How and why were other Gospels banned?
It is known that back in the 1st century AD there were at least about 50 different Gospels and other religious texts. Therefore, it is not surprising that in order to avoid confusion and disputes between Christians, it was necessary to select only a few of them.
Surprisingly, it was not the priest who was the first to be puzzled by this problem, but a wealthy shipowner and part-time theologian named Marcion. It was he who, in 144, created a list of books that, in his opinion, were genuine. Apart from several religious texts, Marcion's list included only one Gospel: Luke.
Following Marcion, the official ministers of the church also took up the matter. However, only the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were finally recognized as conforming to all religious canons. The priests explain this choice by the fact that the authorship of these 4 scriptures is beyond doubt. Moreover, it is in them that the essence of the teaching is presented most fully and at the same time without excesses.
While the apocrypha contains many unnecessary everyday scenes, as well as riddles and shocking details that have no spiritual value. Often, as an argument, clergy also mention the vision of Ezekiel, when four animals with human faces appeared to the prophet. And Saint Irenaeus, for example, argued that there should be exactly four Gospels in accordance with the four cardinal directions.
However, some researchers suggest that the remaining Gospels have become prohibited because they contain not entirely unpleasant information about the life of biblical characters, in particular about the life of Jesus Christ.
How to correctly read the Bible, the Gospel - in what order?
Listen:
O. Dmitry: - Hello, dear brothers and sisters. Father Alexander and I are starting our regular broadcast on Radio Radonezh. Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov is at the microphone.
O. Alexander: - Good evening, dear listeners.
Question: - Tell me how to read the Bible and the Gospel correctly - in what order. The Gospel is included in the Bible at the very end of it; is it necessary to read everything that precedes it before moving on to the Gospel?
O. Dmitry: Quite the opposite. Reading the Holy Scriptures must begin with the Gospel.
O. Alexander: - And then turn to the Old Testament.
O. Dmitry: - And it’s better to read this in parallel. You cannot leave the Gospel and read the Old Testament.
O. Alexander: - Why then is the Gospel not in first place in the book “Bible”?
O. Dmitry: — Because historically, these are younger books. The New Testament is closer to us in time. And more understandable. We are lucky - we live in an era when the entire culture of our fatherland is Christian.
O. Alexander: — It is based on the New Testament.
O. Dmitry: - Yes, therefore, for better assimilation of both culture and the Gospel itself. It's good that this is supported by culture. Because the Gospel is also in our language - proverbs and sayings.
O. Alexander: - It has become part of our everyday life. How important is knowledge and constant reading of the Old Testament for salvation?
O. Dmitry: - Much less so than the Gospel. But at the same time, in order to better understand the science of salvation, the Old Testament is necessary.
O. Alexander: - This is the story of the relationship between man and God. And this reveals a lot to us.
O. Dmitry: - All deviations from God, as they occurred, are very understandable.
O. Alexander: - But they cause bewilderment for many. Even cruelty towards people is seen in God’s actions.
O. Dmitry: - This is not cruelty, but toughness.
O. Alexander: — Necessary for the preservation of this people.
Question: — In the Proverbs of Solomon it is written that a wise wife will build her house, but a foolish woman will destroy it with her own hands. It turns out that everything in the family depends on the woman?
O. Dmitry: — The fact is that the role of a woman is the keeper of the home. Much depends on her. But if she is stupid, she can perform actions that will destroy the family. For example, often a woman cannot cope with her jealousy. She gets this feeling every time her husband gets close to some woman. She becomes suspicious and begins to reprimand him, sometimes in an indecent manner. This situation does not serve to strengthen the family, and so on in everything. Incorrect parenting. Many people say this - I was raised this way, and this is how I am. Regardless of whether it's good or bad. You need to study and read about education with great attention, skill and in general - this is very useful.
O. Alexander: - Why is the emphasis placed on the woman, and the role of the man is less?
O. Dmitry: - Men play the role of the army and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And the woman is the Minister of Internal Affairs.
O. Alexander: — So, politics within the family is determined by the woman?
O. Dmitry: - Yes. This means a normal woman who runs her own home. And not the one who paints her nails at work, drinks tea with lemon, and chats from morning to evening.
O. Alexander: But still, the decision in the family is up to the man?
O. Dmitry: - No, this should be decided at the general council. A man has a stronger voice, a man builds a house. And the woman orders the layout because she has to live there.
O. Alexander: - That she spends more time within the walls of the house is for sure. But sometimes, due to his inability to take decisions on himself, is a man still responsible for everything that happens both outside and inside?
O. Dmitry: - This is highly desirable. But modern men... I constantly come across this phenomenon when a man in office tries so hard to formalize everything so as not to make any decisions. It is called differently: spichalovo, football, ping pong - different things about the same thing. Because if you made a decision, then you must be responsible for it. Oh, will I be responsible for this? Where should I take it? And they don't want to do anything.
O. Alexander: — Often women in confession, talking about their family, speak as if there is no man in the house at all.
O. Dmitry: - Yes, they come for advice on raising children. You ask if there is a husband, what does he say about this. Some are even surprised. What a strange question!
O. Alexander: - The situation is such that it is difficult to understand where it came from.
O. Dmitry: - I made a diagnosis a long time ago - the reason is having few children. The woman is busy with self-realization. And she must realize herself as the mother of her children. It is important. And not that she will not be an accountant, but a chief accountant.
O. Alexander: - This has been said since the very first grade of school - you must realize yourself in life. Therefore, you need to study well.
O. Dmitry: - They should implement it - absolutely. But a woman must realize herself as a mother, a man as a father. And whether you are the commander-in-chief of an entire branch of the military or a trolleybus is secondary. But it doesn't sound like that at school.
O. Dmitry: “And at school we don’t hear a lot of things that are needed, but we hear things that are not necessary and are harmful.”
O. Alexander: - At the same time, parents accept this order of things.
O. Dmitry: - They don’t think. They take school for granted. We learned and our children will do the same. This is a dynamic stereotype. Like a horse, it doesn’t think, but nibbles the grass. And if they give grain, then she eats it. And if it’s watermelon rinds, then those too.
Question: - In the parables of Solomon in chapter 31, a virtuous wife is described. And there is a lot described there, that she extracts wool, grows flax, bread, does a lot of other things. And you say that a woman’s role is to give birth and raise children. How then can this be correlated with the texts? And about the husband it is said that he sits with the elders. And when can a wife give birth to children when she works so much?
O. Dmitry: - Not only. It describes the life of the ancient people. But we now live in different conditions. If you produce flax, I will not mind. And it’s said about the husband because there is such a duty - to solve a general issue. It is quite a respectful position for a husband to be a senator. Or an old man who solves teip issues that concern his whole life. And at this time the wife takes on some functions. Because the issues that he solves are important for the life of the entire people. In the village where I spent the summer, we had a neighbor. She lived alone without a husband with five children. And one of the hard peasant jobs is drying hay. One day I looked down and saw my neighbor winding up a haystack. She stands at the bottom of the haystack, one of her youths is at the top, and she hands over a large haystack, and he crushes it. I couldn't do something like that. Everything would fall down, and it’s hard to throw so much hay. Then I see an ambulance at her house. What happened, I ask? And they took a neighbor to give birth. Even this kind of hard work, which is beyond the capabilities of a big and strong man, is like child’s play for her.
O. Alexander: - When a person is constantly in such exercises...
O. Dmitry: - But you can’t do it all the time - it’s winter.
O. Alexander: - There are other chores around the house.
O. Dmitry: - Not so heavy, except for removing snow from the path that leads to the well.
Question: - It turns out that there is nothing wrong with a wife working?
O. Dmitry: — It’s bad when a wife breaks away from home. And the work of carding flax or making a carpet in no way distracts a woman from the main thing - raising children. This is how she teaches her children.
O. Alexander: “We see what happens to a family and children when a woman immerses herself in either social work or another.
O. Dmitry: - She disappears for her children like a mother. This microscopic communication in the evening, when you can’t tear your child away from cartoons, is perceived as boring.
O. Alexander: - The main argument is always that there is not enough money and that’s why I have to go to work, my husband’s salary is small, he is sick, he can’t handle two or three jobs... They say the situation is hopeless.
O. Dmitry: - Yes, I am aware of what they are saying. In Ukraine, work is very bad now. Because the industry is on its side. People tend to their gardens, and a vegetable garden will always feed you. And women and children have always done gardening. That is, the main thing that people eat grows in the garden. And the man was engaged in cattle, and not very large ones.
Question: - In one program, father, you said that if at school a junior is attacked by elders, then he must defend himself, and you used a word like “beak”, that he can shorten the beak of the attacker. And when talking about Seraphim of Sarov, you said that when robbers attacked him, he threw an ax. How should we understand your position?
O. Dmitry: - Literally. Seraphim of Sarov was an adult man when he was attacked. And he acted with his body in a way consistent with his communication with God. To demand from a little boy that he act like Seraphim of Sarov means placing unbearable burdens on the child. Therefore, parents need to protect boys and girls in such a way that the child goes to school easily and is not afraid of boys, girls, or teachers. As one first-grader girl told me today: “I think my teacher doesn’t like me.” I won’t tell you what I told her about this - this is the secret of confession. Everything here is extremely simple. Alexander Nevsky cut his opponents in half with his sword, and German Christians fell apart into two halves. And both halves drowned in the cold lake. The holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky not only shortened their beak, but also made food from them for fish.
O. Alexander: - And he went to the Horde to receive a charter from the khan to reign. And he worshiped the khan.
O. Dmitry: - Moreover, according to legend, he was poisoned by them. When they saw the handsome, powerful knight, they imagined what a threat he posed to them. And on the way one day from the Horde he went to the Lord, not reaching the age of forty.
O. Alexander: - His attitude towards the enemy. And these are the enemies who tried to latinize our land, and those who tried to burn it.
O. Dmitry: “He is a wise man and did not stupidly strive to fulfill the Holy Scriptures, because one must have elementary reasoning. A young man called you, but he doesn’t understand such a simple thing.
Question: Father, give me some advice. I met a 45-year-old man. He has never been married, but he knows nothing about God and has no interest. But he doesn’t drink, doesn’t smoke, was brought up in a good family, good parents. Is it worth having a serious relationship with a person like that?
O. Dmitry: - What do you call a serious relationship?
Question: - In the future, start a family with him.
O. Dmitry: - In what future?
Question: - When will he decide?
O. Dmitry: - In 15 years...
Question: - I don’t know.
O. Dmitry: - And since you don’t know, then there is a Russian proverb: if you don’t know the ford, don’t go into the water. Did you hear? Since you listen to “Radonezh”, then you are Orthodox. How can a man like that marry a godless man? How will you build a home Orthodox Church with him?
O. Dmitry: - He doesn’t mind... But he must be the captain of the ship. And if he’s not cut out to be a boatswain, then what? Who will lead the ship? How is it possible to live to be 45 and not know anything about God? He is not interested in God. What if you have children and you try to get them into church? And he will say: don’t listen to mom, she’s talking nonsense. I felt sorry for you, no need. Men are usually impatient, and if he, a man raised in a good family, knows nothing about God, this says a lot. He was raised outside the church environment, and therefore in an anti-church environment, where gender relations are spoiled, to put it mildly, by debauchery. He will demand what the husband expects from his wife, and this will turn upside down. Why do you need to stand on your head when you can stand well on your feet?
O. Alexander: — The usual counterargument is that I can influence him, and then he promised me to go to church and get baptized.
O. Dmitry: - I know how these promises end. Hundreds of such promises passed through my eyes, ears, and heart. Especially about this: he drank, but promised to quit.
O. Alexander: - Sometimes it even lasts for some time.
O. Dmitry: - We had a man in our parish who, in order to get married - and he fell deeply in love with one girl - did not drink for a year, being a real alcoholic. But at the wedding the brake was released, and she saw it in all its glory. I said: tomorrow go to the registry office and apply for divorce. She didn’t listen, and six months later she got divorced anyway.
O. Alexander: - That is, the person sincerely wanted...
O. Dmitry: - There is a Soviet saying: wanting is not harmful. In fact, wanting is harmful. It all depends on what the person wants.
O. Alexander: - He wants to get rid of the passion that is strangling him. He understands that he is weak.
O. Dmitry: - Okay, get rid of it, and then come and get married.
O. Alexander: - He asks for help, he can’t handle it alone.
O. Dmitry: - Help, but the woman is not a doctor.
O. Alexander: - And he sees such a support in a woman.
O. Dmitry: - Now I’ll die laughing - a man sees support in a woman! There are some women, I even knew one, who found her future husband drunk under the fence. She raised him and fought his drinking all her life. And she died at retirement age. Two weeks later he died. She accomplished a feat, I bow to her, but this is a woman with such a character - this is not something that will stop a horse in its tracks, but a locomotive. There are such women. I bow down. But this Seryozha was a church man, he treated the Church reverently. And his whole life testifies to this.
O. Alexander: - The disease of drunkenness tormented him all his life.
O. Dmitry: - Yes, but he did it for the sake of love for her... And she was a beauty, and she really is his support, it happens, there’s nothing wrong with that. But when a person is without God, what can be built with him?
Question: - What to do if you are called names at school?
O. Dmitry: - I will answer this way - the best thing is to go deaf, not to hear, then they will stop calling you names.
O. Alexander: - Don’t answer at all. Don't give a reason.
O. Dmitry: - I remember this myself. They call them names in order to provoke a reaction, of course, all children are manipulators, they want to rule, because no one is trying to explain to them what passions are, how they are harmful to the soul, what abomination and vulgarity are. Nobody tells children about this. That’s why children become monsters, freaks, especially in children’s groups. A terrible conglomerate. And all sorts of bullying happens. But if you don’t react, everything dries up.
O. Alexander: - They switch to someone else. They start to bully.
O. Dmitry: - And if they start to bully you, you need to beat them. Better than the main bully.
O. Alexander: - They will take revenge.
O. Dmitry: - They might get scared, these are children. These are not criminals. Just think, the boys got into a fight.
O. Alexander: - When they see that you are not afraid and can fight back...
O. Dmitry: - They’ll get rid of it right away.
O. Alexander: “Or they’ll wait for five of us behind the fence after school.”
O. Dmitry: - They’re unlikely to dare.
O. Alexander: - In such a situation, is it worth telling dad at home?
O. Dmitry: - You need to tell dad the first time. For him to intervene. And tell us who exactly. And find out who's in charge. Dad will take him by the collar, take him to a secluded place and explain that this boy is his son, and other solid verbs.
O. Alexander: - Now it’s dangerous to even touch someone else’s child with your finger.
O. Dmitry: - Why would you touch it with your finger? By the collar. And don't touch him. If dad cannot solve such a child's problem, then he is not a dad, but simply disabled.
Question: Is love from under a stick possible?
O. Dmitry: - No.
O. Alexander: - What about bringing a resisting person to love? For example – study?
O. Dmitry: - No. They sent me a small video on the Internet, it shows a three-year-old boy crying, and his mother makes him draw sticks in the copybook. After listening three times, I saw that the boy was extremely developed, but it is clear that at three years old, fine motor skills are not yet developed, and the task set by his mother is impossible to solve. And he has an internal conflict. What can you say about this video? Mom showed her own pedagogical failure in this iPhone. She's a complete idiot. And what she does is to make her hate learning. The child cries, and she laughs at him and forces him to do what he cannot do. Some kind of sadism!
O. Alexander: - There is an opinion that the sooner you start teaching, the better.
O. Dmitry: — There are many idiotic opinions, more than sober and sensible ones.
Question: Is it possible for a young man to see his development several years in advance? Or will God give the day and give us food? He has enough worries for today. Or can you see yourself in 5-10 years?
O. Dmitry: — You can see it, but you have to understand that these are dreams, not that you will clearly follow the plan. Mom told me that not a single guy from their class returned from the war. 100% of everyone was killed. Here are the plans. Many plans are decided completely not where we live. In other places completely. It is approximately possible, but, for example, if there is an inclination towards the humanities, a person enters a university to study history. Historical education will always be useful for a person. Will he be a journalist, will he be a teacher, a history professor, an archaeologist? A huge field. Likewise, medicine is a sea of industries. Or you can study medical science. A person evaluates his possibilities, studies his own interests, what his inclinations are, consults with his parents, and maybe even with a priest. He accumulates the experience of adults about whom it is known that they love him and are not indifferent, and can suggest something. You can also try. If you don’t like your specialty from the first year, you can leave. Mothers cry in the admissions committees, but the applicant must be calm. You serve in the army for one year, there is no hazing, it’s pure pleasure to be a man, to humble yourself, to become physically stronger—everything will be beneficial.
O. Alexander: — A person has immersed himself in science, but what benefit will this bring to his soul and will it be in demand in his future life?
O. Dmitry: - Nobody knows. I know one young mother who is, as they call it, a stay at home mom. And while she was sitting at home for a year, she received job offers. From the USA, Germany, Moscow State University. And she agreed to one. Without leaving home, she will earn a little money for her family budget, although this is not her goal. And the goal is not to be distracted from the science that she has been doing all her life. She found such a lightweight option in Germany, which she studied in Moscow. If you know or be able to do something, there will be a queue lined up for a person to deign to work for them under any conditions. And if you know how to do something, for example, brilliantly lay tiles of any size on any surface, then someone will definitely fall for it. And word of mouth will give him so much work that he will stop laying tiles and open a school. And each of his pupils will give him 10%. So if you know and be able to do something...
O. Alexander: “Then you will be in demand in this life, it will give you your daily bread and money for a car in which you can take your six children to church.”
O. Alexander: - And satisfaction. Is it necessary for the future life?
O. Dmitry: - Of course. If a person has not succeeded in anything, then he will not succeed in spiritual life.
O. Alexander: - So it’s connected?
O. Dmitry: - Of course. A person must be someone. Not just a lump of mucus.
O. Alexander: “One day a mother and a boy came to Seraphim of Sarov and asked if he needed to be taught.
O. Dmitry: - He said that it would be nice to know something. This is genius. St. Seraphim is a Russian genius. In all of Russia, in no century have we had such a person who could read the entire New Testament every week. This is simply amazing.
O. Alexander: - And knowing it by heart...
O. Dmitry: — That’s how you find out when you’ve been reading for so many years! I knew it by heart. In Slavic. By the way, because at that time only the first attempts were made to translate into Russian. Everything is open before us, we can make plans, but treat it very lightly.
Question: — I get irritated and offended by my loved ones. You can be patient with others, but not at home. Why? After all, they are not my enemies.
O. Dmitry: — It happens that a person’s enemies are from his own household. It’s just that usually a person tries to catch up with strangers and make a good impression, but at home everyone already knows. Hello, mommy, daddy. And for him, well, stop making faces.
O. Alexander: - Or maybe, through forcing such a respectful attitude, something in one’s character will really change?
O. Dmitry: “Everything influences a person. From the full moon to the clothes he's wearing.
O. Alexander: — So it’s more like a reluctance to restrain yourself in front of loved ones?
O. Dmitry: - It makes no sense - everyone knows what he is like anyway. If he decides to change this attitude, then he must overcome skepticism, he must become so different that they forget what he was like. This will take 8-10 years.
O. Alexander: - Those who knew him before will have time to die.
O. Dmitry: Let's hope not.
O. Alexander: — And new people will recognize him in a new guise.
O. Dmitry: Let's hope.
Question: - John the Baptist said that the coming Messiah will baptize with fire, but what is this?
O. Dmitry: - This is the Holy Spirit. For God is a consuming fire.
Question: - Can a person experience the Kingdom of God while on earth?
O. Dmitry: - Of course, it is inside us.
O. Alexander: — People often ask how to understand if it’s already inside a person?
O. Dmitry: - If they ask like that, then they are not there yet.
O. Alexander: - When the Kingdom of Heaven enters a person, it will not be confused with anything.
O. Dmitry: - Eyes didn’t see that, ears didn’t hear that...
O. Alexander: - Exclamation - what grace, what joy...?
O. Dmitry: - This is usually about emotional feelings. And here it is spiritual.
O. Alexander: — The man went to holy places and spent several days there. And this is how he testifies to his experiences when asked. He says the grace is incredible. Does this indicate that this is the case?
O. Dmitry: - It may well be that he was touched by grace. If he came with repentance, then the grace of God will definitely touch him.
O. Alexander: “But is it too early to say that the Kingdom of Heaven resides in the heart?”
O. Dmitry: - No, if a person comes to the Kingdom of Heaven, then he will not talk to anyone or anything at all.
O. Alexander: - But I always want to share.
O. Dmitry: - If you want, this is not the same joy. Here you want to be like a merchant - he hid the pearl and stays with it.
O. Alexander: — And the desire to introduce people to the joy that the Lord gave you?
O. Dmitry: - This is vanity. A person shares in order to be glorified. He says: The Lord gave it to ME.
Question: — Question on the topic of education in public schools. What should those who are already studying in these schools do, where, as you say, they teach something that is not what should be taught? The child, being there, willy-nilly adapts so as not to be a black sheep.
O. Dmitry: - I’ll tell you something else - twice two, the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, and when you go outside in the rain, it would be nice to take a raincoat and an umbrella. Why are you telling me things that I, as a teacher, a professional with ten years of experience, know by heart? For what purpose are you telling me? I know all this. I myself studied in two schools, I know from my own experience. What should you do? What do you want to know? It happens that a person cannot do anything. So we have to be patient. And if you have the opportunity to teach your child yourself, then you need to take up the textbooks yourself and start teaching him. He will take subjects according to the program as an external student. The child spends a lot of energy opposing the team, most of it. And he doesn't understand why he has to learn this. And if this is associated with external and intra-family violence, then he generally becomes lost and goes into denial. You need to know the child well, you need to talk to him, know what is going on in his soul, you need to support him in all good things. For example, despite the fact that my universities took place in difficult conditions, I am not offended by the school, I survived, even the teachers met me halfway. I remember the math teacher, a wonderful woman, let me go in the fifth or sixth grade because I knew how to behave well, how to make the teachers happy, how to copy, I knew all this close to perfection. And how to shorten the beak.
O. Alexander: — Parents find themselves at a loss before the situation.
O. Dmitry: - If you are at a loss, then you need to submit to the situation. When the Germans attacked France, all of France was at a loss. And they decided to give up. Just in case. This was the end of France as an independent state.
O. Alexander: - And so give up your children, capitulating to the situation?
O. Dmitry: - If we can’t do anything? You can start diplomatic negotiations, study the teachers, you need to make good contact with the class teacher, you need to see which teachers you can talk to, then go to the head teacher, to the director. There is a problem, we need to solve it. These are your children. One must give one's life for a child!
O. Alexander: - Thank you, father, for your answers. Goodbye.
O. Dmitry: - Thank you for the questions, all the best!
Banned Gospels
If you follow the chronology of biblical events, then one of the first to follow is Fr. This book describes the birth, childhood and youth of the mother of Jesus Christ, Mary, until the birth of the Savior. This version of the Gospel contains many passages from other texts canonized by the church. Based on the title of this book, it is clear that Jacob, the son of Jesus’ father from his first marriage, claims to be its author. However, this version does not stand up to criticism, since the writer was clearly unfamiliar with Jewish traditions. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that, according to the text, three-year-old Mary was taken to the temple, where she lived until she was 12 years old.
Another scripture, the “Gospel of Childhood,” allegedly written by the Apostle Thomas, tells about the childhood of Jesus himself. In this text, little Jesus appears to the reader as a kind of superman, and not always kind. It can purify water, or it can also “dry up” a child who tries to stir up the purified pond again. And adults who complain about Christ's tricks suddenly go blind. However, according to scientists, Thomas cannot be considered the author of this Gospel, since according to some details of the narrative one can easily conclude that the writer does not have the slightest idea about the life of the Jews.
In addition to these two apocrypha, the Gospels of Peter, Mary, Philip and Barnabas, the Gospels of Eve, Nicodemus and Judas, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Twelve, the Gospel of the Hebrews and other works are also known.
Gospel of Matthew. Chapter 21
To main
All authors
Home → Bible → Gospel of Matthew
1 And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, [1] Mk. 11:1. OK. 19:29. 2 Saying to them, Go to the village that is right in front of you; and immediately you will find a donkey tied and a colt with her; untie, bring to Me; 3 And if anyone says anything to you, answer that the Lord needs them; and he will send them forthwith.
4 Nevertheless this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: 5 Say unto the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, sitting upon a donkey, and upon the colt of an ass, the son of a yoke.[5] Is. 62:11. Zach. 9:9. In. 12:15.
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them: 7 They brought a donkey and a colt and put their clothes on them, and He sat on top of them.[7] Mk. 11:7.
8 And many people spread their clothes along the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them along the road;[8] Jn. 12:13. 9 And the people who preceded and accompanied cried out: Hosanna[14] to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! [9] Ps. 117:26. Mk. 11:10. OK. 19:38.
10 And when He entered into Jerusalem, the whole city began to stir, saying, Who is this?
11 And the people said, This is Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
12 And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, [12] Mk. 11:15. OK. 19:45. In. 2:14. 13 And he said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; and you made it a den of thieves.[13] Is. 56:7. Jer. 7:11. Mk. 11:17. OK. 19:46.
14 And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.
15 When the chief priests and scribes saw the miracles that He did, and the children shouting in the temple and saying: Hosanna to the Son of David! - They were indignant 16 and said to Him: Do you hear what they say? Jesus says to them: Yes! have you never read: from the mouths of babes and sucklings have You made praise?[16] Ps. 8:3.
17 And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany and spent the night there.
18 And in the morning, returning to the city, he became hungry; 19 And seeing a fig tree by the way, he approached it and, finding nothing on it except some leaves, said to it: Let there be no fruit from you henceforth forever. And the fig tree immediately withered.[19] Mk. 11:13.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were surprised and said, “How is it that the fig tree withered away immediately?”
21 Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done
with the fig tree, but if you also say to this mountain, “Be taken up and cast into the sea,” it will happen; [21] Matt. 17:20. OK. 17:6. Jacob 1:6. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer in faith, you will receive.[22] Mf. 7:7. Mk. 11:24. In. 14:13.
23 And when He came into the temple and taught, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him and said, By what authority are You doing this? and who gave you such power?[23] Matt. 7:29. Mk. 11:28. OK. 20:1-2.
24 Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you one thing; If you tell Me about this, then I will tell you by what authority I do this; 25 Where did the baptism of John come from: from heaven, or from men? They reasoned among themselves: if we say: from heaven, then He will tell us: why didn’t you believe him?
26 But if we say: from men, we are afraid of the people, for everyone regards John as a prophet.[26] Mf. 14:5. Mk. 6:20.
27 And they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” He also said to them: And I will not tell you by what authority I do this.
28 What do you think? One man had two sons; and he, approaching the first, said: son! Go today and work in my vineyard.
29 But he answered, “I don’t want to; and then, repenting, he left.
30 And coming to the other, he said the same thing. This one said in response: I’m going, sir, but I didn’t go.
31Which of the two fulfilled the will of the father? They tell Him: first. Jesus says to them: Truly I say to you, tax collectors and harlots are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you,[31] Lk. 7:29. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the publicans and harlots believed him; But you, having seen this, did not repent afterwards to believe him.[32] OK. 3:12.
33 Listen to another parable: There was a certain owner of a house who planted a vineyard, surrounded it with a fence, dug a winepress in it, built a tower, and, having given it to vinedressers, went away.[33] Ps. 79:9. Song 8:11-12. Is. 5:1. Jer. 2:21. Mk. 12:1. OK. 20:9.
34 When the time for fruit approached, he sent his servants to the vinedressers to take their fruit; 35 The vinedressers seized his servants, beat one, killed another, and stoned another.[35] Mf. 5:12; 23:34.
36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did the same to them.
37 Finally, he sent his son to them, saying: They will be ashamed of my son.
38 But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said to one another, “This is the heir; let's go, kill him and take possession of his inheritance.[38] Mf. 26:4; 27:1.
39 And they seized him, took him out of the vineyard and killed him.[39] Heb. 13:12.
40 So when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do with these vinedressers?
41 They say to him, “He will put these evildoers to an evil death, and he will give the vineyard to other vinedressers, who will give him the fruit in their seasons.”
42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner?” Is this from the Lord, and is it marvelous in our eyes?[42] Ps. 117:22-23. Is. 28:16. Mk. 12:10. OK. 20:17. Acts 4:11.
43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who bear the fruits thereof; 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whoever it falls on will be crushed.[44] Is. 8:14. Dan. 2:44-45. 1 Pet. 2:7. Rome. 9:32.
45 And hearing His parables, the chief priests and Pharisees understood that He was speaking about them, 46 and tried to seize Him, but they were afraid of the people, because they considered Him to be a Prophet.
Next page →
← 20 pp. Gospel of Matthew
22 pages → Pages:
21
Total 29 pages
© "Online-Chit.RF" Feedback
Menu
Book of kinship.Why did not Saint Matthew say “vision” or “word”, like the prophets, for they thus wrote: “The vision that Isaiah saw” (Isa. 1, 1) or “The word that came to Isaiah” (Is. 2, 1)? Do you want to know why? Because the prophets spoke to the hard-hearted and rebellious, and therefore they said that this was a Divine vision and the word of God, so that the people would fear and not despise what they said. Matthew spoke to the faithful, well-meaning, and obedient, and therefore did not first say anything like the prophets. I also have something else to say: what the prophets saw, they saw with their minds, contemplating it through the Holy Spirit; that's why they called it a vision. Matthew did not mentally see Christ and contemplate Him, but morally remained with Him and sensually listened to Him, contemplating Him in the flesh; therefore he did not say: “the vision that I saw,” or “contemplation,” but said: “The Book of Kinship.”
Jesus.
The name “Jesus” is not Greek, but Hebrew, and translated means “Savior,” for the Jews use the word “yao” to talk about salvation.
Christ.
Kings and high priests were called Christs (“Christ” in Greek means “anointed one”), for they were anointed with holy oil poured out from a horn, which was placed on their heads. The Lord is called Christ both as a King, for He reigned against sin, and as a High Priest, for He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. He was anointed with the true oil, the Holy Spirit, and anointed above others, for who else had the Spirit like the Lord? The grace of the Holy Spirit acted in the saints, but in Christ it was not the grace of the Holy Spirit that acted, but Christ Himself, together with the Spirit of Consubstantiality with Him, performed miracles.
Son of David.
After Matthew said “Jesus,” he added “Son of David” so that you would not think that he was talking about another Jesus, for there was another famous Jesus, the leader of the Jews after Moses. But this one was called the son of Nun, and not the son of David. He lived many generations before David and was not from the tribe of Judah, from which David came, but from another.
Son of Abraham.
Why did Matthew put David before Abraham? Because David was more famous; he lived later than Abraham and was a glorious king. Of the kings, he was the first to please God and received a promise from God that Christ would arise from his seed, which is why everyone called Christ the Son of David. And David actually retained the image of Christ in himself: just as he reigned in the place of Saul, rejected by God and hated by God, so Christ came in the flesh and reigned over us after Adam lost the kingdom and power that he had over all living things and over demons .
Abraham gave birth to Isaac.
The evangelist begins his genealogy with Abraham because he was the father of the Jews, and because he was the first to receive the promise that “through his seed all nations will be blessed.” So, it is fitting to begin the genealogy of Christ from him, for Christ is the seed of Abraham, in whom all of us who were pagans and were formerly under the curse were blessed. Abraham in translation means “father of tongues”, and Isaac means “joy”, “laughter”. The Evangelist does not mention the illegitimate children of Abraham, for example, Ishmael and others, because the Jews did not descend from them, but from Isaac.
Isaac gave birth to Jacob; Jacob gave birth to Judah and his brothers.
You see that Matthew mentioned Judas and his brothers because the twelve tribes came from them.
Judah fathered Perez and Zerah by Tamar.
Judah gave Tamar in marriage to Er, one of his sons; when this one died childless, he married her to Ainan, who was also his son. When this one also lost his life for his shame, Judas no longer united her in marriage with anyone. But she, strongly desiring to have children from Abraham’s seed, put aside the clothes of widowhood, took on the form of a harlot, mixed with her father-in-law and conceived two twin children from him. When the time came for the birth, the first of the sons showed his hand from his spoon, as if he would be the first to be born. The midwife immediately marked the child's hand with a red thread so that he could recognize who would be born first. But the child carried his hand into the womb, and first another baby was born, and then the one who first showed his hand. Therefore, the one born first was called Pharez, which means “break,” because he disturbed the natural order, and the one who carried away the hand was called Zara. This story points to some mystery. Just as Zara first showed his hand, and then drew her away again, so did life in Christ: it was revealed in the saints who lived before the law and circumcision, for all of them were not justified by keeping the law and commandments, but by the life of the gospel. Look at Abraham, who for the sake of God left his father and home and renounced his nature. Look at Job, Melchizedek. But when the law came, such a life was hidden, but just as after the birth of Perez, later Zerah came out of the womb again, so after the giving of the law, the life of the gospel later shone forth, sealed with a red thread, that is, the blood of Christ. The Evangelist mentioned these two babies because their birth meant something mysterious. In addition, although Tamar, apparently, does not deserve praise for mixing with her father-in-law, the evangelist also mentioned her in order to show that Christ, who accepted everything for our sake, also accepted such ancestors. More precisely: in order to sanctify them by the fact that He Himself was born of them, for He did not come “to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Perez gave birth to Hezrom. Hezrom begat Aram, and Aram begat Abinadab. Amminadab gave birth to Nahshon. Nahshon begat Salmon. Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab.
Some think that Rahab is the Rahab the harlot who received Joshua’s spies: she saved them and was saved herself. Matthew mentioned her in order to show that just as she was a harlot, so was the whole assembly of the Gentiles, for they committed fornication in their deeds. But those of the pagans who accepted the spies of Jesus, that is, the apostles, and believed in their words, these were all saved.
Boaz fathered Obed by Ruth.
This Ruth was a foreigner; however, she was married to Boaz. So the pagan church, being a foreigner and outside the covenants, forgot its people and the veneration of idols, and its father the devil, and the Son of God took her as a wife.
Obed gave birth to Jesse. Jesse begat King David, King David begat Solomon from Urieh.
And Matthew mentions Uriah’s wife here for the purpose of showing that one should not be ashamed of one’s ancestors, but most of all try to glorify them with one’s virtue, and that everyone is pleasing to God, even if they were descended from a harlot, if only they have virtue.
Solomon gave birth to Rehoboam. Rehoboam gave birth to Abijah. Abijah gave birth to Asa. Asa gave birth to Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat gave birth to Joram. Jehoram gave birth to Uzziah. Uzziah gave birth to Jotham. Jotham gave birth to Ahaz. Ahaz gave birth to Hezekiah. Hezekiah gave birth to Manasseh. Manasseh gave birth to Amon. Amon gave birth to Josiah. Josiah gave birth to Joachim. Joachim gave birth to Jehoiachin and his brothers before moving to Babylon.
The Babylonian migration is the name given to the captivity that the Jews later suffered when they were taken all together to Babylon. The Babylonians fought with them at other times, but they embittered them more moderately, and then they completely resettled them from their fatherland.
After moving to Babylon, Jeconiah gave birth to Salathiel. Shealtiel gave birth to Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel gave birth to Abihu. Abihu gave birth to Eliakim. Eliakim gave birth to Azor. Azor gave birth to Zadok. Zadok gave birth to Achim. Achim gave birth to Eliud. Elihu gave birth to Eleazar. Eleazar gave birth to Matthan. Matthan gave birth to Jacob. Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Why is the genealogy of Joseph given here, and not of the Virgin Mary? What part did Joseph have in that seedless birth? Here Joseph was not the true father of Christ, so that the genealogy of Christ could be traced from Joseph. So, listen: indeed, Joseph did not have any participation in the birth of Christ, and therefore had to give the genealogy of the Mother of God; but since there was a law not to conduct genealogy through the female line (Num. 36:6), Matthew did not give the genealogy of the Virgin. Moreover, having given the genealogy of Joseph, he also gave her genealogy, for the law was not to take wives either from another tribe, or from another clan or surname, but from the same tribe and clan. Since there was such a law, it is clear that if the genealogy of Joseph is given, then the genealogy of the Mother of God is also given, for the Mother of God was from the same tribe and the same family; if not, then how could she be betrothed to him? Thus, the evangelist complied with the law, which forbade genealogy through the female line, but, nevertheless, gave the genealogy of the Virgin Mary, giving the genealogy of Joseph. He called him Mary’s husband according to the general custom, for we have the custom of calling the betrothed the husband of the betrothed, although the marriage has not yet been consummated.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the migration to Babylon to Christ there are fourteen generations.
Matthew divided the clans into three parts to show the Jews that whether they were under the government of judges, as they were before David, or under the government of kings, as they were before the exile, or under the government of high priests, as they were before the coming of Christ, they did not receive any benefit from this in relation to virtue and needed a true judge, king and high priest, who is Christ. For when the kings ceased, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Christ came. But how is it possible that from the Babylonian migration to Christ there are fourteen generations, when there are only thirteen of them? If the genealogy could include a woman, then we would include Mary and complete the number. But woman is not included in the genealogy. How can this be resolved? Some say that Matthew counted the migration as a face.
The birth of Jesus Christ was like this: after the betrothal of His Mother Mary to Joseph.
Why did God allow Mary to be betrothed, and in general, why did He give people reason to suspect that Joseph knew her? So that she has a protector in misfortunes. For he cared for her during her flight into Egypt and saved her. At the same time, she was betrothed in order to hide her from the devil. The devil, having heard that the Virgin would be pregnant, would watch her. So, in order for the liar to be deceived, the Ever-Virgin becomes engaged to Joseph. The marriage was only in appearance, but in reality it did not exist.
Before they were united, it turned out that she was pregnant with the Holy Spirit.
The word “combine” here means intercourse. Before they were united, Mary conceived, which is why the amazed evangelist exclaims: “it turned out,” as if talking about something extraordinary.
Joseph, Her husband, being righteous and not wanting to make Her public, wanted to secretly let Her go.
How was Joseph righteous? While the law commands the adulteress to be exposed, that is, to be reported and punished, he intended to conceal the sin and break the law. The question is resolved primarily in the sense that already through this very thing Joseph was righteous. He did not want to be harsh, but, loving mankind in his great kindness, he shows himself above the law and lives above the commandments of the law. Then, Joseph himself knew that Mary conceived from the Holy Spirit, and therefore did not want to expose and punish the one who conceived from the Holy Spirit, and not from an adulterer. For look what the evangelist says: “it turned out that she was with child from the Holy Spirit.” For whom did it “turn out”? For Joseph, that is, he learned that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he wanted to secretly let her go, as if he did not dare to have as a wife the one who had been awarded such great grace.
But when he thought this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying.
When the righteous man hesitated, an angel appeared, teaching him what he should do. It appears to him in a dream because Joseph had strong faith. The angel spoke to the shepherds as rude in reality, but to Joseph as righteous and faithful, in a dream. How could he not believe when the angel taught him what he had reasoned with himself and had not told anyone? While he was thinking but not telling anyone, an angel appeared to him. Of course, Joseph believed that this was from God, for only God knows the unspeakable.
Joseph, son of David.
He called him the son of David, reminding him of the prophecy that Christ would come from the seed of David. Saying this, the angel urged Joseph not to believe, but to think about David, who had received the promise regarding Christ.
Don't be afraid to accept.
This shows that Joseph was afraid to have Mary, so as not to offend God by patronizing the adulteress. Or in other words: “do not be afraid,” that is, be afraid to touch her, as if she conceived from the Holy Spirit, but “do not be afraid to receive,” that is, to have her in your home. For in his mind and thought Joseph had already let Mary go.
Mary, your wife.
This is the angel saying: “You may think that she is an adulteress. I tell you that she is your wife,” that is, she was not corrupted by anyone, but your bride.
For what is born in Her is of the Holy Spirit.
For she is not only far from illicit intercourse, but she also conceived in some divine way, so that you should rejoice the more.
Will give birth to a Son.
So that someone does not say: “But why should I believe you that what is born is of the Spirit?”, the angel speaks of the future, namely, that the Virgin will give birth to a Son. “If in this case I turn out to be right, then it is clear that this is also true - “from the Holy Spirit.” He didn’t say “he will give birth to you,” but simply “he will give birth.” For Mary did not give birth for him, but for the whole universe, and grace did not appear for him alone, but it was poured out on everyone.
And you shall call His name Jesus.
You will name, of course, as the father and as the patron of the Virgin. For Joseph, having learned that conception is from the Spirit, no longer thought about letting the Virgin go helpless. And you will help Maria in everything.
For He will save His people from their sins.
Here it is interpreted what the word “Jesus” means, namely the Savior, “for He,” it is said, “will save His people” - not only the Jewish people, but also the pagan ones, who strive to believe and become His people. What will it save you from? Is it because of the war? No, but from “their sins.” From this it is clear that the One who will be born is God, for it is characteristic of God alone to forgive sins.
And all this happened, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet who spoke might be fulfilled.
Don’t think that this recently became pleasing to God—long ago, from the beginning. You, Joseph, as you who were brought up in the law and know the prophets, think about what the Lord said. He did not say “what was spoken by Isaiah,” but “by the Lord,” for it was not man who spoke, but God through the mouth of man, so the prophecy is completely reliable.
Behold, the Virgin will receive with child.
The Jews say that the prophet has not a “virgin”, but a “young woman”. They must be told that in the language of Holy Scripture, a young woman and a virgin are one and the same, for it calls an uncorrupted woman a young woman. Then, if it were not a virgin who gave birth, how could this be a sign and a miracle? For listen to Isaiah, who says that “for this reason the Lord Himself will give you a sign” (Is. 6:14), and immediately adds “behold, Virgin” and further. Therefore, if the virgin had not given birth, there would have been no sign. So, the Jews, planning evil, distort the Scripture and instead of “virgin” they put “young woman”. But whether it is a “young woman” or a “virgin”, in any case, one who is about to give birth should be considered a virgin for this to be a miracle.
And she will give birth to a Son and call His name Immanuel, which means: God is with us.
The Jews say: why is He not called Immanuel, but Jesus Christ? To this it must be said that the prophet does not say “you will name,” but “they will name,” that is, the very deeds will show that He is God, although He lives with us. Divine Scripture gives names from deeds, such as, for example: “call his name Mager-shelal-hashbaz” (Isa. 8:3), but where and who is called by that name? Since, simultaneously with the birth of the Lord, there was plunder and captivity, and wandering (idolatry) ceased, that is why it is said that He was called so, having received the name from His work.
Rising from sleep, Joseph did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him.
Look at the awakened soul, how quickly it becomes convinced.
And he accepted his wife.
Matthew constantly calls Mary the wife of Joseph, driving away evil suspicion and teaching that she was not the wife of anyone else, but him.
And I didn’t know how she finally gave birth,
that is, he never mixed with her, for the word “how” (dondezhe) here means not that he did not know her before birth, but after that he knew her, but that he never knew her at all. This is the peculiarity of the language of Scripture; Thus, the corvid did not return to the ark, “until the water dried up from the earth” (Gen. 8:6), but he did not return even after that; or again: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20), but after the end will it not be? How? Then even more so. Similarly, here the words: “how she finally gave birth” should be understood in the sense that Joseph did not know her either before or after her birth. For how would Joseph have touched this saint when he knew well her ineffable birth?
His firstborn son.
She calls Him the firstborn not because she allegedly gave birth to another son, but simply because He was the first born and the only one: Christ is both “firstborn,” as the first born, and “only begotten,” as having no second brother.
And he called His name Jesus.
Joseph shows his obedience here too, because he did what the angel told him.
Anomaly - electronic library
Gospel- the general name for the first four books of the New Testament part of the Bible [Here we mean only the canonical Gospels; about the apocryphal gospels]. The word “gospel” comes from the Greek ευ'αγγέλιον - good news, gospel, and is attached to these books because they set forth the “good news” about the life and teaching of Christ, who appeared for the salvation of mankind. In their totality, in accordance with their number, they are called the Four Gospels. Of the four Gospels, the first three are usually called synoptic (E. from Matthew, Mark and Luke) - from the Greek word synopsis, corresponding to the Latin. conspectus. This name was given to them because they are very close to each other in plan and content, which can easily be located in the appropriate tables. This term is not older than the 16th century (first encountered by George Sigelius in his “Sinopsis historiae Jes. Christi”, 1585). Each of the synoptic Gospels, however, has its own peculiarities; exegesis has even developed a numerical formula that determines their similarities and differences. If, using this formula, the entire content of the individual gospels (including the fourth) is determined by the number 100, then the following figures are obtained: in Matthew, 58% of the content is similar to the others and 42% is different from the others; Mark has 93% similarity. and 7 distinct, in Luke - 41 and 59, in John - 8 and 92. It is also calculated that the total number of verses common to all weather forecasters rises to 350; then, Matthew has 350 verses exclusively characteristic of him, Mark - 68, Luke - 541. Similarities are mainly noticeable in the rendering of the sayings of Christ, differences - in the narrative part. In Matthew the narrative takes up about 1/4 of the entire E., in Mark 1/2, in Luke 1/3. When Matthew and Luke literally agree with each other in their gospels, Mark always agrees with them; the similarity between Luke and Mark is much closer than between Luke and Matthew; when Mark has additional features, they usually also appear in Luke, which cannot be said about the features found only in Matthew, and, finally, in those cases where Mark does not report anything, Hev. Luke often differs from Matthew.
The time of origin of the Gospels cannot be determined with absolute accuracy, but must be placed in the second half of the first century. The first New Testament books were undoubtedly the epistles of the apostles, caused by the need to teach the newly founded Christian communities; but soon there was a need for books that would detail the history of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Negative criticism of Baur's school attempted to attribute the origins of E. to the end of the 2nd century in order to undermine their historical authenticity; but already Baur’s students (Zeller, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld) admit the great antiquity of E. The latest discoveries in the field of ancient patristic literature speak in its favor. It can be assumed that Matthew wrote his E. around 50-60. according to R. X., Mark and Luke - several years later and in any case earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e. before 70, and John - at the end of the 1st century, in old age. The language in which E. is written is Greek, not classical, but the so-called Alexandrian (see Ancient Greek language), the most widespread at that time. Books written on it could be freely read by the most diverse peoples - from the shores of Atlas. ocean to the Euphrates and beyond; knowledge of it was considered a necessary accessory to education among all the peoples that were part of the Roman Empire. Of the authors, E. Matthew and John were apostles and eyewitnesses of the ministry of Christ; the other two were what Blazh. Jerome called "men of the apostles." St. Mark, in all likelihood, was even an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ in the last period of His life; In the church from ancient times, a tradition has been preserved that his E. bears traces of direct influence from the apostle. Petra. Luke directly states that he was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ (although according to tradition he was one of the 70 disciples); but he took advantage of those records that already existed before him regarding the life and teachings of Christ. In addition, he, as the closest follower of the ap. Paul clearly depicted in his E. the views of this greatest of the apostles. Thus, E. essentially descends from the four great apostles: Matthew, Peter, Paul and John. To what extent were the authors of Evangelicalism dependent on pre-existing records about the life and work of Christ? This difficult question has given rise to many theories, often contradictory. That such records existed is directly evidenced by Luke in the introduction to his E. (“How many have already begun to compile narratives,” etc.). It is very likely that already in the first days of the Christian church a whole circle of authoritative oral traditions circulated among Christians, which, under the leadership of the apostles as eyewitnesses of the events themselves, sought to obtain a firmly established form. The orally transmitted legends were therefore soon recorded by some of the students in writing; such records could naturally serve as primary materials and sources for those “many who began to compile narratives,” and the most reliable information from them could then be included in E. That the evangelists were not absolutely dependent on the records and narratives that preceded them, about this The great difference that exists between synoptic E. and E. John clearly demonstrates. The weather forecasters talk almost exclusively about the activities of Christ in Galilee, John - about His activities in Judea. The weather forecasters mainly talk about miracles, parables and external events in His life, but John discusses its deepest meaning. In general, E. John is distinguished by greater spirituality and, so to speak, idealism, which gave rise to critics to assume that it does not give history, but allegories of the life of Christ. Despite all the differences between E., they are alien to contradictions; upon careful examination, one can find clear signs of agreement between the weather forecasters and John, even in the presentation of the facts of the external life of Christ. John talks little about the Galilean ministry of Jesus Christ, but he undoubtedly knows about His repeated long stay in Galilee; weather forecasters do not say anything about the early activities of Jesus Christ in Judea and Jerusalem, but hints of this activity are often found among them. So, according to their testimony, Christ had friends, disciples and followers there, for example. the owner of the upper room where the Last Supper took place, and Joseph of Arimathea. The famous words are especially important in this regard: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often have I wished to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks,” an expression which obviously presupposes the repeated or long stay of Christ in Jerusalem. Forecasters, however, do not talk about such a great miracle as the resurrection of Lazarus, but Luke is well acquainted with his sisters in Bethany; and in a few features the character of these sisters depicted by him is consistent with what John tells about their course of action on the occasion of the death of their brother. Many sayings given by John clearly resemble the conversations of Christ given by the weather forecasters. Thus, the famous saying cited by Matthew: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father” (XI, 27) is very close to those with which E. John is filled. True, the conversations of Christ among the weather forecasters are generally of a different nature than those of John: there they are popular, clear and consist of visual parables and explanatory examples, while in John they are deep, mysterious, often difficult to understand, as if they were not spoken for the crowd , but for a closer circle of listeners. But one is not excluded by the other; different modes of speech could be caused by different conditions and circumstances. Both in the weather forecasters and in John, Christ is depicted surrounded by crowds of people; It would be difficult to understand how He could captivate the crowd with His words if He spoke only as it is depicted in John. On the other hand, the entire fullness of knowledge about Christ as the God-man, which has appeared in the Christian church since ancient times, would have been incomprehensible if Christ had not spoken sublimely mysterious conversations, such as those set forth in John. If the weather forecasters put forward a more human side in Christ, depicting Him as the Son of Man, the son of David, and John, on the contrary, puts forward the divine side and presents Him as the Son of God, this does not mean that the weather forecasters lack the divine side or that John lacks the human side . The Son of Man is also considered by the weather forecasters to be the Son of God, to whom was given all authority in heaven and on earth. John also has the Son of God as a true man, who goes to the wedding feast, talks friendly with Martha and Mary, and weeps at the tomb of his friend Lazarus. The Synoptics and John, thus, complement each other and only in their totality give the most perfect image of Christ, as He is perceived and preached by the Church. Ancient Christian writers compared the Four Gospels to a river, which, leaving Eden to irrigate the paradise planted by God, divided into four rivers flowing through countries abounding in all kinds of precious stones and metals. An even more common symbol for the four E. was the mysterious chariot that the prophet Ezekiel saw during the river. Khobar (I, 5-26) and which consists of four four-faced creatures, resembling a man, a lion, a calf and an eagle. These creatures, taken individually, became emblems for the evangelists: Christian art, starting from the 5th century, depicts Matthew with a man or angel, Mark with a lion, Luke with a calf, John with an eagle. The reason for this combination was the consideration that Matthew in his E. puts forward the especially human and messianic character of Christ, Mark depicts His omnipotence and royalty, Luke speaks of His high priesthood (with which the sacrifice of calves was associated), and John, according to Blessed. Augustine, “like an eagle soars above the clouds of human weakness.”
The earliest of E. is recognized as E. from Matthew. Its author, ap. Matthew was a tax collector and, therefore, had to be able to read and write. According to legend, he wrote his E. in Hebrew, since he intended it as a lesson to his fellow tribesmen, especially the scribes. The Hebrew original was soon translated into Greek, and this translation has reached us. In accordance with the purpose of E., it proves to the converted Jews that Jesus is the Messiah for whom they were waiting. Following the events of Christ's earthly life, Matthew notes at every occasion how one or another of them is in close correlation with Old Testament prophecies. Hence the constant repetitions: “this has happened, that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, who says” such and such, might be fulfilled (I, 22; II, 16, 23, etc.). Matthew has at least 65 references to the Old Testament: in 43 cases a literal extract is made, and in the rest - only an indication of the general meaning. E. from Matthew consists of 28 chapters, begins with a statement of the genealogy of Christ from Abraham and ends with the Savior’s farewell conversation with the apostles before the Ascension, when He commanded them to go preaching Christianity to all nations, promising to be with them “always until the end of the age.” .
The second E. is written by St. Mark, who in his youth bore a double name - John Mark, and the latter name, as quite common among the Romans, subsequently replaced the first. Listeners up. They wanted a written statement of Peter's teachings. In response to this request, Mark outlined everything he had heard from the apostle. Peter about the earthly life of I. Christ, in an extremely visual and picturesque form. E. Mark, apparently, intended his for the pagans. It rarely makes reference to the Old Testament, but often explains various Jewish customs, such as eating unleavened bread on Passover and washing hands and vessels. E. written by Mark either in Rome or in Alexandria. It primarily depicts the time of the solemn ministry of the Messiah, when He victoriously opposed the sin and malice of this world. E. Mark consists of 16 chapters, begins with the appearance of John the Baptist and ends with a message about how, after the ascension of Christ, the apostles went to preach the teachings of Christ. It alone, by the way, tells an episode about an unknown young man who, on the night of the capture of Christ by soldiers, ran out into the street in only a blanket, and when one of the soldiers grabbed him by the blanket, then, breaking out of the warrior’s hands, he left the blanket in his hands , and ran away completely naked (XV, 51, 52). According to legend, this young man himself was born. Mark.
The third E. is written ev. Luke (Luke is a short form of Lucan or Lucilius), a colleague of the Apostle Paul during his mission. travel. During these travels he learned to understand the apostle's teaching as a profound reproduction and interpretation of the teaching of Christ in its various applications. This prompted him to write E., which he in particular intended for a certain “Hon. Theophilus,” apparently enjoying great respect in the church and wanting to “learn the solid basis of this teaching in which he was instructed.” Before this time, the first two E. were already in circulation, as well as other fragmentary records “about completely well-known events”; but ev. Luke wanted “after a thorough examination of everything, first, in order, to describe” to the Venerable Theophilus the earthly life of Christ, as far as he knew about it from “eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” (I, 1-4). Since Theophilus, by assumption, was from the pagans, then all of E. Luke was written for Christians from the pagans. Therefore, the genealogy of Christ in it is not only from Abraham, as in E. Matthew, but from Adam as the ancestor of all people. He presents the life of Christ primarily from a historical perspective. sides, and the story is thorough, especially in the first chapters, which describe the events that preceded the birth of Christ and those that accompanied it. E. consists of 24 chapters and ends with the story of Christ’s ascension to heaven.
The fourth E. was written in Ephesus by the “beloved disciple” of I. Christ, John, who, due to the height of his teaching about God the Word, received the honorary title of Theologian. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Ephesus became the center of the Christian Church in the East, at the same time it was generally the center of the intellectual life of the East, since representatives of both Greek and Eastern thought collided here. The first heresiarch, Cerinthus, also taught there, who distorted Christianity by introducing into it Greco-Eastern elements, which he borrowed from Alexandria. Under such circumstances, it was especially necessary for the church to have guidance in faith, ensuring against error. Having in the person of the Apostle John one of the closest witnesses and eyewitnesses of the “ministry of the Word,” the Christians of Ephesus began to ask him to describe to them the earthly life of Christ the Savior. When they brought John the books of the first three evangelists, he praised them for the truth and veracity of the narrative, but found that they omitted a lot of very important things. When talking about Christ who came in the flesh, it is necessary to talk about His Divinity, since otherwise, over time, people will begin to judge and think about Christ only by how He appeared in earthly life. E. John therefore begins not with a presentation of the human side in the life of Christ, but precisely the divine side - with an indication that the incarnate Christ is the primordial Word, the same one who “in the beginning was with God and was God himself,” that Logos, through which everything that exists came into being. Such an indication of the Divinity and eternal existence of Christ was also necessary in view of the false teachings spread by Cerinthos regarding Jesus, whom he considered only a simple man who assumed the deity only temporarily, during the period from baptism to suffering, and also in view of the Alexandrian speculation about reason and word (Logos ) in their application to the relationship between God and His original Word. Complementing the weather forecasters, Ev. John describes mainly the activities of Christ in Judea, telling in detail about Christ's visit to Jerusalem on major holidays along with other pilgrims. E. from John consists of 21 chapters and ends with the testimony of the author himself that “his testimony is true.”
The literature on the subject is extremely extensive; here it is enough to indicate only the most outstanding works, especially those that served as turning points in the development of the question of the origin of E. This question received a scientific formulation in the 18th century, when researchers, not content with the traditional view, first treated it critically. Instead of the accepted view, according to which E. Matthew was the first to be recognized as E., there appeared researchers who recognized E. Luke as such (Walch, Garenbert, McKnight, etc.). But this theory was so inconsistent with the obvious data that soon seniority was transferred to E. Mark (Storr, “Ueber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. des Joh.”, Tubing., 1786, as well as “De font. evang. Matth. et Luc." 1794), and all interest then focused on the question: whether E. is considered a source or an extraction in relation to the first two. Griesbach (in his “Comm. qua Marci evang., etc.” Jena, 1789) gave precedence to the latter view. This question was pushed back for a while by the new theory of Eichhorn (in his “Einleit. in. NT” 1804), who recognized a special short work in Aramaic as the source for all synoptic E. Although this theory has no historical foundations and is a matter of pure speculation, it found ardent advocates in the person of Grau (“Neuer Versuch etc.” 1812), Ziegler and others. In its decisive form, Eichhorn’s theory, however, did not last long, and criticism again took up the question of the seniority of one of the available E.; again, many researchers settled on Mark as the most ancient evangelist (Knobel, “De evang. Marci origine”, Bresl., 1831; Reuss, “Gesch. d. H. Schrift”, 1843, etc.). Then the Tübingen school came forward with its sharply defined theory about the late origin of E. (Baur, “Krit. Untersuch, über die kanon Ev.”, Tub., 1847), and this theory occupied the minds of researchers for a long time, until the consciousness of its inconsistency put forward again the same questions about the original source came to the scene, which continued to be seen in E. Mark, although more sophisticated criticism found it possible to distinguish the present Mark from the special Urmarcus, which served as the source for Mark himself (Weiss, Holtzman, Schenkel, etc.). In the end, criticism almost begins to lean again towards the traditional view from which it tried to free itself. See I. F. Bleek, “Einleitung in die H. Schrift” (Part II, ed. 4, 1886); B. Weiss, “Lehrbuch der Einleitung in d. NT" (2nd ed. 1889), etc. In Russian literature: architect. Mikhail, “Introduction to Novoz. books" (translation of works by Guericke, M., 1864); his, “On E. and Gospel History” (2nd ed., M., 1870), etc. For the best summary of the contents of the four E. into one coherent narrative, see Rev. Feofan, in his work: “The Gospel story about God the Son, etc.” (M., 1885).
