The scientist paused and continued:

– Now let's go textually. All of the New Testament sacred books are written in Greek, but not in classical Greek, but in the vernacular Alexandrian dialect of Greek, the so-called "koine," which was understood by the entire cultured population of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. This is why the evangelists wrote in this language, in order to make the New Testament holy books accessible to the reading and understanding of all educated citizens. Only the capital letters of the Greek alphabet were used for writing, without punctuation or even separating one word from another. Small letters began to be used only since IX century, as well as separate writing of words. Punctuation marks were introduced only after the invention of printing in the 15th century. The present division into chapters was made in the West by Cardinal Hugues in the 13th century, and the division into verses by the Parisian printer Robert Stephan in the 16th century. In the second half of the ninth century the New Testament sacred books were translated into the "Slovensk language", to some extent common to all Slavic tribes. The modern Russian translation was made in the first half of the XIX century… Now a little about the time of writing of the Gospels. The time of writing of each of them cannot be determined with unconditional accuracy. There is a prevailing opinion, agreement, on the time period: they were all written in the second half of the first century. This opinion comes from the fact that many ancient chroniclers, philosophers, and authors make references to certain New Testament holy books. However, there are other opinions as well. And, let me tell you, very plausible ones. Plausible – in the sense of supported by analysis and research. For example, Bruno Bauer – German Hegelian philosopher, theologian, religious scholar, biblical scholar, historian and publicist – refutes the historical reliability and authenticity of the Gospels and other sacred books, attributing their appearance to a much later time. Bauer believes that many of the religious texts, ideas and thoughts contained in them are rewritten, borrowed from the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who lived in Egypt in the 20s-54s AD. Of course, they were slightly modified and interpreted in their own way. In particular, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Bauer finds the entire theology of the Evangelist John in an almost ready-made form. There are differing opinions about the authenticity of this whole story, but, you understand, there are more proponents of authenticity. At least for now. This was accompanied by both the general mood for change and the desire of those in power to adapt the teachings to their propaganda. And already derivative were such factors as … in general, the Crusades, and propaganda, and scribes, and politicians worked on it, in particular, the same Bruno considered Christianity an invention not Jewish, but Greco-Roman, and most importantly – the Inquisition. However, the main trump card to the opponents of authenticity is given by the same believers in authenticity. The fact is that, in addition to the official Gospels, there are other, up to 50 other writings claiming apostolic origin. The Church has placed them on the list of "apocryphal" – that is, unreliable, rejected books. These books contain distorted and questionable narratives. But, please note, this is from the perspective of theologians. Primarily Christian theologians. Such apocryphal gospels include the First Gospel of James, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and others. In them, by the way, are recorded for the first time legends relating to the childhood of Jesus Christ… Another fact in favor of those who reject the authenticity of history is the classification of these writings. You can't buy them or borrow them from the library. Which brings to mind. Oh yes, I almost forgot, they try not to even mention them, so you don't even have to wonder what's in them. Apparently, there is something there, besides the narrative of the life and teachings of Christ, his crucifixion, death and burial, and after his resurrection from the dead, which is intended for the congregation, that should not cause questions and doubts in the minds of parishioners. And not only parishioners.

The theologian was silent for a moment.

– In general, I would not like to emphasize the opinion about faith and unbelief, but I will note that both atheists and people who are more inclined to seek a scientific explanation for everything that happens, including history, have the right to their opinion. For some reason, no one considers it an offense to atheists' belief that there is no God to assert that God exists. After all, atheists believe they are right too. It may seem strange to hear me, a representative of the church, say this, but it is the lack of entitlement of atheists to be equal to those who believe in God that speaks to the fear of their faith. Okay, let's not talk about arguments, although the whole story and its subsequent application is based on an argument. After all, disputes exist within Christian denominations as well. What to speak of different faiths among themselves. For me, all these disputes give birth to the truth or at least give an alternative point of view on the statements taken as a basis. And all the more from the scientific side they open the picture of the world in different perspectives, including its mythological hypostasis. Here, for example, is an interesting one. The usual symbol for the four Gospels is the mysterious chariot seen by the prophet Ezekiel at the river Hovar, which consisted of four creatures that resembled a man, a lion, a calf and an eagle. These creatures, taken individually, became emblems for the evangelists. Christian art since the 5th century depicts Matthew with a man or angel, Mark with a lion, Luke with a calf, John with an eagle. Of the four Gospels, the content of the first three – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – is much the same. They are called synoptic, from the Greek word "synopsis," which means "an account in one general pattern." The Synoptic Gospels tell mainly about the activities of the Lord Jesus Christ in Galilee, while the Evangelist John tells of them in Judea. The Synoptics write nothing about Jesus' life in the early years. Nothing about his life in Judea or Jerusalem. Although we can understand from their narrative that he had supporters and friends there. For example, the owner of the upper room where the Last Supper took place and Joseph of Arimathea. The main difference between the Synoptics and the Evangelist John lies in the conversations of the Lord. With the Synoptics these conversations are very simple, easy to understand; with the Evangelist John, they are deep, mysterious, and often difficult to understand. The Synoptics bring out the more human side of Christ, while John mostly brings out the divine side. To better interpret and understand the Gospels, we need to become more familiar with the personality, character, and life of each of the four evangelists and the circumstances under which each of the four Gospels was written.

The scientist took a few moments to catch his breath and began to speak with renewed vigor:

– Let's begin with the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew was one of the 12 apostles of Christ. The evangelists Mark and Luke call him Levi. It was the custom of the Jews to have several names. Before his call to apostolic ministry, he was a tax collector, and as such was certainly disliked by his fellow Jews, and especially by the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people, the scribes and Pharisees. However, having received the favor of Christ, having seen in him the possibility of repentance and change of his essence, he became his devoted follower and especially took to heart the cause of salvation of his native Jewish people, so saturated by that time with false notions and Pharisaic views. Therefore, his Gospel is considered to have been written primarily for the Jews. In his presentation, Matthew's main goal is to prove to them that Jesus Christ is the Messiah spoken of by the prophets of the Old Testament; that the Old Testament revelation, which had been obscured by the scribes and Pharisees, is clarified and given its perfect meaning only in Christianity. Here I must make it clear: the Jews themselves, the adherents of the Jewish religion, do not in any way take Christ for the Messiah, or even for a prophet. Matthew preached in Palestine for a long time. Then he went to other countries to preach, and ended his life as a martyr in Ethiopia.