The fact of the historical existence of Jesus Christ cannot be ignored also for the reason that many material monuments and evidence of His earthly life remain. They are located in Palestine and are called Holy Places.

In the 4th century, these places were visited by Saint Helen Equal to the Apostles, the mother of Emperor Constantine the Great. Historically, Helena was separated from Christ by a little less than three hundred years - about the same as what separates us from Emperor Peter I. But will anyone now argue that Peter I did not exist? And is it possible to invent something about his life that did not happen at all or that would go against known historical facts? Or, on the contrary, ignore some important events in his life? No, this is completely impossible. Because Peter I lived relatively recently and there is a wide variety of evidence about his life and era. Historical texts and oral tradition have brought to us a lot of information about this Russian Tsar. And there is hardly a single one among our contemporaries who would doubt its existence.

Empress Helena arrived in Palestine, where the presence of the Savior still breathed, where detailed details of His life were passed down from generation to generation: where and what He did, where He died and was buried. Saint Helena was shown these places. And she erected wonderful temples over them. The temples built on the orders of Helena at the site of the crucifixion and burial of the Savior in Jerusalem and at the site of His birth in Bethlehem have partially survived to our time. Partly because many different disasters have befallen Palestine over the past centuries. But, be that as it may, the Holy Land with its monuments, temples, and places of veneration remains convincing material evidence of the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.

In addition to the testimonies of historians and writers who were almost contemporaries of Christ, in addition to the holy places that to this day preserve the atmosphere of the era in which the Savior lived on earth, there is another and, moreover, the most important source of information about Him. These are biographies of Jesus Christ compiled by His disciples the apostles.

The Greek word “apostle” means “messenger,” and he is a witness to the life of Jesus Christ. Initially, the apostles did not write down, but simply conveyed to those who listened their testimonies about the life of Jesus. Founding Christian communities, they told about the events of the Savior’s life from memory, but in the end there was a need to write down the story of Jesus Christ. The first handwritten evidence of His life appears approximately 30 years after the death and resurrection of the Savior. In these testimonies we do not find a systematic presentation of the teaching that Christ brought into the world, for He Himself never set forth such a system. On various occasions and occasions, the Lord instructed those who listened to Him. He performed wonderful things called miracles. All this was the subject of the apostolic sermon, recorded in writing at a certain time by specific authors.

The first one, Matthew, served as a customs official in the city of Capernaum, where his meeting with the Savior took place. Matthew left his service, which was not very respected in the then Jewish society, and followed Jesus. Around 60–65 after the Nativity of Christ, while in Syria, Matthew wrote about what he saw while accompanying the Teacher. This is how the Gospel of Matthew appeared. The word “Gospel” translated from Greek into Russian means “Good News”. Being a Jew by birth and upbringing, Matthew primarily addressed the story of the Savior’s life to his fellow tribesmen. That is why his Gospel emphasizes how the promises and prophecies of the Old Testament, which spoke of the coming of the Messiah, were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Matthew's purpose was to tell the Jews that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah, the long-awaited Savior. This is the only Gospel written in Aramaic, one of the dialects of the Hebrew language.

Another Gospel writer Mark, was not a direct disciple of the Savior. He was a companion and disciple of the Apostle Peter, from whose words he wrote down his Gospel in Rome. Written in Greek, it was addressed to the pagans. Therefore, Mark is least concerned with references to the Old Testament, unknown to the Romans. The evangelist speaks of Christ as a great miracle worker. This was understandable to the pagans who believed in Zeus, Jupiter and other idols. In this Gospel, Jesus Christ is revealed as the God-man in whom the power of God operates. The Apostle Mark wrote his Gospel in the fifties after the birth of Christ.

Third Evangelist Luke, was an educated man. By profession a doctor (Col. 4:14) and an artist, he came from a pagan family of natives of Antioch in Syria. A faithful disciple and companion of the Apostle Paul, Luke shared his apostolic labors and wrote his Gospel largely from the words of Paul. The Greek language of Luke's Gospel reveals in the author a bookish man. Luke not only testifies to the deeds of the Savior, addressing his message to the pagans, among whom the Apostle Paul preached the gospel, but also tries to consistently build the history of Christ’s earthly life. Thus, he is the only one of the evangelists who, from the words of the Mother of God, writes down the story of the Savior’s childhood. The Gospel of Luke was probably written around 61 in Rome.

The Fourth Gospel, authored by the Apostle John, differs significantly from the first three, which came out of the oral tradition that existed among the disciples of Jesus Christ. These texts in science are called synoptic, that is, they have significant similarities with each other. There is reason to believe that the evangelists Matthew and Luke, when starting their work, already knew about the existence of the first written Gospel of Mark, which determines the commonality of all three texts. The Gospel of John complements the three previous narratives. It is written in a completely different way, and this is not accidental. John was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, His youngest and most beloved disciple. For a long time he did not write down his memories of the Teacher. However, at the end of the first century, many false teachings arose, many of which boldly challenged the truth that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. In response to heretics who perverted Christian teaching, John, already in his old age, created his Gospel. His main goal was to testify that the Lord Jesus Christ is the incarnate Word of God and the Son of God. Therefore, his Gospel began to be called the spiritual Gospel, for it is most devoted to the most sublime spiritual truths contained in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was written around 95-96 in the Asia Minor city of Ephesus.

The totality of the Gospel narratives provides us with amazingly vivid and unique evidence of the life and teaching of Christ. And this is the most reliable source of information about the Savior.

St. Apostle and Evangelist John, his Gospel and Epistles.

Apostle John , the son of Zebedee and Salome, was probably born several years after the beginning of the Christian era and, apparently, was the youngest among the Apostles, as well as the youngest in his family; this can be seen from the fact that the name of his brother James is always (with the exception of) placed before the name of John (Matt. 4:21, 10:2, 17:1; ; ; ). About John’s father, Zebedee, who lived in Bethsaida or its environs (cf.), all that is known is that he was engaged in fishing and was a fairly wealthy man, since he had workers. That the mother's name was Salome can be concluded from a comparison of Matthew 27c, cf. . Based on John 19, others think that she was the sister of the Blessed Virgin, and in this case, the sons of Zebedee were relatives of the Lord in the flesh, but such an assumption is only a simple guess, very controversial. Subsequently, probably after the death of Zebedee, Salome was among the women who accompanied the Lord and served Him with their property (cf.). A wealthy family, in all likelihood, had a house in Jerusalem, into which John received the Mother of God, according to the last will of the Crucified Lord (). Conducting a fish trade in Jerusalem, Zebedee had connections in the holy city, and John was known to the high priest Caiaphas (). From a comparison of the above data, it follows that in the house of Zebedee one cannot allow the kind of spiritual limitation that is usually associated with the idea of ​​the fisherman of Lake Galilee. The lake itself, where trade routes intersected, was a very busy center of commercial and civil life. Here the Jew heard and learned Greek from childhood. Like the other Apostles, except Judas Iscariot, John was a Galilean by birth. This circumstance has an important moral significance: while Judea was occupied with political intrigues and suppressed by religious authorities and the dryness of school doctrines, the population of Galilee was freer from Pharisaic prejudices and more preserved the simplicity of faith, being imbued with living, although misunderstood, hopes to the messianic kingdom (cf. ; ). There is no doubt that these features and conditions of the religious life of the Galileans were important in the religious life of St. John. He did not study in rabbinical schools and did not receive a higher book education (cf.), but there is no doubt that wealthy parents with special care raised their son in the principles of religion, instructing him in the Law of Moses, the history of the chosen people and the sublime and inspired broadcasts of the prophets. A complement to home education, it can be assumed, was schooling at the synagogue in Bethsaida or Capernaum. Schools were connected everywhere with synagogues, and the education of the people, perhaps nowhere was as universal as in Palestine. But John, like many great men, owes the first awakening of his soul to piety and serious religious education in general to his mother, a pious woman filled with ardent expectations of the promised kingdom of the Messiah. Therefore, when, after centuries of painful silence, the joyful news spread that John, the son of Zechariah, appeared on the banks of the Jordan in the spirit and power of the ancient prophets and announced to Israel the approach of the kingdom of the Messiah, John found himself among the disciples of the Forerunner. The image of the ascetic teacher was indelibly imprinted on the student’s soul, which is why such a significant place is given to him in the Fourth Gospel. John clearly grasped the essence of the Baptist's preaching and focused his attention precisely on the prophetic speeches about the Messiah and His redemptive activity (). He was so imbued with this expectation that one wave of the Baptist, one of his instructions: behold the Lamb of God () was enough for John to follow the object of his aspirations without the slightest hesitation (). From the nervous hour when John talked with Christ, he completely belonged to the Divine Messenger and was only waiting for His final command to leave his father and mother and follow Him. When this blessed time came, he was forever connected with the Lord by the union of that inner and heartfelt communication, by virtue of which he himself could speak of himself as a disciple, whom Jesus loved (). He greedily caught every word of the One in whom he recognized the incarnate Word of God, the Only Begotten Son, the Savior of the world, and penetrated into the very depths of the truths He proclaimed. Not a single feature of His life escaped him, not a single event passed without leaving a deep trace in his memory, so that if he had begun to report in detail what Jesus had done, the world would not have contained all the books written (John 21:25).

The Lord also responded to John’s fiery love with special love: together with Peter and his brother James, he belonged to the closest circle of the Lord’s disciples and was a witness to the outstanding events of His life (; , ; ; ;; ). In the last days of the Lord's earthly life, John is mentioned especially often. He and Peter were entrusted with preparing the Easter supper (), at the supper he reclined in the bosom of Jesus (; cf.), which is why the Church Fathers call him “confidant” of Christ, and at the supper Peter encourages him to ask the Lord about the traitor (). That same night, after the capture of Jesus Christ, John, as someone familiar to the high priest, introduces Peter into the courtyard of the bishops (). John followed his Master to the judgment and to Calvary and was the only Apostle who stood at the cross; here he received new proof of the Lord’s love and trust in him, when from the cross Jesus Christ pointed to him to His Mother as the one who would henceforth take the place of a son, and entrusted him with the Virgin Mary as a mother (). On the morning of the Resurrection, having received a message from Marin Magdalene that the tomb in which the Lord was laid turned out to be empty, John and Peter ran there; entering the tomb after Peter, he “saw and believed” (); he was the first to comprehend the Savior’s speeches about His resurrection and believed in the resurrection without hesitation or embarrassment. Then we see Ap. John in Galilee, who returned with the other disciples to their previous studies. By his miraculous catch of fish, he is the first to recognize Jesus Christ standing on the shore and say to Peter: “This is the Lord” (). After the Ascension of the Lord, John remains with the other Apostles in Jerusalem and together with Apostle. Peter has a leading role in the early Christian community of Palestine (). However, wherever Peter and John appear together, the first is actually the actor, and John only follows him (). His external activity at this time stood out so little that Herod Agrippa I, during his persecution of the Jerusalem church, captured not him, but John’s brother James and Peter and killed the first (); nevertheless An. Paul calls him one of the pillars of the Church (): so everyone felt the inner strength of his apparently invisible activity. Information about the Apostle John, delivered by the Writer, is interrupted after his return from Samaria (). It is safe to say that he did not leave Palestine until, with the Dormition of the Mother of God, the responsibilities assigned to him to care for Her ended. Then it is reliably known () that he was present at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (c. 50-52), but then we completely lose traces of the Apostle John until the moment when tradition depicts him performing his apostolic ministry among the churches of Asia Minor and in particularly in Ephesus, as evidenced by a continuous series of witnesses, starting almost from the death of the Apostle John. For a variety of reasons, but without a direct intention to prove the fact, they agree that the Apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus (see, for example, Irin. Prot. heresy 3, 1: 3. 4; 2, 22 : 5; 5, 30: 1; 33: Evsev. Ts.I. 3, 1. 4, 5. 5, 8. 18. 20. 3, 25, etc.). It is safe to say that the beginning of his life in Asia Minor dates back to a later time than the activity of the Apostle Paul there; Apparently, this was after the death of the latter, since Ap. Paul, even in his second letter to Timothy, written and sent to Ephesus immediately before his death, does not make any hint about St. being there. John. Probably, the immediate reason for the resettlement was the Jewish war, the ominous signs of which prompted Palestinian Christians to move to Pella (Evsev. Ts. I. 3, 5: 2–3). Based on the above, the beginning of the Asia Minor activity of the Apostle John dates back to around 70. The tasks and nature of this activity are sufficiently determined by the state of the Asia Minor churches in the last decades of the 1st century. Now there was no longer an urgent need for that intensity of missionary work, which is found in the evangelistic activity of the great Apostle of Languages. Therefore, John was in no hurry to preach about Christ to various countries where His name had not yet been called: he remained in Asia and here developed his activities in the very field in which the Apostle Paul worked so successfully. John was the last of the Apostles, and his activity represents the conclusion of the period of the Apostolic Church, and therefore his calling was, having completed what was unfinished, to put a seal on the Christian teaching, presented in its original purity, so that, after his death, the Church could resist those diverse and hostile to Christianity directions that had already made themselves known enough during the life of the Apostle. In view of this, the immediate task of the activity of the Apostle John was not to lay new foundations, but to continue the creation of the established building, not to expand the boundaries of the Church, but to establish the established communities in faith, to deepen the knowledge of its subject and foundations and lead to perfection, to protect from the temptations of the pagan world and deceptions false teachers, reveal the true nature of communion with God, strengthen the moral life of believers on the solid principles of Christian teaching and instruct them in the dogmas of faith. It goes without saying that the interests of missionary work were not alien to the Apostle John, but they were not the main and predominant ones. In the person of the Apostle John, the orphaned churches of Asia Minor found a new, reliable and tireless leader, who was destined by the Lord to watch for a long time over the flock of God, so that it would not be suppressed by the ever-increasing variety of “speculations” claiming the title of true gnosis, so that unity would not be violated Christian faith and life. Hence, the activity of the Apostle John, as it is reflected for us in his writings, has the character of clarifying and isolating from the Church all unclean elements, and its result is that purity and depth of Christian views, firmness of confession, clarity and confidence in relations to the environment, which appear in the struggle of the Church against Gnosticism already at the very beginning of the second century and which distinguish representatives of the Asia Minor churches. The work of the Apostle John had such a decisive influence that the direction of the life of the Church in the second century bears the clear imprint of his personality and teaching.

But the Church of the second century owes its organization to the Apostle John. The ancient Church appears before them in the writings of the second century as a completely organized whole with definite church government and church discipline, with holidays and fasts, with a liturgy, if not written, then, however, defined in its main parts, with a collection of canonical writings. There is no doubt that the first foundation of the church organization was laid by the Apostles Peter and Paul, but the continuation of creation on this foundation and completion also requires a higher, apostolic authority, which at the end of the first century could only be the Apostle. John. In this regard, the testimony of Clement Alex., who represents the activities of Ap., is precious. John in all its liveliness and diversity, when, upon arrival with Fr. Patmos to Ephesus, he undertook missionary journeys to neighboring pagan cities, partly to install bishops, partly to improve churches, partly to accept into the clergy certain persons indicated by the Holy Spirit (Quis div. salv. ch. 42 in Evsev. Ts.I. 3, 23). Wed. ; . St. John sent evangelists who preached the Gospel to the pagans, confirmed the brothers in the truth and informed the Apostle about the state of the churches (). About the same organizational activity An. John is also evidenced by a reference to the custom he adhered to during the Easter disputes (Evsev. Ts.I. 5, 24: 16). How broad and fruitful was the activity of the Apostle John in Asia Minor is evident from the fact that later tradition did not hesitate to attribute to him the founding and organization of all the churches of Asia Minor (Blessed Jerome, De vir. ill. 9). We can say that the Apostle John established all the churches of Asia Minor with his leadership, teaching and writings. In the letter of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, Bishop of Rome, there is a message about Apostle. John, that he, like the Old Testament high priest, wore a golden tablet on his forehead, with which he entered the Holy of Holies. This news of Polycrates gives rise to a wide variety of interpretations, but there is no doubt that it cannot be understood in the literal sense. Most likely, this is a symbolic designation of the position that the Apostle John occupied in the Church of Christ, as a seer, the highest teacher and its ruler. The last representative of the apostolic guise was the “metropolitan” of the churches of all Asia Minor, the supreme organizer and administrator, the shepherd of shepherds. All the “Angels of the Churches” had to listen to his voice (cf.).

The long activity of the Apostle John in Asia Minor was interrupted for a relatively short time by his exile to the island of Patmos for witnessing the divine Word (). This exile falls in the last years (93–96) of the reign of Domitian (Eusev. Ts. I. 3, 18: 1; Jerome, De vir. ill. 9). Under Domitian’s humane successor, Nerva (Sept. 18, 96 – Jan. 25, 98), probably at the beginning of 97, John returned to Ephesus. He remained in Asia Minor until the end of his life and died in Ephesus. Chapter 21 The fourth Gospel gives clear evidence that the disciple, whom Jesus loved, outlived the Apostle Peter and generally lived for a very long time, so that some even began to consider him immortal. According to the authoritative testimony of Irenaeus (Prov. heresy 2, 22: b. 3, 3:) he lived until the reign of Trajan (25 Jan. 98 - Aug. 117). This evidence undoubtedly indicates the first few years of Trajan's reign. According to the Alexandrian “Easter Chronicle,” he died one hundred years and seven months, 72 years after the Ascension of the Lord, i.e., around 105–106. The general belief of ancient Christians was that the Apostle John rested in peace in old age.

Few and brief indications in St. Scripture and tradition, as well as the writings of Apostle himself. John provide an opportunity to note the personality traits of the great Apostle. The Apostle John is often imagined as a meek youth, of unearthly beauty, with features of almost feminine tenderness, with a stamp of complete calm on his forehead and a dreamy gaze; This idea of ​​him has its basis in one of the distinctive features of his teaching, namely in the teaching of love, for which he received the name “Apostle of Love.” But in Ap. John amazingly combined the opposite qualities of calm and depth of contemplation with ardent zeal, tender and boundless love with ardor, even fiery, and the impulses of the heart sometimes reached such violent passion that Jesus Christ was forced to moderate them, as disagreeing with the spirit of the new teaching (; ). These characteristic features: turbulence, natural ardor and fiery zeal in defending and carrying out what is recognized as the truth, which John shared with his brother James, gave Jesus Christ a reason to call the brothers Boanerges, the hedgehog, the son of thunder (). Youthful passion and impetuosity sometimes manifested themselves in John the Elder. It is enough to point out the fact of the meeting of the Apostle with the heretic Cyrinthos in the public bathhouse of Ephesus (Irin. Prov. heresy 3, 3: 4; in Evsev. Ts. I. 4, 4: 6). However, Ap. John was, in fact, one of those natures who live a more internal and contemplative life than a practically active life, who, despite the fullness of their spiritual life, rarely demonstrate the power of the spirit hidden within them. Not distracted by external activities, always immersed in his own spiritual world and at the same time sensitive and receptive to external impressions that closely concern him, John in the depths of his soul processes them and makes them his lasting property. Having become a disciple of the Lord, John listens with reverent awe to the inspired speeches of his Teacher, firmly remembers them and deeply analyzes them; he notices His every move and, in the purest love, seems to be completely immersed in the contemplation of Jesus and in Him the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But he was not a cold observer who only tries to capture the whole image of a person: Ap. John followed the Teacher, like a true Israeli, who was attracted by Him precisely because you sensed in His face the revelation of that mystery, the thirst for which permeated his entire being and which was more and more revealed to his mental gaze. For everything that John observed in Jesus, he demanded and sought a sufficient explanation in His being and words. That is why, in the soul and memories of this Apostle, entire conversations of Christ with both His friends and enemies were preserved to the smallest detail, clearly and distinctly, as you show in the Gospel he wrote. This, in turn, has its basis in the fact that Ap. John possessed what is called completeness and integrity of personality. He does not understand duality because he has not experienced it himself; according to his conviction, where there is no complete devotion, there is nothing. People with such character, having once chosen a certain path, no longer deviate from it, do not hesitate in one direction or another, but go straight to the very end, wherever the chosen road leads: one end or the other, but certainly the end, there is no middle ground for them. And the Apostle John, if he gave himself to something, then completely and selflessly: in his opinion, you can belong either to Christ or to the devil - you cannot have an average, indefinite state. The apparently contradictory features of St. John - the inner fire of love and striking anger, meekness and ardent jealousy are easily reconciled with each other: in both cases the same strength of spirit is manifested, only in opposite directions - once in a positive way, being attracted by the divine, and the other time in a negative way, turning away from the godless and anti-Christian: thus the sun illuminates and warms the living and promotes the decay of the dead. An. John is at the same time the “Apostle of Love” and the “Son of Thunder.”

Possessing the fullness and integrity of personality, Ap. John does not allow any opposition between theoretical and practical, knowledge and deed, faith and life. Intellectual knowledge of the truth alone has no meaning: what does not embrace the entire spiritual life, does not influence it in a decisive way, is not known. Hence, religion is life in the full sense of the word, embracing all the powers of talent and human activity. In the field of religious knowledge, there must be a spiritual inner affinity between the knower and the known, complete, uninterrupted communication, the perfect expression of which is love. Therefore, the basis, subject and goal of all knowledge, as full of life and life-giving, Ap. John believes in love. Everything in redemption is traced back to the inexhaustible source of divine love. If Ap. John sees in Jesus Christ the eternal Word, the Son of God, then with this he has an inseparable thought about the love with which God loved the world, sending the Only Begotten Son to save the world (; cf.). In Christ there is a complete revelation of divine love, and in humanity it also gives rise to the life of love ().

In addition to calling John “Apostle of Love,” the Church gave him the name “Theologian” and thereby pointed to the main and essential point of his teaching: Apostle. John is determined to express the last word of revelation regarding God the Word, Who “from time immemorial to God” is the true God and Who, having appeared, revealed to the world the depths of divine life and gave reason to the knowledge of the True. But although none of the Apostles dwells in such detail on the pre-worldly existence of the Word as Ap. John, however, this is not the basis and ultimate goal of the gospel: the key of his theology lies in the doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word, since only by becoming incarnate could He “confess” God before people and be the Savior of the world (cf. ;). In the incarnation of the Word, man is given everything he needs.

But the distinctive and most characteristic feature of the theology of the Apostle John is that it reveals an invariable striving from the material to the spiritual, from the earthly to the heavenly, to the heavenly world: observing the present, the temporary, he does not stop at it, but transfers his gaze to both ends of it temporal - to the eternal in the past and to the eternal in the future - and from the point of view of this eternal evaluates all things and phenomena; therefore, he always ascends from external manifestation to the invisible principle and considers all things in their inner being, in comparison with which external phenomena, with their changeable diversity, lose their significance as accidental. That is why it is fair to call its theology spiritual. Church symbolism depicts Ap. John with the eagle, which soars bravely and triumphantly in the highest regions. With this symbol, the Church wants to figuratively represent the sharp, insightful mind, not blinded by the light of truth, the prophetic foresight and irresistible strength of spirit of the Apostle John, and Raphael depicted him resting on the wings of an eagle and boldly looking at the heights of heaven.

N. Sagarda.

St. Apostle John the Theologian and his Gospel. Church tradition unanimously testifies that Apostle. John wrote his Gospel after Matthew, Mark and Luke, wrote it in his old age, within Asia Minor or, more precisely, in Ephesus (Irin. Prot. heresy 3, 1:1. Klim. al. in Evs. Ts.I 6.14, Orig. from Evs. Ts.I. 6, 25). Moreover, church tradition explains to us what exactly prompted St. John to write his Gospel. Clement al., from the words of the most ancient presbyters, says the following: the last of the Evangelists, John, noticing that in the Gospels only bodily things were announced, at the prompting of his neighbors and at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the spiritual Gospel (in Evs. Ts.I. 6 ,14:7). Eusebius Caesar. testifies: “When the three previously written Gospels were distributed among everyone and reached John, he, they say, accepted them, testifying to the truth, but (said) that the scripture lacks a narrative about the deeds performed by Christ from the beginning and at the beginning of the sermon ... That’s why they began, they say, to ask Ap. John, so that in his Gospel he would describe the time about which the previous Evangelists were silent and depict the deeds of the Savior relating to that time” (Ts.I. 3, 24 according to the editorship of Schwegler, p. 98). Theodore of Mopsuestia, in a fragment of his interpretation of the fourth Gospel that has come down to us, preserved ancient evidence that when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written and became widespread, the Christians of Asia Minor turned to St. John with a request to express his judgment about these Gospels. John approved of them, but said that little was omitted from them, and especially miracles, the narration of which could serve for the edification of all. He also noted that when telling about the appearance of Christ in the flesh, one must not pass by in silence His divine nature, lest over time someone might think that Christ was a simple man. After this, at the request of his neighbors, he wrote his Gospel to complement the first three evangelists (Migne gr. LXVI, 728. 729). And in the fragment of the Muratorium (9.10) we read that Ap. John wrote his Gospel at the request of “fellow disciples and bishops.”

This, the testimony of church tradition about the origin of the fourth Gospel, is fully confirmed by the very content of the Gospel. Reading the latter, one cannot help but notice that Ap. John assumes that his readers are familiar with the gospel story, as it was set out precisely by the weather forecasters. Thus, the Evangelist does not speak about the baptism of the Lord, but the narrative about this is clearly implied in the testimony of the Baptist about Jesus Christ, especially in the words: I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and abide on him (). In the same way, it is assumed that the readers of the Gospel will be familiar with the events of the election of the XII Apostles () and the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist (). Based on the first three Gospels, the mortal enmity that the Jews had towards the Lord is not entirely clear. Only the fourth Evangelist explains this, conveying such facts as the Lord’s expulsion of merchants from the temple (John 2ff.), the healing of the paralytic at Bethesda (John 5ff.), the resurrection of Lazarus (), etc., and it is clearly revealed how this The enmity grew more and more ripe, as the final catastrophe was more than once preceded by the decision of the Sanhedrin and the Pharisaic party to kill Jesus. Based on the weather forecasters, the betrayal of Judas seems somewhat unexpected, and only the fourth Evangelist explains that the criminal plan had long been ripening in the soul of Judas and was completely consistent with the position that Judas occupied among the disciples (). The Evangelist John distinguishes between the trial of Jesus Christ by Annas and Caiaphas (John 18ff.), but about the second trial, although it was more important, as a trial by an official, he does not report anything except the denial of Peter, obviously assuming that believers are aware of this already know based on the first three Gospels. In general, the recognition of the fourth Evangelist’s acquaintance with the weather forecasters (and in particular the close relationship with the Gospel of Luke) is now almost universally recognized in science.

Not only church tradition, but also the fourth Gospel itself confirms that its writer is precisely John, the beloved disciple of the Lord. Thus, the unnamed disciple of the writer, who was first a follower of I. the Baptist, and then became a disciple of the Lord, is undoubtedly An. John: just as Andrew converted his brother Simon () to Christ, so John converted his brother James. Only the beloved disciple of the Lord could speak about himself out of modesty as secretly as we read in the Gospel: “He was one of His disciples, reclining in the bosom of Jesus.” whom Jesus loves; Simon Peter commanded this” (); or: “according to Jesus.” Come on Simon. Peter and the other disciple" ,(). The classic passage in this case is: “and he who has seen bears witness, and his testimony is true, and the message is that he speaks the truth”; from what immediately precedes it is revealed that this “seeing” and testifying in his Gospel is the beloved disciple of the Lord, who stood at the cross with the Mother of God (). In the words: “and that news,” some see an indication that the writer of the Gospel himself distinguishes himself from this “other witness.” But in this case it would stand: “and we know,” and not: “and that news,” for no one can trust the truth of the consciousness (οὶδεν ουνοὶδεν) of another person (Dan). The writer of the Gospel is undoubtedly an eyewitness, a direct witness to the life of the Lord, which is revealed from his precise designation of the place, time, sometimes even the hour of the events described (, 19, etc.), from the unusually detailed depiction of the affairs of Hosiod (for example,), extremely vital, in highly vivid, characterizations of the characters (Nathanael, Philip, Thomas, Nicodemus, Lazarus’s sisters), from side remarks that more than once interrupt the transmission of the Lord’s speeches (for example,), etc. The writer himself says about himself: “ we saw His glory, the glory as the Only Begotten from the Father” (), they saw not by spiritual vision or intuitive contemplation, but as living witnesses of the incarnate Logos. The writer of the Gospel does not call himself by name, since his apostolic dignity was then generally recognized in the church, but an unknown anonymous falsifier would undoubtedly not have allowed this - he would have used the authoritative name of the Apostle for his own purposes.

The general character of the 4th Gospel is clearly defined in the words of Clement al., that this is a “spiritual” Gospel. It is called spiritual not because everything in it should be understood in the sense of a symbol, an allegory, but for the reason that, unlike the weather forecasters, who depict Christ primarily in the flesh, Ev. John mainly puts forward the divine side of the Face of the God-Man. If the first Evangelist affirms the truth that Christ is the promised Messiah, then John reveals that He is the incarnate Logos, pre-existing, who was the Mediator of creation and providence. “The revelation of the glory of the Only Begotten Son of God, incarnate in Jesus Christ and in His God-manhood mysteriously and internally uniting humanity and man with divinity and God - and the gradual development, on the one hand, of faith in Him in His true disciples, on the other, of unbelief in His enemies - Jews, - the struggle of light with darkness, truth with lies, life with death, the Logos and the sons of light who believe in Him with the father of lies and his unbelieving sons of darkness: this is the general content of the Gospel. The evangelist gradually shows how faith in the divine humanity of Christ triumphs over unbelief, light over darkness, life over death.

The Fourth Gospel forever abolishes the Ebionite or Judaic understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ. This was written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and may you who believe, have life in His name (). To show the divine sonship of Christ the Savior, to reveal the greatness and glory of the Only Begotten - this is the main goal of the Gospel. Christ is the Son of God; in unity with Christ, and through Christ with the Father and the Spirit - eternal life. The evangelist primarily chooses such speeches, deeds and miracles that most convinced of the deity of Christ, His omniscience and omnipotence; for the fourth Evangelist, the miracles of the Lord are “signs” (οημεῖα), that is, they are considered as a means to strengthen the faith of the disciples. “Signs,” however, the Evangelist does not limit only to miracles, although he primarily means them. The words and deeds of the Lord are inseparable, but in the fourth Gospel conversations still predominate, and miracles serve, in most cases, as a reason for pronouncing them.

The Evangelist John, more than the first three Evangelists, reveals the pre-eternal existence of the Son, or His pre-eternal existence with the Father, from where He descended to earth. A characteristic feature of the Christology of the 4th Gospel has always been considered the doctrine of the Logos. Recently, for some reason, this has begun to be disputed. This is what one of the prominent Western researchers (Tsang) has to say about the Christology of the Gospel in question. Logos Ap. John is a simple historical predicate of Christ; it is applied to Him in the same sense as the definitions: “light” (φως), “truth” (ἀλη'θεια) “life”, and just as there cannot be “alifology” or “plyromology”, so there cannot be “logologies” also exist. The meaning of John 1 would not change at all if “Christ” were put in place of “logos”; Ap. Paul speaks of the Son as the Creator of everything that exists, without using the word “logos” (). Christ is life, eternal life, and, so far as this life has been revealed, He is the word of life; Christ is the word of God, spoken to the world, as the totality of divine revelation, or Christ is the word, that is, the most perfect revelation of God to the world. He is the word in the same sense in which He is “Amen,” that is, the complete, unchangeable, all-sufficient revelation of God. – The following should be noted. It is absolutely true that there is no developed theory about the Logos in the fourth Gospel; Based on the concept of Logos, the Evangelist does not establish a dialectically special Christological system. But the assurance of the Gospel strongly speaks against this opinion: The word is flesh (), showing that “logos” is not a historical predicate of Christ, but a specific designation of the Son of God, His essence or, what is the same, the definition of the “pre-existing Christ.” The Word became flesh, that is, Christ in His pre-eternal, pre-worldly existence, before the incarnation, is the Logos; just as “Son of God” is not a historical predicate, so the Logos cannot be recognized as such. They say that “logology” was first discovered in the fourth Gospel, or, better, introduced there by Justin Martyr, but before it was not known, as can be seen from the words of Ignatius the God-Bearer in his letter to the Magnesians: “There is one God, who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, the Son His own, Who is the Word that came from silence and Who in everything pleased Him who sent Him” (). But, firstly, the reading of this passage is controversial, because many scientists (Bunsen, Hefele, Cotelier, Pearson) read: “what happened not from silence,” and see here a polemic against Simon the Magus, who placed first in his system: “silence " Secondly, even if the indicated reading is correct (Funk, Leightfoot), then it hardly means that God “after a long silence finally spoke to people in the Son.” “The word that came from silence” is, or rather, an ontological definition of the relationship of the Son to the Father, as an image of the Father’s being, a thought revealed in relation to a thought hidden in the depths. – Logos is the designation of the eternal being of the One who appeared in the flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ. Since the word generally reveals the interior of the speaker, Logos, as the name of Christ, indicates that Christ is the eternal mediator of divine revelation. “Logos” does not mean “reason,” but rather “word,” for with such a meaning, familiar to linguistic Christian readers of the Gospel, “logos” is used throughout the New Testament. From the entire “prologue” of the Gospel it is revealed that we are not talking about the Logos as the totality of revelation, the “word of the words of God”, the content of the entire Gospel (Hofmati, Luthardt), but about the Logos as an eternal being. It has already been well explained in our literature that the teaching of Ev. John about the Logos cannot be deduced from Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy, for Philo’s logos is not a hypostasis, but a world mind, a Stoic world soul, and the similarity of the predicates of Philo’s logos with the revealed teaching of God is of a purely external, formal nature. It is impossible to look for the basis of this teaching in rabbinic theology, which distinguished, in representing the unconditional transcendence of God, between God in Himself and the revelation of God through the “word - Memru,” for the doctrine of Memru is purely school theology, a simple theologumenon, and the Logos of John is the revealed Life for us. From the point of view of Jewish theology, God is the word, but it cannot be said that “the word is God.” Teachings of the Ap. John about the Logos is a purely orinal teaching, and if one can look for its basis, then only in the Old Testament, in those places where the word of God is personified, represented as creating, preserving and governing (for example, (33), (107)).

The Gospel of John, as a spiritual Gospel, revealing to us in the clearest way the truth of the God-manhood of Christ, is of utmost importance for understanding Christianity. It is not surprising, therefore, that rationalist criticism, having adopted the Ebionite view of the Face of Jesus Christ, has always armed itself against the authenticity of this Gospel and tried in every possible way to prove its unhistorical nature. We do not need to recount here the long history of the so-called “John Question,” which went through quite different stages. Deniers of the authenticity of the Gospel are essentially similar to each other, and we will dwell on this main thing in their argumentation. – Criticism usually poses this kind of dilemma: either the Fourth Gospel or the Apocalypse must be attributed to Ap. John, but both works cannot belong to him, because they are of an opposite, mutually exclusive nature: the Gospel is imprinted with anti-Judaism, and the Apocalypse is a Jewish work, and therefore, or rather, the Apocalypse is the true writing of the Apostle of Circumcision. But the denunciation of the unbelief of the Jews in the fourth Gospel, their increasingly increasing hostility towards Christ and His teaching cannot, of course, be considered anti-Judaism. Criticism does not pay attention to the fact that in the fourth Gospel Israel is called “Christ’s own” (), it is said that “there is salvation from the Jews” (). Christ lives and works among His people; He is the One about whom Moses and the prophets wrote (), about whom the Scriptures speak (); He is the King of Israel (); He is the good Shepherd, prophesied by the prophets (). According to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel, the Old Testament serves as the basis of the New Testament; Israel is primarily called to the Church of Christ and forms the most important part in it. Nothing different is said in the Apocalypse, when Christians are called the people of God (), the Church is called a woman who has a crown of twelve stars on her head (), the number of those sealed is determined by the number of tribes of Israel (), the new Jerusalem seems to have 12 gates, on which the names of the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel (), etc. are written. If in the fourth Gospel Jesus Christ calls those carnal descendants of Abraham who are unworthy to be the children of the latter, children of the devil (), then in the Apocalypse it is said about those who say to be Jews that they are host of Satan (). According to the teaching of the Apocalypse, as well as the Gospel, the doors of the Church of Christ are open to the pagan world and to all humanity in general (7cf.). Rationalist criticism itself is forced to recognize the fourth Gospel as a “spiritualized Apocalypse.” The difference in the writings is explained by their special subject and purpose, but in both they not only have the same attitude towards Judaism and paganism, but also the same Christology (cf. John 1; Ev. John 1 and Apoc.) and soteriology (7 cf. Ev. and etc.). And the eschatology of the Apocalypse does not contradict the fourth Gospel, for the latter speaks more than once about the visible coming of the Lord (), and even the idea of ​​​​the Antichrist is not excluded by the Gospel, which puts forward with all its strength the opposition between Christ and the world, faith and unbelief, the truth of Christ and the bitter hostility against her from the unbelieving world (). – Rationalist criticism considers the speeches and conversations of the Lord, preserved in the fourth Gospel, to be too abstract, obviously tendentious, the free production of the Evangelist himself, putting into them his ideal concepts; It is unthinkable, they say, that the Evangelist, after such a long time, would faithfully retain such long conversations of Christ in his memory. But it must be borne in mind that these conversations were delivered for the most part in Jerusalem, before learned scribes and Pharisees, and not before simple Galilean villagers, which explains their difference from the conversations of Christ conveyed in the Synoptic Gospels. These conversations are full of vitality, deep psychological truth, and are interrupted more than once by the historical remarks of the Evangelist himself, his immediate impressions, as if reflexes of concepts, which clearly indicates that these conversations are not fictitious. It is noteworthy that in these conversations the name Logos is not found anywhere, and this means that they could not possibly have been compiled to justify logology; the idea of ​​Logos is, as it were, a consequence, a conclusion from these conversations, but not their basis. No one can claim that the speeches and conversations of the Lord are conveyed in the fourth Gospel with stenographic accuracy: there are, without a doubt, omissions and abbreviations in their transmission. Their similarity with the 1st Epistle of St. Ap. John only says that the Evangelist was completely imbued with the spirit of the teachings of his divine Teacher, so that he expresses his thoughts as if in the words of the Lord. When considering these conversations, we must never forget the words of the Lord: “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you everything and remember everything that has been said to you” (). And from a simple psychological point of view, it is quite understandable that the “elder,” the beloved disciple of the Lord, always vividly retained in his memory the effective word of the divine Teacher, which gave him new life and was repeated by him, of course, more than once before his disciples. – Starting from the Alogs and up to this day, glaring contradictions have been seen between the narrative of the weather forecasters and the narrative of the fourth Evangelist. The most obvious example of this inconsistency is that, according to the first three Evangelists, Christ celebrated His Easter supper with the disciples on the 14th of Nisan, and was crucified on the 15th of Nisan, on the very Jewish holiday; Meanwhile, according to the testimony of the fourth Gospel, the Easter supper was celebrated “before the Passover holiday” - Nisan 13, and the death of Christ followed on the eve of the great Jewish holiday. Without having the opportunity to touch here on this highly complex issue, which has a long history, we will only say that in this case science faces a difficult problem, and relying on this still unresolved problem in denying the authenticity of the Gospel is at least unscientific; we must expect more thorough attempts at gospel harmony. Even if we admit that the fourth Evangelist corrects the date of the synoptics at this point, then this correction, given the then established synoptic tradition, could only have been made by an eyewitness, the Apostle; another would not have dared to introduce such an amendment. An indication that the Asia Minor church celebrated Easter on Nisan 14, referring to Ap. John, has no power, i.e. it does not follow from here that, according to the testimony of Apostle. John, Christ celebrated His Passover on the 14th of Nisan and, therefore, the fourth Gospel does not belong to him, for the Christian Passover was a remembrance of the death of Christ, and was not associated with the day the Lord celebrated His last Paschal supper.

We have given church evidence of the authenticity of the Gospel earlier. It is certainly inconceivable that the scripture, the use of which is noticeable in the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (43, 6. 59, 4), in Ignatius the God-Bearer (to Philadelph. 7; k; k), in the Shepherd of Hermas (Similar 9, 12) , in a letter to Diognetus (7.10), the authenticity of which was recognized even by heretics (for example, Valentin and his school: Irin. Prot. heresy 3, 11: 7), - for this writing to appear in the second century - about 150 or even 170 g.

Recognizing the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, many, however, suspect its integrity, considering it a later insertion of John 5 and -8 and looking at chapter 21 as an addition made, after the death of the Apostle, by his unknown disciple or the college of Ephesian elders. But the authenticity of John 5 is certified by many codes and, among them, by the authoritative Codex of Alexandria; Tertullian undoubtedly knew this verse, as can be seen from his essay “On Baptism” (chapter 5), where he explains the meaning of this verse; knew the last Didim al. (Migne gr. XXXIX, 708), St. John Chrysostom (Conversations 36, 1: Migne gr. LIX, 204), Cyril al. (at: Migne gr. LXXIII, 340). There are no internal grounds for denying the authenticity of the verse, for, in its absence, the words of the paralytic to the Lord would be completely incomprehensible: “I am not an imam of a man, but when the water is troubled, he will throw me into the font” (). – The story about the wife in adultery could have been omitted for completely understandable reasons: the very mercy or condescension of the Lord could have been abused by some, and therefore this story was sometimes not explained in liturgical meetings. No one has yet satisfactorily answered the question of how this narrative, if not authentic, was introduced into the fourth Gospel. Finally, if 21 ch. The Gospel is an addition, then the latter could only have been made by the Apostle himself, for it is unanimously recognized by the defenders of this opinion that its spirit is truly apostolic and there is no significant difference between its style and the style of the rest of the Gospel. It is completely incomprehensible who could have come up with the idea of ​​adding this chapter after the death of Ap. John, in refutation of the rumor that had spread that the beloved disciple would not see death (), when this rumor was destroyed by the very fact, the death of the Apostle. There are no decisive reasons to consider 21 ch. even a later addition by the Evangelist himself: firstly, although they relate to the entire Gospel, they are closely related to the story of the resurrection of Christ (see John Chrysostom); secondly, a misunderstanding of the Lord’s saying about the death of John the Theologian could have appeared before the writing of the Gospel and this saying needed to be clarified; thirdly, it is unlikely that the Apostle would have begun the addition to his Gospel with the words: therefore Jesus appeared again, or, as in some of the best lists: therefore he appeared again, and it is unlikely that in the later addition he would so closely connect the described event with the previous one: behold thirdly, Jesus appeared to His disciples, rising from the dead (v.).

The Gospel of John reveals to us the eternal, heavenly truth, which is comprehended by the inspired mind of the Theologian, immersed in the contemplation of divine mysteries. It fills our soul with the sacred delight of love and wonder at the great mystery of the Incarnation. Beginning with the inspired hymn of the prologue, which forms a kind of introduction, the Gospel first depicts the strengthening and development of faith in Christ (), then the struggle, the opposition of unbelief nesting in Jerusalem (ch.), and finally depicts the victory of faith, light and life over unbelief, darkness and death (ch.). This is the logical scheme of the gospel narrative. Chronologically, the Apostle arranges the latter according to Jewish holidays ().

If the fourth Gospel did not exist, one would always think that the Lord’s social activity lasted only one year, for the weather forecasters clearly mention only one Easter, the Easter of suffering. Only from the Fourth Gospel is it revealed to us that Christ the Savior visited Easter more than once. But which Passovers are indicated in Ev. John, the issue in science is controversial. Some see here an indication of two Easters, in addition to the Easter of suffering (Näsgen, Edersheim), others - three Easters (Corneli), others - four Easters (Weizsäcker). Of these opinions, the first opinion is most justified by the Gospel, that is, in Apostle. John there is a clear mention of only two Passovers, besides the Passover of suffering, namely in: “The Passover of the Jews was approaching, and Jesus came to Jerusalem” and in: “The Passover, the Jewish holiday, was approaching.” As for: “after this there was a Jewish holiday and Jesus came to Jerusalem,” then one can hardly see an indication of Easter here, since most codes, Origen, St. John Chrysostom assures the reading ἐορτη’ (“some holiday”), and not ἠ ἐορτη’; according to the most accepted opinion, it was the holiday of “Purim” (St. John Chrysostom means the holiday of Pentecost). In the same way, in John 4 it is impossible to see an indication of a special Easter, for, in the course of speech, it is clear that what is meant here is the Easter that is spoken of in, when many believed in Christ, seeing the signs He performed on the holiday. Thus, the Gospel of John mentions two Passovers, in addition to the Passover of suffering. Judging by the Gospel, Christ visited the first Easter shortly after His stay at the wedding in Cana in Galilee and, in general, shortly after the beginning of His public activity. Track. the latter, exhausted by three Easters, lasted a little over two years, or in the round - three years (the question of the duration of the Lord’s social activity does not have an unconditionally definite solution in church patristic writing).

In the teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ, the Evangelist John does not at all contradict (as said) the first three Evangelists. But it is indisputable that we are convinced with all our strength of the deity of Jesus Christ, mainly on the basis of the Fourth Gospel. What is especially important for us is Christ’s testimony about Himself, which clearly shows that His consciousness is from the beginning the consciousness of God and man. “I,” says Christ, “came from the Father and came into the world; and again I leave the world and go to the Father” (). Christ’s abandonment of the world is a real fact, and therefore, His descent from the Father is the same real fact, which is why His pre-eternal existence with the Father is equally real, which is necessarily presupposed by His descent from the Father. Not the pre-existence of the idea of ​​the Messiah in the thoughts of God (against Beishlyag), but rather the real pre-eternal existence of Christ is also understood in the words: “before Abraham was, I am” (). Each of Christ’s listeners understood well that we were talking about the real existence of Abraham, so that in Christ they had to understand the real pre-eternal existence. By virtue of this His eternal existence, Christ the Savior, according to His testimony, was before the world became (), and the love of the Father sent Him into the world. The knowledge of Christ, as existing from eternity with the Father, is not knowledge borrowed from another, is not based on revelation, like openly received by the prophets, but Christ speaks what He saw from the Father (). It is noteworthy that nowhere does Christ the Savior merge Himself in His consciousness with other people: nowhere does He say (except the Lord’s Prayer) “Our Father,” but always “My Father” (etc.). If Christ testifies that He does not say anything about Himself and does not do anything (), then speak only what he heard from the Father, and does the deeds that the Father shows Him (sl.); then this is not a consequence of His created dependence, but an expression of the internal unity of His will with the will of the Father.

There is no Christianity without Christ the God-Man, and therefore the Fourth Gospel, which so clearly reveals the truth of the God-man nature of Christ, is the most precious apostolic writing for us, and it is not without reason that the opponents of Christology (lately Harnack) in every possible way want to reject its historical character.

Prof. D. Bogdashevsky.

Cathedral Epistles of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Three cathedral messages of St. The Apostle John the Theologian are precious monuments of his apostolic zeal, teaching activity and pastoral care, at the same time having universal, centuries-old significance as a divinely inspired source of Christian truth, which can serve as a bulwark against modern anti-Christian false teachings.

L First Council Epistle of St. Apostle John the Theologian. a) Authenticity of the message. The writer of the letter does not give his name and does not directly indicate his apostolic dignity. However, he resolutely classifies himself as a direct eyewitness of the earthly activity of the Word of Life (); he knows well all the main facts of it in the most direct way (: our hands are touched). The pure, righteous image of the loving Savior is vividly presented to the writer’s mental gaze, and he repeatedly commands the readers of his message to constantly look at this highest ideal of purity, righteousness and love realized in life and to conform their behavior with it (). The gospel that the writer proclaims, he heard from Him, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and accurately conveying what he heard (cf.), certifies the undoubted truth of what was “betrayed” to them (). He especially puts forward his apostolic authority where the claims of false prophets are discussed (). Therefore, the common voice of the universal Church, which is based on an accurate, unshakable and continuous ancient tradition, recognizes the writer of the epistles of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

The writing and preservation of a book is a historical fact, and therefore the solution to the question of its authenticity must be based first of all and mainly on historical evidence. And in relation to the epistle under consideration, one must examine how solid, reliable and continuous the evidence is that the epistle in its origin dates back to the apostolic age and that antiquity revered it as the writing of John and specifically the Apostle.

A careful and impartial study of the works of the most ancient church writers clearly shows that already at a very early time the image of expression and views contained in the first epistle of the Apostle John strongly impressed itself on ancient Christian literature. In the message of St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of John the Theologian, to Philippians 6, there is an undoubted quotation: “for everyone who does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is Antichrist,” and then cf. another 2, 3, 4, 10 chapters of Polikarpov’s message from ch. from ch. from ch. With. Eusebius categorically states that Papias, bishop. of Hierapolis, who, according to Irenaeus, was a listener of the Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp (Prot. heresy 5:33, 4), used evidence from the first letter of John (Evs. Ts.I. 3.39, 16). Familiarity with the letter reveals St. Justin: Conversation. with Trif. 123 Wed. . The author of the letter to Dgonet (no later than the end of the 2nd century) already fully drew from the first letter of the Apostle John not only thoughts, but also expressions, which is why we can be absolutely sure that he had a copy of it before him.

Around 160–170, the authenticity of the epistle was objected to by the alogi, a heresy that denies the writings of John; The alogues rebelled against their liturgical use and attributed them to the heretic Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Haeg. 51, 2.3.34). But these objections are a very important proof of the authenticity of the epistle, showing that around 160-170, at least in Asia Minor, the Epistle of John was in church use as the authentic writing of the Apostle John: a) rejecting the epistle of the Apostle John, the alogues are not cited data from tradition, but were guided exclusively by their theological views; b) from the objections of the alogs it is clear that John’s writings were accepted in the church and were used for liturgical reading; c) the alogues did not try to prove that these writings arose long after the death of the Apostle John, and were forced to look for a writer from among the Apostle’s contemporaries, declaring Cerinthos as such; d) the alogs considered that John, to whom the Church assimilated the writings they rejected, to be the Apostle John.

St. Irenaeus, Bishop Lyons, reveals a number of definite evidence with the exact name of the writer of the message. Eusebius testifies about him that he mentions the first letter of John and cites a lot of evidence from it (C.I. 5, 8). Indeed, in his essay “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus uses from beginning to end the first epistle of the Apostle John to refute contemporary Gnostic errors and three times definitely mentions the name of the writer: in 3, 15. 5 he cites; at 3, 15. 8 – and . St. Irenaeus, both by the circumstances of his life and by his personal relationships with the private churches of Smyrna, Ephesus, Rome, and Gaul, should be recognized as a faithful representative of the Catholic Church of that time, jealously guarding the traditions of the past. Clement al. in his writings he often uses the epistle and several times call it John’s (Paedag. 3,11: ; Strom. 2, 15: ; see also Strom. 3, 32. 44. 45; 4, 100. 113; 5, 13; Quis div. salv. 37. 38). In the Latin translation ὐποτυπω’σεις (Adumbrationes) by Clement, the first epistle of John is set out in full and in the title it is called the first Catholic epistle of the Evangelist John. Clement was well acquainted with the traditions and practices of many local churches, although at the same time, in relation to the use of the sacred New Testament books, he is the spokesman for the voice of the Alexandrian church. Dionysius al. recognizes the undoubted belonging of the “conciliar epistle” and the Gospel to the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (Evs. Ts.I. 7, 25). Tertullian (Adv. gnost. Scorpiac. ch. 12 -; Adv. Prax. p. 15 -; see also Adv. Marc. 3, 8; De praescription. 33) and St. Cyprian (epist. 28 - ; De bon. patient. - ) are witnesses to the authenticity of the message from the African church. Origen, the founder of the Christian “critica sacra”, who opens a new period in the history of the New Testament canon, calls the first epistle of John “conciliar” and considers it undoubtedly the authentic writing of the Evangelist John (Evs. Ts.I. 6, 25). Eusebius Bishop Caesarea, who specifically dealt with the issue of the church canon, based on his research, classifies the first letter of John among the writings that are always and everywhere recognized as authentic (C. I. 8, 24. 7, 25. 2). Further, the message is recognized as undoubtedly authentic in the catalogs of the holy books of Cyril Hierus. (Public lecture 36), Athanasia al. (Easter last 39), Epiphany of Cyprus. (ep. 76, 5), Gregory the Theologian. ( περὶ τῶν γνησι’ων βιβλι’ων , Amphilochy of icons. (Amphil. carm.), the councils of Laodicea (can. 59) and Carthage (can. 39), Philastrius (libr. de haer. 88), bl. Augustine (De doctr. christ. 2, 8), Jerome (De vir. ill.9), Rufinus (Comm. in symb. Apost. 37), etc.

Famous document of the 2nd or 3rd century. The Muratorian canon, placing the first epistle of John as generally accepted (for the text, see Oestcott, pp. 543 547, and Zahn II, 130 140), certifies the following undoubted provisions: a) the epistle was generally known at that time, and the author The catalog considers it possible to limit ourselves to citing only its initial words; b) among the members of the Catholic Church, on whose behalf the author of the canon speaks, the epistle was considered the authentic writing of the Apostle John, who also wrote the fourth Gospel.

The most ancient codices of sacred books and translations complement, complete and imprint all the previously cited evidence. The first letter of Canna contains all the Greek copies of the New Testament writings, starting with the most ancient ones, and is inscribed with the name of John (see Tischendorfd, Noium Testamentum graece, edit. VIII major, vol.. II). The Peschitt's Syriac translation and the Old Latin testify to the undoubted acceptance of the message in the Eastern and Western churches.

Thus, historical evidence about the origin of the letter from the Apostle John is very early, definite, decisive and with unshakable firmness certifies that it occurred in the apostolic age and was recognized by all ancient times as the authentic writing of the Apostle John.

The sacred New Testament writings are organically connected with life. Apostles: these are living monuments that arose in direct connection with their apostolic activity; therefore, they were reflected both by the character traits and lives of their writers, and by the character of the time and the state of their contemporary society. This fact provides a deep basis for internal evidence of the authenticity of the epistle, which can be briefly expressed in two points: a) the features that can characterize the writer of the epistle on the basis of the epistle itself are entirely consistent with the impression we receive from other New Testament books and from church tradition from the character of the personality and activity of the Apostle John; b) the circumstances in which the Christian Church was at the time of writing the epistle and which were reflected in it, being compared with historical evidence about the fate of the Christian Church in the first centuries of its existence, lead precisely to the last years of the first century, to which time church tradition dates the writing of the epistle Apostle John, and all this, in turn, is consistent with evidence of his activities in Asia Minor.

Criticism's objections to the authenticity of the message boil down to the following. The belonging of the epistle to the Apostle John requires, as its necessary assumption, the presence of the Apostle in Asia Minor, for the epistle bears all the signs of origin in this area; but the Apostle John, perhaps, was never in Asia Minor (because he died before the time expected for his resettlement to Ephesus and activity in Asia Minor); and if he was, then, like the other Apostles, not for long and only in passing; in any case, he was not the Apostle and supreme ruler of the Asian churches. Such was the “presbyter” John, a Hellenically educated Palestinian Jew and, in the broad sense of the word, a “disciple” of the Lord. He lived in Ephesus for a long time, until the days of Trajan; towards the end of the reign of Domitian, he published the Apocalypse, in 80–110 he wrote the Gospel and epistles, adhering to the tradition he received from the Apostle John, who ranks first among him as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” When the Gospel (together with the epistles), after the death of the “presbyter” John, was made public, they at first still realized that this was not the writing of the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee. Papias definitely distinguishes the “presbyter” from the Apostle and traces the traditions of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark to the former. But Papias, through the oral tradition, about which he cared so much, was under the influence of the presbyters, some of whom, perhaps, deliberately spread the legend that the “presbyter” John was the Apostle John (see the development of this view in Ad. Harnach " a, Die Ckronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Иrenäus I, Lpzg 1897, B78 ff.; cp. Ad. Jülicher, Einleitung in das N. T., Freiburg und Leipzig 1894, § 31).

Refuting these provisions of negative criticism is a matter of special research (see N.D. Molchanov [Archbishop Nikandr], The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel and its Relation to the First Three, Tambov 1883. Jerome [Bishop] Evdokim, St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, Sergiev Posad 1898. N. I. Sagarda, First Conciliar Epistle of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, Poltava 1903); Here it is enough to give their final results. 1) The general belief of ancient Christians was that the Apostle John rested in peace at a very old age, at the beginning of the second century. 2) The fact of the long stay of the Apostle John in Asia Minor and his prolific activity among the Asian churches is indisputably historical and is confirmed by solid documentary and reliable evidence. 3) A continuous series of witnesses, starting almost from the death of the Apostle John, on a variety of occasions, but without a direct intention to prove the fact in question, agrees that John, who spent the last years of his life in Ephesus, was precisely the Apostle John, who reclined on the Lord’s breasts . 4) The main and, one might say, the only basis for recognizing the separate existence of Prester John is an excerpt from the work of Papias Ασγι’ων κυριακῶν ἐξηγι’σεις , preserved and explained in a sense favorable to criticism by Eusebius (Ts. I. 3, 39). Critics of modern times, in fact, repeat what Eusebius said and give little that is new in comparison with him, even in substantiating his conclusions. Meanwhile, neither the text of the Papiian passage, nor the historical evidence in the works of writers preceding Eusebius gave Eusebius sufficient grounds for a decisive conclusion about the existence of the “presbyter” John, separate from the Apostle John, and none of the subsequent writers, except Jerome and Philip of Sides, accepted the opinion Eusebius about two Johns. There is no doubt that Eusebius himself had a subjective reason for dichotomizing the Apostle John: for internal reasons, he did not want to recognize the Apocalypse, on which the chiliasts relied, as the writing of the Apostle John, and therefore was glad to have the opportunity to assimilate this book to “presbyter” John. But it is remarkable that Eusebius, who discovered another John in Ephesus, whom Papias “directly calls a presbyter,” does not use this for the 2nd and 3rd epistles, known with the name of John, even where he expresses hesitation about their authenticity. Further, the question naturally arises: how could it happen that such a famous man as the critics imagine “Presbyter” John to be, left no traces in ancient literature? Why doesn’t all Christian antiquity know anything about him? Why can’t even Eusebius himself report anything about him except his name and a dubious tradition from the work of Papias about his conversations regarding the origin of the Gospel of Mark? 5) Scientists of the negative direction claim that the entire Asia Minor tradition about the Apostle John (and his literary activity) owes its existence to the confusion of two men of the same name - the Apostle and the presbyter and the transfer of data from the latter to the former. Apparently, it is now recognized as impossible to attribute this confusion to Irenaeus (as Keim, Steitz, N. I. Holtzmann and others did in the past), and Ad. Harnach finds it necessary to agree that mixing can be stated in 155–160. (Chronol. d. altchristl. Litterat. I, 673). Already Papias, according to Ad. Harnack was influenced by the presbyters, some of whom, perhaps deliberately, invented the legend that the “presbyter” John was the Apostle. If we ignore the presbyters’ suspicion of deliberate deception, then we will be left with the criticism’s own admission that for the presbyters, and, perhaps, for Papias himself, “presbyter” John and the Apostle John have merged into one person. But the closer we move the time of confusion to the apostolic age, the more incredible it becomes. How could confusion have occurred already at the beginning of the 2nd century, when, according to critics, “presbyter” John died during the reign of Trajan, and the Apostle John in the 60s. I century and was not intimately familiar to the churches of Asia Minor? 6) Even if this vague “presbyter” John, different from John the Apostle, had really ever existed, then even with such an assumption it turns out to be completely unscientific and impossible to draw decisive conclusions regarding the writings known with the name of the Apostle John in favor of this “presbyter » John.

Thus, external and internal evidence irrefutably confirms the authenticity of the message in question, in which the entire universal Church sees the first conciliar message of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

b) False teachers exposed in the message. Through all the admonitions of the message there is a warning against false teachers who want to deceive believers (cf.), and the words: I wrote this about those who deceive you - indicate in this struggle one of the main motivations for writing the message. The entire epistle, and especially, makes us see that the Church was in danger from heretics, and this is the historical reason for writing the epistle. It refers to heretical fabrications not only in those places where it directly names the perpetrators of anti-Christian teaching and notes their false teaching (), but also where it inspires readers to have faith in Christ the Son of God or indicates the need for a close connection between faith and moral behavior. Much that in the epistle appears to be a purely positive expression of Christian truth stands in undoubted relation to the disastrous leaven of heresy. We can say that the message from beginning to end has a polemical imprint. However, in accordance with the general nature of the written presentation of Christian truth by the Apostle John, the Apostle’s main attention is drawn to the presentation of true gnosis, and the purpose of his message is primarily positive, and not negative, not to attack only error, but primarily to introduce the truth and in this way strengthen his readers against the deceptions of false teachers and false teaching. Therefore, the writer does not set out individual errors of wickedness and anti-Christian doctrine and does not analyze them in detail. The very state of both internal Christian and surrounding pagan life is not exactly known from other sources. It is not surprising that the available literature presents a striking variety in the characterization of the false teachers exposed in the letter of the Apostle John. Some believe that the message exposes the enemies of Christianity not from among the Christians themselves - Jews, pagan Gnostics, disciples of John the Baptist; others see the message as a polemic against Judeo-Christian heretics; very many insist that the Antichrists of the epistle are strict docetists (for a presentation and analysis of these views, see the study of Prof. D.I. Bogdashevsky, False teachers exposed in the first epistle of the Apostle John, Kiev 1890, pp. 42–138). The newest interpreters (for example, Düsterdieck, Ebrard, Huther, Haupt, Westcott, B. Weiss, Hülmpel, Th. Zahn, Poggel, A. Wurm, Prof. H. N. Glubokovsky in “Christ. Reading” 1904, No. 6, 867–870) see in the message a denunciation of the Cerinthian heresy. 1 John 2 categorically excludes any possibility of looking for false teachers exposed in the epistle outside of Christianity: antichrists appeared in the bosom of the Church itself, they want to be called Christians, although in fact they pervert the Christian truth. According to all the data, it is necessary to recognize the most convincing opinion of those who see in the epistle a denunciation of Kerinthianism, marked by a Judaistic-Ebionite character; however, the anti-Christianity denounced in the message cannot be subsumed under only one known and specific type. This conclusion is also justified by the conditions among which the churches of Asia Minor, and in particular the Church of Ephesus, lived: in the center of religious, intellectual and industrial life they found acceptance for all kinds of teachings, no matter from what source they came, with a predominance, of course, of pagan ideas, and all of them When faced with Christianity, they tried to understand and explain it in accordance with their basic views. The danger did not come from Cerinthos and his followers alone, although the Apostle himself called him a typical enemy of the truth. In Asia Minor, in an even wider wave than Cerinthianism, pagan-Gnostic docetism spread in all its various shades, accompanied at the same time by a disastrous perversion of moral teaching. Here, perhaps not so widespread, huddled and built a Judaizing trend in the form of Pharisaic Ebionism, which could find a warm welcome among those living in Ephesus and in all more or less significant points of Asia Minor in a fairly large number of Jews and Christians from the Judaizers. All these false teachings and all the misconceptions intervening between them distorted the basic dogma of the Christian religion, perverting the teaching about the person of Jesus Christ. All and every kind of false teachers of Ephesus, starting with the Jews, who saw in Jesus a simple man, similar to all other people and for his righteousness merited to be the Messiah in the narrow Jewish meaning of the word, and to extreme docetism, which completely destroyed the reality of man in Jesus Christ, could subscribe to the negative formulas indicated in the message (), and therefore they were all mortal enemies of Christianity and challenged the Apostle to an energetic struggle in order to protect Christian society from their disastrous false teaching. The Apostle John, like an eagle, looks from above at the raging abyss of delusions and, with his characteristic depth and insight, determines the very center of the disastrous whirlpool. He sees that this central point of all false teachings is nothing other than the teaching about the face of Jesus Christ and the union of divine and human nature in Him, and that this whole storm has risen against the Church of Christ because none of these heretical systems that loudly declare that there is truth in it has not risen to the idea of ​​the God-man. Therefore, without going into the details of anti-Christianity, as a bulwark against all kinds of perversions of truth, the Apostle sets forth in a positive way and briefly the teaching containing the essence of all the truths by which the Church of Christ lives, about the Eternal and Only Begotten Son of God, the Word of Life, the true God, Who took on humanity nature in hypostatic and inseparable union with His divine nature is the true God-man. In this fundamental truth, every false teaching is refuted, which saw in the face of Jesus Christ a man who is not God, or a God who is not at the same time a true man, and therefore distorted the true meaning of the coming to earth of the Savior of the world. The shameful distortion of the moral teachings preached by the Gnostics under the guise of false gnosis, combined with theoretical error, did not escape the Apostle’s attention. The Apostle does not give clear indications of the connection between those phenomena in the surrounding life that prompted him to admonishments of an ethical nature, and those that led to very definite positive and negative expressions about the person of Jesus Christ. Determining this connection in all parts and in relation to all heretics is not required if you agree with the proposed solution to the question of false teachers. We can only say that moral errors have their root, on the one hand, in the incorrect teaching about the person of Jesus Christ, and on the other hand, in the general rational direction of Gnostic systems, in which proper attention was not paid to moral teaching. The theoretical denial of the divine-human personality of Jesus Christ was consistently associated with the practical denial of His righteousness and holiness, and the absolute requirement of Christianity that the divine-human example of His holiness and righteousness should be reflected in believers fell. Therefore, antinomianism, characteristic of some of the false teachers exposed in the message, was a practical denial of Christ, which was based on a theoretical denial of Him. The ethical error had its root in a false Christology, in the denial of the great truth: the Word became flesh.

c) The reason and purpose of writing the message. The danger that threatened believers from heretics, their desire to seduce Christians in every possible way, some success in this, since undoubtedly among the members of Christian society a dangerous hesitation and weakening of the strength of faith and moral energy began to be noticed - everything that served as a sufficient incentive for the Apostle to resist the evil activities of heretics, to encourage believers and give them reliable guidance in the message to repel heretical deceptions. It can be assumed that heretics, restrained by the authority of Ap. John, while he lived in Ephesus, they took advantage of his reference to Fr. Patmos and openly preached their destructive false teaching. Having received alarming news about the condition. churches of Asia Minor, the Apostle took advantage of the freedom granted by Emperor Nerva, hurried from Patmos and, in order to paralyze the activities of heretics, wrote a letter containing the essence of Christian teaching, with a special emphasis on those aspects that were subject to distortions by false teachers. But the Apostle rises above this special goal to the completely universal provisions of Christian teaching ().

d) Time and place of writing the message. If the immediate reason for writing the epistle was exactly what we assumed, then this resolves the question of the time of writing the epistle: it was published by the Apostle upon his return from Fr. Patmos, i.e. not earlier than 97. The place where the message was written also cannot be determined with accuracy. The message and church tradition are silent on this issue as well. According to firmly attested tradition, Apostle. John in the later part of his life resided in Ephesus. From here, from the main center of the then Christianity, he made his evangelistic journeys and supervised the state of the churches of Proconsular Asia; From here, in all likelihood, he wrote the letter.

e) The first readers of the message. The most likely one must admit that the letter was written to the churches of Proconsular Asia, which geographically and ethnographically represented one group, had a common relationship with the Apostle John, stood at approximately the same stage of Christian development, and were in danger from the seduction of the same heretics. The message is thus in the full sense of the word “circumferential”; therefore, the ancient Church, in contrast to Paul’s epistles of a more individual nature, ranked it among the “conciliar” ( ἐπιστολὴ καθολικη’ ), with what name it was included in the canon of the Holy. books of the New Testament.

Widespread in the West, since the time of bl. Augustine, the opinion that the first letter was written to the Parthian Christians - ad Parthos - cannot have historical significance, since there is no basis for it either in the legend about the activities of An. John, who had no relations with the Parthian Christians, not in the letter itself. Of the many considerations, sometimes very ingenious, regarding the origin of this strange epistle inscription, the most probable seems to be the one that admits that ad Parthos has a Greek origin from προ’ς Πα’ρθους, and this in turn came from the inscription of 2 John. προ’ς ρα’ρθους through the contraction προ’ς ρρθνς (cf. Adumbrat. Clement al.: secunda Joannis epistola, quae ad virgines scripta).

e) Text of the message. Text of the message An. John is very well preserved, and its installation does not present any particular difficulties, with the exception of 1 John 4i. In , instead of δ μὴ ὀμολογεῖ another reading of δ λυ’ει is put forward as the original and, therefore, authentic (for example, Hawpt, Th. Zahn, Joh. Belser, etc.). But given the current state of textual-critical data, one can only say that more attention should be paid to the variant δ λυ’ει than has hitherto been, but there is no reason to give it preference over δ μὴ ὀμολογεῖ. The situation is different with the so-called. comma johanneum, where the question is about the authenticity of verse 7 itself: for there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. These words are not found in any of the major or minor uncial Greek manuscripts, nor in all discovered and examined cursive Greek manuscripts before the 15th century; They are not found in all ancient translations, as well as in Slavic, with the exception of Latin; The ancient church writers, except for the Latin ones, do not show any acquaintance with him. The state of textual-critical data on the issue of comma johanneum is such that with the most cautious approach to its solution (and there should be no other attitude), the conclusion can be formulated as follows: a) the authenticity of verse 7 in its present edition cannot be proven; b) the insistence of the Latin writers in the allegorical explanation of the present 8th verse in the sense of the divine testimony, even with obvious tension, can be taken as a sign that there was a memory of the testimony of 1 John. in favor of the Trinity, and commentators by tradition were forced to look for this dogma here even with considerable artificiality; c) in the original there was something similar to the current text, why the current reading should be demolished under a line or in the margin (as in the Slavic Bible of 1663), leaving a gap in the text; Moreover, it would be more natural to observe the order of the most ancient lists of the Latin translation, where earthly witnesses are named before heavenly ones (for details, see N.I. Sagarda, First Conciliar Epistle of St. Apostle John the Theologian, pp. 203–260, and cf. . by Prof. II. K. Glubokovsky, in "Christ. Reading" 1904 No. 6, 859–867).

g) Plan and content of the message. The Apostle John, in presenting and revealing thoughts in his epistle, does not use a strictly dialectical method - he does not prove, but sees the truth and is confident that every Christian will understand it as he himself understands, and therefore he only affirms the true and denies the false. With this method, each affirmation and negation appears before the reader as complete in itself; the connection between individual thoughts is subtle, although undeniable. This kind of writing is extremely difficult to analyze: you feel that there are divisions here, but there is no way to accurately and confidently indicate them and give a table of contents to the departments; you realize that individual thoughts are connected with one another, but you cannot convince yourself that the real threads of this connection have been discovered. Therefore, voices are heard that all the countless attempts to prove a harmonious plan in the message have only the merit that they mutually destroy each other; that, on the contrary, the Apostle is completely indifferent to the strictly logical, rhythmically moving forward development of thoughts. Groups of thoughts seem to be placed one next to another without any logical connection. The transition from one passage to another is motivated only psychologically, as are unexpected returns to subjects discussed earlier (Ad. Jüllicher, Einl. in d. N. T., 152–153). However, it must be recognized as absolutely certain that nowhere in the message are thoughts placed without any connection; only the motive for the transition from one thought to another is not always clearly indicated - it must be extracted from consideration of the further course of speech. It must be remembered that we have before us a letter, and not a theological treatise; therefore, ease in composition is quite legitimate here. It goes without saying that the Apostle did not draw up a plan for the message in advance - his thoughts poured out completely freely. But from the pen of the Apostle, to whom it was given to contemplate the hidden mysteries and for whom the entire system of Christian faith and moral teaching was presented in its entire and perfect form, only a harmonious and orderly message could come out, with a certain main and guiding thought, which passes through all the secondary ones. .

The main idea of ​​the message: communication with God and His Son Jesus Christ is the essence of Christianity; all the efforts of a true believer must be directed towards achieving perfection in communion with God, for only in communion with God is eternal life possible and truly given. This main theme is developed in the message according to the following plan, which seems more consistent with the content of the message: Introduction. First part: General conditions of communication with God. Second part: The basis of communion with God is faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Conclusion .

In its character and peculiarities of language and style, the epistle differs markedly from the writings of other New Testament writers and in this respect stands in close kinship with the 4th Gospel. In general, it bears the imprint of spontaneity, certainty, precision and clarity. The deepest truths, which provide even an educated thinker with inexhaustible material for research, the Apostle expounds in the simplest and most understandable terms. The Epistle is especially rich and original as it concerns the subjective, inner life of the Christian. Its fresh, lively and fascinating character lies precisely in the fact that it introduces with such love into the inner experience of a truly Christian life.

II-III. The Second and Third Epistles of St. Apostle John the Theologian. The second and third epistles of the Apostle John are the smallest of all the New Testament writings, and one might think that both of them were written on two sheets of papyrus of the same format: they are so similar in volume. It is quite natural that, given their insignificant volume and personal nature, they are rarely mentioned in ancient Christian literature, and their position in the canon is fluctuating. At St. Irenaeus, along with quotes from the first epistle, gives passages from the second (Prot. heresy 1, 16.3; 3, 16.8), as belonging to John, the disciple of the Lord, and the second epistle in his memory seems to merge with the first. Clement al. calls the first epistle great (Strom. 2, 15. 66) and this shows that he knows at least another - and less; and in his Adumbrationes (ε&ποτυπω’σεις) he directly speaks of the second letter written to virgins. Eusebius (Ts.I. 6, 14) reports that Clement wrote a commentary on all the conciliar epistles, therefore, he knew the third epistle of John. Origen speaks (on Joshua 7:1) about the epistles of John, just as, according to the testimony of Eusebius (C. I. 6, 25: 10), about the second and third epistles of John he says that not everyone recognizes them as authentic, but he does not express his own doubts about their authenticity. Origen's student Dionysius al. in his critical studies regarding the apostolic origin and canonical dignity of the Apocalypse, he also refers to the second and third epistles of John (Evs. Ts.I. 7, 25. 10). Tertullian speaks of the first letter (De pudicit. 19), and, at the Council of Carthage, which was held in 256 under the chairmanship of St. Cyprian on the issue of the baptism of heretics, Bishop Aurelius refers to, attributing the letter to John. Thus, at the end of the 2nd century. and in the 3rd century. John's second and third letters were known with his name in the churches of Gaul (and Asia Minor), Alexandria and North Africa. The place of the Muratorian fragment that relates here is uncertain, but, apparently, there is more reason in the words: superscrictio Johauuis duas in catholica habentur to see an indication not of the 1st and 2nd epistles, but of the 2nd and 3rd. The Syriac translation of the Peshitta contains only the 1st message; but Ephraim the Syrian quotes 2nd and 3rd. Given this state of affairs, Eusebius classifies both epistles as ἀντιλεγο’μενα and expresses some doubt whether they were written by the Evangelist John or another man of the same name (C. I. 3, 25: 3); and Jerome says directly that they were attributed by the majority (a plerisque) to John the “presbyter”, and not to the Apostle. But it is surprising that in the works of ancient writers there is no such a decisive judgment about the writer of these messages, which would give the right to the conclusion expressed by Jerome. Writers who lived a little earlier than Jerome and were contemporary with him, as well as catalogs of New Testament writings that happened at that time in the eastern and western churches, count the three epistles of John, without saying anything about the difference in their authors (see, for example, Philaster heresy. 88; August. Doctr. christ. 2, 8; personal of Ipponsky pr. 37; kare. pr. 29; Athanas. Easter. last. 39; Gregory. Theologian de ver. Script. 37); even Jerome himself more than once attributes them to the Apostle John (ad Paulin. epist. 53, 8; ad Ageruch. epist. 123, 12; ad Evangel. 146, 1, etc.). The most ancient codices (Sin., Vat., Alex., Ephr. rescript.) contain all the conciliar messages. All these testimonies are all the more significant because the messages are very short and, as addressed to individuals, became available for reading much later than those addressed to entire churches. The external evidence presented is supported by “internal” arguments: between both smaller messages and the larger one there is such an internal affinity that can only be explained by recognizing the identity of their writers; the coincidence is observed both in thoughts, and in their verbal expression, and in style. True, in the third epistle the special character of John's language appears less clearly, but this is sufficiently explained by the special circumstances to which the epistle points.

The reason for objections to the authenticity of the messages was and continues to be the fact that the writer himself calls himself “presbyter.” However, the most ancient witnesses, Clement al. and Irenaeus, did not find anything seductive in this and attributed the messages to the Apostle John; therefore, they saw no obstacles to the Apostle calling himself “elder.” Even Eusebius knows and notes that the Apostle John calls himself a presbyter (Demonstr. Evangel. 3, 5). This designation of the Apostle John as “presbyter” is consistent with his age at the time of writing his epistles and especially with his relationship to the churches of Asia Minor, for which the last of the Apostles was a highly authoritative pastor and “metropolitan.” They also point to the behavior of Diotrephes noted in the third letter, which is considered unthinkable in relation to the Apostle and possible only in relation to a simple Ephesian “presbyter”. But the authoritative tone in which the writer of Epistle 3 speaks is much more consistent with an apostolic writer than with an ordinary “elder.” And why can’t we assume that Diotrephes’ ambition could not manifest itself in such actions even against the Apostle, especially the already elderly and, in Diotrephes’ opinion, weak?

In conclusion of the presentation of data on the authenticity of the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, it must be said that the actual attitude of various churches towards them is difficult to determine, primarily due to the fact that, due to their insignificant volume, they could not leave a noticeable trace even where they were revered on par with the first; especially the third epistle contains so few general Christian truths that only very rarely could there be occasions to quote those few provisions that make up its content. On the other hand, a lot of difficulties are caused by the inaccuracy of quotation characteristic of the ancients: there is nothing more common than the fact that from the message of the same writer or the same purpose, each one is quoted as if it were the only one (see for details in Th. Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 1, Erlangen 1888, S. 210). It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that in no part of the ancient church is such a phenomenon observed that the 2nd epistle was connected with the first separately from the 3rd; as far as the history of these is known. messages, we everywhere see both smaller messages inextricably linked with each other, and, on the contrary, their relationship to the first one was sometimes disputed; and this is completely understandable: a superficial glance at both smaller messages is enough to see that they “are, as it were, two twins.” In addition to the indicated reasons for the paucity of evidence about them in the ancient Church, there remains the possibility that these small epistles, due to their private nature, were used less often, and perhaps not at all, in liturgical meetings; therefore, it is not surprising if anyone expressed doubt about their belonging to Ap. John. But it remains completely incomprehensible how these small epistles, with such private content, were generally preserved and then achieved such respect in the Church and canonical significance, if they were not handed down from ancient times, as apostolic monuments.

Purpose of the second message. The second message is inscribed: the elder chosen by the lady and her child ( ὁ πρεσβυ’τερος ἐκλεκτῆ κυρι’α καὶ τοῖς τε’κνοις θὐτῆς ). According to this inscription, most of the newest exegetes see in the “elected lady” one of the churches of Asia Minor, while others recognize in her a woman known for her Christian disposition and activities. The first opinion is based on the fact that the mysterious marriage relationship in which the Church stands to the One who in the highest sense of the word is ὀ Κυ’πιος (Matt. 25ff.) gives the right to call the whole Church or part of it κυρι’α. An analogy for such an understanding is found in 1 Pet. 5 and it is argued that only in this case can the entire content of the message, its exhortations, purpose, as well as the way the writer addresses the readers be satisfactorily explained (cf.); Hence it is also clear why the 2nd epistle is considered a conciliar epistle. But such a mystical-allegorical interpretation contradicts the New Testament and patriotic usage of words: as far as is known, in Christian literature, both in apostolic and post-apostolic times, there is not a single example when the Church was called κυρι'α or when it was addressed as a woman -Mrs. And is it natural for the Apostle John to use allegory in a short and simple letter? Such an allegory could still be allowed if the message itself were mysterious. It seems simpler and more natural to see in the message an appeal to a well-known and respected woman in the Church. Perhaps she was a widow, and traveling members of the Church found a warm welcome in her home; This explains the admonition not to receive false teachers into the house or even to welcome them. The Apostle knew her sister’s children, which is why he sends greetings from them. But the Apostle gave this private letter a more general meaning; therefore, his speech addresses not only the mistress’s children, but also other members of the Church to which this woman belonged, hence the unexpected transitions from the singular to the plural are explained.

But even among those who recognize the letter as written to a private person, there is disagreement as to how to understand ἐκλεκτῆ κυρι’α , which of these names should be recognized as proper or: should both names be recognized as common nouns; Accordingly, they are translated differently: “Mistress Elekta”, “chosen Kyria”, “chosen lady”. It is indisputable that there were proper names, Electa and Kiriya; but in the first case, two sisters would bear the same name (v.), and in the second in Greek. the text would read: κυρι’α τῆ ἐκλεκτῆ (cf. . ); A κυρι’α was an honorary name for women: Epictetus says that “women, starting from the age of fourteen, are called mistresses by men” (κυρι’αш).

We do not have any information about this “chosen lady”, except that the message was addressed to her; but there is no doubt that she belonged to one of the churches of Asia Minor, with which the Apostle John had close relations.

The reason for writing the second message. The reason for writing the second letter was the danger from false teachers who, apparently, moved from one church to another in order to gain adherents. The Apostle strongly warns against any communication with them and intends to come himself to say “much” on this matter. Who were these false teachers? The Apostle says that these are antichrists who do not confess Jesus Christ who came in the flesh. Since the letter took place in Asia Minor and was written to an Asia Minor Christian woman and her children, here we should see an echo of the Apostle’s struggle with heretics, which marked the first letter; therefore the heretics are probably the same.

Contents of the second message. After the greeting, the Apostle expresses his joy that the children of the chosen lady walk in the truth, and adds an exhortation to mutual love. But since this love has its basis in truth and without it no true love is conceivable, the Apostle warns against false teachers who, by denying the truth of the incarnation of Christ, destroy the foundation of love and communion with God. The apostle most emphatically forbids giving fraternal hospitality to false teachers. At the end of the letter, the Apostle indicates the reason for the brevity of the letter in his intention to come soon and speak mouth to mouth and conveys greetings from his sister’s children.

The circumstances of the origin of the third message. The third letter is written to “beloved Gaius,” about whom we know nothing more, for this name was found too often to be able to look for this Gaius among those persons bearing this name who are mentioned in other places of the New Testament (. . ). The Apostolic Constitutions name Gaius, who was appointed Bishop of Pergamon by the Apostle John (7:46). The Apostle exhorts Gaius to provide hospitality and support to itinerant evangelists who voluntarily devoted themselves to serving the gospel among the pagans; This is prompted by the opposite attitude of Diotrephes, who in his ambition did not attach due importance to the authoritative letter of the Apostle and reviled him himself with evil words, refused to communicate with the brothers, and forbade those who wanted to accept and even expelled them from the Church. The Apostle intends to remind Diotrephes of his deeds during a personal visit to the church.

Diotrephes undoubtedly occupied a prominent position in the church, which gave him the opportunity to act in this way; but what prompted him to such hostile actions against the Apostle John and the evangelists sent by him is unknown; and in general we do not know anything about these internal disorders that occurred in one of the churches of Asia Minor, and therefore we cannot draw any decisive conclusions from this dark fact.

Contents of the message. After the greeting, the Apostle expresses his joy at what was communicated to him regarding Gaius, especially his hospitable attitude towards the evangelists. On the contrary, he condemns the ambitious self-exaltation of Diotrephes. Next, he recommends Demetrius, through whom this message was probably transmitted, and ends with greetings, expressing his intention to come soon and speak mouth to mouth.

Time and place of writing by the 2nd and 3rd ambassadors. It is not known exactly when and where both of these messages were written. The intention of the Apostle, expressed in both letters, to visit those persons to whom he wrote, and the churches to which they belonged, seems to indicate the time when the Apostle, having arrived from the island of Patmos at Ephesus, undertook missionary journeys to neighboring cities and showed the most lively and varied pastoral activity, as reported by Clement al. (Q is div. salv. 42). The place where the messages were written was either Ephesus, or some other city in Asia Minor, if they were written during the trip.

N. Sagarda.

St. Apostle John the Theologian and his Apocalypse see "Encycl." I.

Despite the fact that Christianity remains the leading religion in the territories of the countries of the former Soviet Union, many people are still poorly aware of the terminology of this belief. For example, some believers do not know the origin and meaning of the word “apostle” and would very much like to correct this unfortunate misunderstanding. If you are one of these types of people, then you have come to the right place. In this article you will find all the necessary information that interests you.

Apostle. What does this word mean?

This term has Greek roots. In order to answer the question “what is an apostle?”, it is necessary to know its original translation. Translated from Greek, the word "apostle" means "messenger", "disciple", "adherent" or "follower". In the context of gospel history, the word “apostle” was used to describe the disciples of Jesus Christ who spread his wisdom. Initially there were 12 of them: Peter, Andrew, James and John Zebedee, James Alphaeus, Bartholomew, Philip, Matthew, Simon the Zealot, Thomas, Judas Jacob and Judas Iscariot. After the betrayal and death of the latter, Matthew was chosen as the new apostle, so that the total number of disciples would again be 12.

After these events, Jesus Christ chose 70 followers, whose names are not mentioned in the Gospel. Among them are Mark, Luke, and also Paul, who became acquainted with the teachings of the Lord after his death and resurrection. Despite the fact that Paul was not initially associated with Christ and those around him, by his actions he fully demonstrated the true meaning of the word “apostle.” Thanks to him, Christian teaching spread widely throughout the Roman Empire.

In Orthodoxy, apostles are also called other saints who were involved in spreading the Gospel in pagan states and tribes (for example, St. Gregory the Illuminator, Apostle of Armenia). In church literature, such people bear the title of “equal to the apostles.”

But the above facts are not the only explanations of what an apostle is. In church terminology, this word also means a book that contains part of the Gospel and the Epistles of the Holy Apostles.

The original meaning of the concept "Gospel"

In addition to the question “what is an apostle?”, an equally common question is about the meaning of the term “Gospel”. Like the previous word, it is of Greek origin and literally means positive and good news. In ancient Greece, the word "Gospel" was used in the following cases:

1. To describe a gift to a messenger who brought good news.
2. To describe a sacrifice made to ancient deities in honor of receiving positive news.
3. To describe positive news.

Christian meaning of the concept "Gospel"

In church understanding it means the following:

1. The good news is that the Lord lifted the curse of the very first sin from humanity and told us how you can save your spiritual component.
2. A generalized name for the Savior’s teaching, which he gave to his disciples. The word "Gospel" describes the disciples' account of the activities of Jesus of Nazareth and his moral teachings. At the center of their story is the idea that Jesus is the head of the Kingdom of Heaven, the messiah and the redeemer of human sins.
3. In certain cases, this designation describes New Testament wisdom in the form of the Christian religion, telling about significant events in the life of the Son of God, as well as the morality that he preached and disseminated. Also, the word “Gospel” is used to interpret certain events that happened to Christ and the people around him.
4. The story is about the sacrifice that Jesus made in the name of all mankind, for the sake of its salvation and the further continuation of life in the Kingdom of God.
5. The word "Gospel", as well as its synonym "Good News", describes the spread of Christian ideals. Consequently, “Evangelization” is a full-scale missionary activity, the essence of which is the preaching of biblical teaching.

The Beginning of Christianity

You already know what “apostle” means. Now the time has come to talk about where exactly the disciples of Jesus Christ spread his teachings and what difficulties they encountered.

The government of the Roman Empire initially had a negative attitude towards the teachings spread by the followers of the true God. People who converted to Christianity were persecuted and severely punished for a long time for their worldview. The first Christians had to hide in the catacombs and, secretly from the authorities, spread the good news about the Savior. That is why fish was chosen as a symbol of the first followers of Christ - a sign of silence and silence.

Despite all the persecution and persecution, the young religion continued to spread throughout the territory of the powerful Roman state, attracting new followers. More and more people began to learn about Christ, the afterlife, the holy letter and what an apostle is.

Changes

Time passed, the persecution of Christians continued, but at a certain moment the government leadership of Rome decided to stop fighting the adherents of the new religious movement. After some time, Christianity received official approval from the authorities, and soon became the official religion of Rome. After these events, everyone knew the meaning of the word "apostle", as well as the philosophy that these people spread.

Impact on language and culture

As you might have guessed, such a popular word could not help but leave its mark in the language and culture of the Slavic peoples. You already know the original meaning and origin of the word “apostle”; now it’s time to talk about other uses of this term.

For example, the surname Apostle is very common among representatives of Eastern European peoples. This surname belonged to the dynasty of Ukrainian Cossacks, from which famous hetmans emerged, as well as the Russian family of the Muravyov-Apostolovs, who took part in the Decembrist movement. In addition, the word “apostle” denotes certain terms used in a particular field of activity. Among lawyers, for example, it was synonymous with the word “appeal.” In our times, “apostles” are called adherents of a certain idea who are 100% convinced of the correctness of their worldview.