostle Paul, could completely lose any of the apostolic works.

According to some Protestant theologians, the New Testament canon is something accidental. Some writings, even non-apostolic ones, were simply lucky enough to get into the canon, because for some reason they came into use during 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, already recognized at that time, devoted to the apostolic to subsequent generations of Christians. These books, according to Orthodox theologians, were not known to all Churches, perhaps because they had either a too particular purpose (for example, the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of the Apostle John), or too general (The Epistle to the Hebrews), so that it was not known to which Church to turn for information regarding the name of the author of this or that epistle. But there is no doubt that these were books that truly belonged to those persons whose names they bore on themselves. The Church did not accidentally accept them into the canon, but quite deliberately, giving them the meaning that they actually had.

The Jews had the word "ganuz", corresponding in meaning to the word "apocryphal" (from ἀποκρύπτειν - "to hide") and was used in the synagogue to designate such books that should not have been used in the performance of 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 allegedly contain the true apostolic teaching, which the apostles did not want to make available to the crowd, who collected the canon, already reacted with condemnation to these "hidden" books and began to look at them as "false, heretical, fake" (decree of Pope Gelasius). Currently, 7 apocryphal gospels are known, of which 6 supplement the story of the origin, birth and childhood of Jesus Christ with different decorations, and the seventh - the story of His condemnation. The oldest and most remarkable of them is the First Gospel of James, the brother of the Lord, then come: the Greek Gospel of Thomas, the Greek Gospel of Nicodemus, the Arabic story of Joseph the woodworker, 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 the Lord by Mary and the childhood of the Savior. These Apocryphal Gospels were translated into Russian by Prot. P.A. Preobrazhensky. In addition, some fragmentary apocryphal stories 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, there were also non-canonical Gospels that have not survived to our time. They, in all likelihood, contained in themselves 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 memoirs of Justin the Martyr, the Tatian Gospel in four ("Diatessaron" - a set of Gospels), the Gospel of Marcion - a distorted Gospel of Luke.

Of the recently discovered stories about the life and teachings of Christ, "Λόγια", or the words of Christ, deserves attention - a passage found in Egypt. This passage contains brief sayings of Christ with a brief initial formula: "Jesus speaks." This is a fragment of the deepest antiquity. From the history of the apostles, the recently found "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 St. Clement of Alexandria, were found.

It is also necessary to mention the various "acts" of the apostles, for example, Peter, John, Thomas, and others, where information about the preaching work of these apostles was reported. These works undoubtedly belong to the category of so-called "pseudo-epigraphs", i.e. to the category of fakes. However, these "deeds" were highly respected among ordinary pious Christians and were very common. Some of them, after a certain alteration, entered the so-called "Acts of the Saints", processed by the Bollandists, and from there they were transferred by St. Demetrius of Rostov to our Lives of the Saints (Fourth Menaion). This can be said about the life and preaching work of the Apostle Thomas.

Hello brother Ivan!

I had the same thing at first. But the more time I gave to God: service and His Word, the more understandable it became to me. I wrote about this in the chapter “The Bible must be studied” in my book “Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine”. To correctly understand the Bible, you need to follow certain rules when interpreting it, which can be read by clicking on the link. However, knowing how important this issue is, we will discuss it a little more.

Bible interpretation- not a simple matter. Scripture must be analyzed and understood in context. Today, many Christians are accustomed to paying attention to individual verses of the Bible, and even often a doctrine is built on a single text. Often, however, these verses tell a different story when viewed in the context of nearby chapters or the epistle as a whole. Previously, there was no division of texts into verses and chapters, they were read as indivisible books (scrolls). Therefore, attention was rarely focused on individual verses without taking into account the whole message. Also, when interpreting the Bible, it must be taken into account that these words were spoken in a different historical setting. The messengers of God spoke not only to future generations, but also directly to those who were addressed. Real people spoke to real people in their language, taking into account their mentality inherent in that time and that area, and naturally understood each other. So for a correct understanding (interpretation) of the Bible, we need to delve into the nuances of their life and life as much as possible. And then a lot of things will become clearer to us.

Therefore, my advice to you is to study the Bible seriously, not forgetting to get acquainted with the history of the peoples it tells about. And at the same time, do not “get hung up” on individual texts, but look at them solely with regard to the context. And of course, he prays before reading the Bible with a request to God for the gift of wisdom for interpreting the Bible, understanding and remembering His Word.

Today, the spiritual authorities of the mainstream churches claim that they alone have the right to interpret the Bible. They say that such an important thing as understanding the Scriptures is possible only within the church by its faithful holy subjects. And of course, each denomination believes that only their spiritual teachers interpret the Bible correctly. The flock of these churches believes their spiritual leaders that it is they who correctly understand the Word of God, while other Christian churches are mistaken. It turns out a strange picture: there are many churches, there seem to be many positive "holy" people in them ... But they all interpret the Bible in different ways. One gets the impression that it is not possible to understand Holy Scripture in general, since so many educated theologians argue about its texts.

However, it is not. It's all about authority—prioritization. No wonder Jesus warned that believers should consider their true teacher and mentor (see Matt. 23 chapter) not any person (or group of people), but directly God - His Word. Then it would be difficult for believers studying the Bible to be led astray, since the authority for them would be not their spiritual mentors, but the Lord. Meanwhile, "sinful" mortal people took upon themselves the interpretation of the Bible, and other people recognized this right for them. As a result, different teachers led their flocks in different directions. This problem is not new to Christianity, it was also inherent in the Jews. Remember how Jesus repeatedly rebuked the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people (the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes) for misinterpreting Scripture. Then (and still) any Jew, expressing his thoughts about the teachings and text of the Holy Scriptures, had to refer to the words of some famous rabbi. Doesn't this remind you of anything? Today it is also customary in popular churches to quote the holy fathers to support their statements about the teachings of the Bible. So it turns out that people themselves do not delve into the essence of the Word of God, and each will trust their spiritual mentors. It is also worth noting that both earlier and still there are many currents in Judaism, each led by its own teachers. Pharisees and Sadducees are mentioned in the New Testament. Also in those days there were large religious groups of Zealots and Issei. So the division into confessions is not new for Christianity.

Meanwhile, both the Old Testament and the New were given not to teachers for teaching and interpretation to the flock, but to ordinary believers. The Word of God was to be studied by all—kings and common people, including women and children. All this is clearly seen from the texts of the Old and New Testaments, which is discussed in the chapter The Word of God you need to know. How to study the Holy Scriptures of the book "Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine"). The interpretation of the Bible is not magical and esoteric secret knowledge, but the result of a simple knowledge of all the books of Scripture and an analysis of their texts, taking into account the fact that biblical controversial phrases must be interpreted taking into account the context of the entire message, while understanding that the Bible is one and cannot contradict. That is, when understanding the Holy Scriptures, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that its texts, when interpreted, do not conflict with its other texts. After all, the Bible is whole, and its author is one, "with whom there is no variation and no shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

Valery Tatarkin