Criticism biblical. Atheistic criticism of the Bible

3.888 Tidus writes: "Hello! I would like to ask you a number of questions that are very disturbing me. I am now reading the book "Biblical Stories" by the author of the city of G. This is the first atheistic book, which I decided to read. I confess that I have not yet read it to the end, but I would like to hear your opinion on what questions. In the book of the Inte, he is trying to "disclose the inconsistency of the ideas about" the informity of "biblical legends", to prove that the Bible is the result of the painstaking work of a person and only a person that God has nothing to do with it. Ghechie says that the representations of the ancient Jews about the beginning of the world were drawn from the mythology of the surrounding peoples, but were interpreted by the authors so as to comply with the monotheism of Jews (for example, the Great Flood - this is a literary processing of one of the songs about Hilgamesh), claims that in the Bible The ancient polyteraism leaked (it is expressed in that it has mentions about the struggle of Yahweh with ancient sea monsters (Rehahva, Tannin, Leviathan), also hechie says that interpreters took care of the spirituality of the Bible at a later time that they, roughly speaking, invented The participation of the Lord and His Miracles in the history of the Israeli people. I would like to hear your opinion about everything in the foregoing. Doesn't it undermine the authority of the Bible? I am sure that for me, the arguments of the guest seem to convincing with my insufficient awareness in these issues. Is it so? Are you familiar with the works of Ghechi? What can you say about them? Thanks in advance! I look forward to answers to your questions. "

What is more difficult: come up with a brilliant idea or embody her?

IN modern world It can be seen that ideas are most valuable.

So here: maybe Moses and knew about Gilgamesh.

Moreover, I think that Mizer came to us from cultural heritage that era.

Maybe that epos was with them something contemptuous, such as "soap opera", and then we never know the then masterpieces.

But, sorry, a million slaves with rebellious warriors (not the theologian, poet or philosopher, notice) at the head, so to come up with such a revolutionary thing, like monotheism?!

This is not climbing into any gate.

Do not catch contradictions? That is a completely phenomenal way a handful of slaves invents the idea and one who lives different from the civilized environment and she lives alone, although the forms are widely borrowed (here is a vote).

But then through this "impenetrable cultural shell" politicalism is seeping! Nicely! As the Prince Potemkin stated the Fonvizin's drama, "die, Denis, it's better not to say!"

This is not a science, my friend, and the degrees of propaganda: at any cost to discredit authoritative historical source.

And propaganda, I must say quite sour.

I repeat that literary influences were always. No one ever lives on the island, and Israel, who walked from captivity, and in the intervals fought and trading, cannot be compared with China, Japan or Tibet.

But the phenomenon is just that showing the power of these sea monsters, The Bible does not hint anywhere on their divinity.

Everywhere it is shown that the Tsar of the Tyr is a prototype of Satan - created by Jehovah (), as Leviafan and Hippo Tartara (Jobs) are created, and Jehovah controls them by 100% and put in place at one time.

What is the "struggle of good and evil" here, Yin and Yang! "I do not believe," said Stanislavsky.

Regarding rewriting.

First, the reverence of Jews before the biblical text is obvious.

The caste of masons (correspondencers) was guided by such a discipline that, thanks to these rules, modern handwritten (!) The versions of the Bible read in the synagogues are practically not different from the copies of the apostles times.

Secondly, no attempts have been fixed to the content of the text. He could forget, throw in a closed temple, lose, burn, but rewrite - meaning?

Karki replaced by each other were in a hurry to approve their power here and now, they were not up to "Glory in the centuries."

The development of the systematic mythology of the kingdom is characteristic of empires, and Israel has never been to it.

For example, take difficulties with the creation of the ideology of the Ukrainian state. If it were not for Russia near, no one would not particularly affect. Country as a country. Your heroes of the corresponding level. But the neighborhood with the empire imposes an imprint on the historical and political consciousness of satellite states. Russian mythology has the same percentage of fiction, as well as Ukrainian, but "leaves" due to the authoritative of the empire.

When the Prophet says the non-powdered things, the prophet was expelled, bribed or killed.

To fight with books, then did not yet learn - these are the methods of the Christian era.

Sorry, and how Ghechie explains the fact of breaking in the dynastic chain (the firstborn of Pharaoh died, and father drowned in the Red Sea), a sudden care of a million slaves in the next country?

The question is whether it is worth spending time on this nonsense.

Yours faithfully,
Maxim

Today you can often hear how the Orthodox criticizes the "biblical criticism", and is mainly for the case. At the same time, they do not always clarify that we are talking about ideas and methods of centenary limitations, which today at that time practically no one uses anywhere. In this article, passages from sketches to the book called "Introduction to Biblical Exegetics will be presented. Her goal is to show that this is based on this phenomenon, what are its strengths and weaknesses, which is the benefit and what is limited.

The emergence of "biblical criticism"

Renaissance Fruits B. Western Europe XV-XVI centuries. - interest in antiquity and ancient languages, the development of universities and other educational centers, the invention of the printing machine, and then transfers to the Bible into national languages \u200b\u200b- gradually led to the fact that the Bible began to read and comment on not only the clergy and individual laity, and exclusively in church The context, as it was in the Middle Ages, but also almost all educated people. At the same time, they approached the text from different positions, compared it with other texts, merged different manuscripts and publishing among themselves. It appeared the possibility of fairly wide and qualified discussions about the Bible with the appeal not only to its Latin translation (Vulgate), but also to the Greek and Jewish editions of the original. Of course, it is impossible not to say that before such discussions did not happen at all, but now they did not just become more - they went to a qualitatively new level.

As a result, scholastic models began to seem too artificial, cut off from the live flesh of biblical history. True, the gradual emancipation of culture from the church contributed to the fact that biblical plots and texts left their original context further; Even simple narratives of the new covenant were increasingly interpreted allegorically, in accordance with the interests of the interpreter and the expectations of the audience. But in the end, the primary position took a purely rational analysis: so, at the end of the XVII century. Englishman J. Locke has already developed a kind of criteria for which it was possible to determine how historical is this or that narration is the question that traditional interpreters are completely not asked.

The revolutionary event here, of course, was the reformation (XVI century) - the movement initially directed to the purification of Western (Catholic) church from distortion and abuse, but led to the creation of new Christian denominations. Reformation Again was not the first large theological dispute in church history, but now completely different was the scale of this dispute, the degree of involvement and preparation of its participants. The main thing that it turned out quickly enough that it was not about discrepancies in some parties, but about fundamentally different approaches to the same texts.

Here's how it is possible to determine the principal positions that combine the fathers of the Reformation (M. Luther, J. Calvina, W. Zwingley and their closest associates) with all the differences in their views on other issues:

Sola Scriptura.: Only the Scripture can serve as the basis for Christian theology. This does not mean that reformers completely rejected the previous church tradition - they, unlike their Catholic opponents, did not consider this tradition as a mandatory and regulatory way of interpretation of Scripture. For them, these were private opinions with which one can agree or disagree, but only Scripture had evidential force. Therefore, there was an urgent need to develop some general principles of interpretation of the Scripture, which could be proved by this or that position.
The Bible interprets itself: To understand the text of Scripture, there are no external sources of knowledge, we can learn all the necessary information in Scripture. This statement also stimulated the development of biblicalism as relatively objective science.
Two levels of Scripture: At the external level, Scripture is fully accessible to any reader, no need special Education Or spiritual insight to urge the basic meaning of the text. At the same time, the spiritual knowledge of the truths hidden in Scripture is possible only by the action of grace of the Holy Spirit. Such an approach has opened ample opportunities for the study of the external, literal meaning of the Scripture from the point of view of ordinary humanitarian disciplines, which has become the basis of biblical criticism. On the other hand, he perfectly corresponded to the second basic principle of reformers: Sola Gratia, only by graceful of God, and not for his own merit, a person is saved and generally gets every gift from God.
Faith as the key to understanding: A genuine understanding of the Bible is inseparable from the Christian faith. This thesis is associated with the third basic principle of the Reformation: Sola Fide, only faith finds a person salvation.
Unity of Scripture: The Bible should be understood in its integrity, the new and dilapidated covenants are inextricably linked with each other. In this, however, the reformers fully agree with Catholics and Orthodox.
Biblical news as a call for updating: The meaning of Scripture is primarily to call all people to revive and update.

So, the Fathers of the Reformation made a kind of revolution in relation to the Scripture, and this concerned not only Protestants. Catholic theologians, answering the call to the Reformation, also had to prove their statements on the Bible, and otherwise the opponents simply did not take them seriously, and some references to church authorities and scholastic schemes were not enough. So not just updated interest in Scripture, but there was a constant need for his interpretation in relation to different theoretical and practical issues, the need for its systematic study, which ultimately led to the formation of biblical as science.

"There is a generally accepted, but this is no less detrimental delusion, as if St. Scripture is authoritative to the extent to which this is recognized as a collective opinion of the Church as applies to the question that these channels are asked, from where, they say, we know that Scripture comes from From God, if we are deprived of the appropriate certificate from the church? - The question of this question is like the question of where we have the ability to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from Gorky? For Scripture learns to be as immediate and infallible, as the white and black color, sweet and bitter taste are known, "wrote J. Calvin (" instruction in the Christian faith. "Ch. 7).

At the same time, of course, it would be wrong to call bibnetics by the generation of the Reformation: it not only appeared much later, but in the early forms (biblical criticism) abruptly contrasted itself as a Protestant and any other orthodoxia (especially with regard to the last three Abstracts from the above list). Luther and Calvin would not recognize biblical critics, but, apparently, it can be said that without the reformation would not be born and biblical science, which we know it.

So, Renaissance has prepared the ground for a scientific approach, and the Reformation put Exegetics to the Center of theological Thought and made it the property of all educated people. But, of course, this in itself was not yet the beginning of biblical as science. First of all lack of historical measurement: as in the pictures of Renaissance artists, we see biblical characters in the clothes and interiors of the Renaissance Europe, and not ancient Palestine, and in general, the Bible was understood as something in a timeless and absolute, as if she had an entirely and immediately, outside of then a certain cultural and historical context that imposed his imprint on the text. Such an attitude is typical for any traditional interpreter, and the reformation poverty as a whole do not differ here from the early fathers of the church and from rabbis.

But as the Bible was actively studied and studied, the exegetam was involved in the history of its occurrence. In particular, the preparation of the print publications of the Bible in the XVI century, especially polyglott (parallel editions in different languages) led to the fact that the publishers began to actively compare various biblical manuscripts in the original languages \u200b\u200band in translations, they noticed explicit differences in them, So they had to determine which options can be considered the most reliable and how to explain the origin of other options. So there was a textology, or textual criticism. The question of the adequacy of various translations, which means about the intricacies of philological analysis of the text.

For example, in the works of Erasma Rotterdam (the XV-XVI centuries), the conceptual apparatus and the methodology of humanitarian disciplines, which are known to us today are gradually developed. And most importantly, the critical approach to the Bible was born, that is, the attitude to its text as the object of rational logical analysis, and not just as the highest authority, as was the scholasticology.

But if it turns out that the original Bible itself did not reach us intact (even if these damage relate to the insignificant share of the text), then, apparently, you can think about the historical criticism of the text - the study of the history of its origin, its analysis against the background of changeable cultural The historical context, unequal even for different books of the Bible, and even more so other than the world in which the reader lives. Scripture begins to be understood as a kind of "thing in himself", according to Cant: its properties do not depend on our perception and from our relationship to it, they are objective and should be examined as such. In addition, thinkers are increasingly becoming in the era of the enlightenment, not inclined to limit themselves with traditional church creed. Accordingly, the Bible for them is no longer an absolute authority, but material for research. It is interesting not so much by her text, how many historical events behind this text, which must be reconstructed. This is the main pathos of classical biblical criticism.

The liberal Protestant Exegez played a special role. Of course, the word liberalism is used today in a variety of meanings, but here it means a certain direction of theological thoughts of the XIX-XX century. By the way, in Catholicism, a similar movement that emerged at the end of the XIX century is usually called not liberalism, but modernism. Speaking simplified, it can be said that these movements were based on deizma (the idea that God, having created this world, no longer interferes with his existence), the philosophy of Kant and his followers, then - in positivism (teaching, which gives an empirical experience unconditional priority Over speculative buildings). The founder of this direction is often referred to by F. Schleyermah, but the presentation of its provisions in the most "classic form" proposed in the middle of the XIX century. A. Richl. The essence of his position is that, resolutely abandoning any metaphysics and mysticism and at the same time listening to its own internal experience, study the biblical text in search of important truths of moral and theological nature. Do Jesus recognize the Son of God - a personal question for everyone, such recognition is not at all necessary in order to follow its ethics.

Of course, not all representatives of the liberal school shared all the ideas of Richal, even, for example, his most famous student A. Von Garnak. Actually, the very essence of the liberal direction and is not to have any generally binding dogmas, so we can only speak of some ideas characteristic of it, which in different extent were divided by different people. These ideas can be defined as follows:

The highest reality is comprehended by no mind, but a moral feeling, so the task of building dogmatic theology is essentially removed.
Revelations over in the sense, in which the prophets are understood (the immediate undoubtion of the Will of God) does not exist.
Jesus was a great man who founded the spiritual and moral system, free from the shackles of dogmatics, which were then superimposed by the Church Christianity.
All religions, not excluding both Christianity, arose and developed according to their own laws, which should be studied how other historical processes are studied.

Especially many problems with this approach caused the Old Testament: he clearly contained a few other ethical teachings than the new one, it was especially many stories about miracles, in which the mind refused to believe, and indeed his applicability to the life of a Christian remained in question. In many respects, it is precisely for these reasons based on the principles of liberalism in Göttingen at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The school of the history of religions originated - an informal circle of close in the spirit of biblies, to which, in particular, belonged to Gunkel. They offered to abandon attempts to build a certain theological scheme, and instead, to make the creation of the history of Israel's religion, which developed about the same laws as other religions. It was assumed that the story could be recreated with full confidence: "How it happened in fact."

Special popularity has received similar views in connection with the discovery and decoding of the texts of other Middle Eastern crops - Babylonian, Assyrian, etc. This approach was also associated with the search for historical Jesus - a real person who stood for the New Testament narratives, in many ways, according to Liberals, legendary . Accordingly, a similar approach, for example, at A. von Garnaka led to the fact that a certain genuine historical basis was allocated in the Gospels, and everything else was declared later interpretation, and sometimes it is conveted. Jesus of Nazareth thus turned out to be a historical person, but Christ is the object of church faith, and one was far from identical to another.

In general, it is worth noting that all the main flows inside biblical people were born in a Protestant medium, primarily liberal. Catholic, and then the Orthodox theologians could adopt (as a rule, slowly, carefully and only to some extent), some of their ideas and reject others, more radical, but their reaction was advantage of the reaction to the ideas of Protestants. In the modern biblical, it suffers to hear about the confessional boundaries: supporters of one theory can belong to different confessions or not belonging to any, and within one denomination there are people with very different glances. But if we talk about the emergence of new ideas, the championship since the times of the Reformation remains for the Protestant world. In addition, it is worth noting that until the beginning of the XX century. The main center of biblical was Germany, and within the XX century. This role partly moved to Britain and the United States, however, not to the detriment of the German scientific and theological centers. Thus, the main language of the classical biblical criticism is German, the main language of modern biblical is English.

Among modern bibliists, it is probably impossible to find such that would fully follow all methods and conclusions of classical biblical criticism. However, within the framework of this direction, several sufficiently important schools arose, disciplines, analysis methods that we consider further. In English and German, it is customary to talk about criticism: text, sources, editors, etc., - however, in Russian, the word "critic" is too closely related to the meaning of complete denial, so we will speak more about the analysis.

The classic biblical criticism was divided into "low" to which only textology, and "high", where all other disciplines were usually determined, but today such hierarchical division has already become rare. In some sense, the "low" criticism turned out to be much more convincing "high" - maybe because dealt with a specific handwritten material.

Varieties of "biblical criticism"

Textology

We have not reached the autographs of biblical texts (the most first manuscripts created directly by the authors). But we have a significant number of different manuscripts and other sources (for example, biblical quotes in the works of later authors) - all together they are sometimes called certificates or witnesses. Textology, or textual critic sees its goal in the study of all available evidence and recovery, as far as possible, the initial text of this or that monument of writing. Sometimes there is such a distinction: Textology is a science rather theoretical, while textual criticism is reduced to the practice of comparing various manuscripts and reconstructs of the original state of the text. Such work is carried out over any ancient text, not only over the Bible.

Errors can sneak into any document rewritable, and sometimes conscious corrections are made to it. Therefore, textology has developed some basic principles over time. Here is some of them:

not the number of evidence is taken into account, and their "weight", that is, antiquity and degree of independence from other witnesses;
manuscripts must be compared with each other to identify their relative genealogy, and then compare the "parents" of each such "family";
a quieter option is usually initial, as the corresponders are characteristic of adding rather than to skip the text;
if there is in a more complete version of the literal repetitions, on the contrary, it is preferable, since the skipping of the text between the reversals is easy to explain the nestlessness of the correspondence;
the text is more complicated for understanding, it is commonly initial, since the corresponders are characteristic of simplifying rather than complicate the text;
explanations for incomprehensible word or expression may be late glossa (notes), randomly deposited in the text, etc.

Carefully examining the totality of evidence, textors seek how much it is possible to create a critical text as close to the autograph. By itself, it is a reconstruction, that is, it does not coincide with any existing manuscript, but it can be considered that in all controversial cases, he chooses a reading option, which with the greatest probability coincides with the autograph.

The most frequent question about the meaning of the biblical text, which is asked the uninitiated people, sounds like this: "Why is this place in this Bible translation mean, and in that translation something is completely different?". In a variety of cases, the answer is simple, although he satisfies little: these translations were made from different basic texts (for example, a Jewish mashedral text in its Old Testament part follows, and the Church Slavonic - Byzantine variant of the Greek translation). The discrepancy between the two versions has arisen quite a long time, and we do not always have reason to assume confidence, exactly exactly how the option arose and which one is closer to the original.

In addition, the history of manuscripts turns out to be inseparable from the history of the text: some handwritten options can be ascended to an earlier version, and some kind of later, so the textologist is simply impossible to make a choice in favor of the "best reading". First you need to determine what is meant under the best: the earliest of the scientific analysis witnessed or restored by way, or the tradition perceived by the tradition (and which one)? In practice, some compromise always turns out.

Historical analysis

Some elements of historical analysis of text can be found in St. Scriptures, first of all belonging to the so-called Antioch school, but, of course, it is possible to talk about it in the full sense of this word only in relation to a new time. Historical analysis is a complex discipline or even a set of different disciplines, so often talking about the historical and critical method, including the analysis of sources, traditions, editors, etc. But on two aspects it is worth it particularly.

First, historical criticism has developed a method of approximate document dating. How can we find out when he was written and when was the copy located in our hands? If this is not the original, then the text itself, of course, is older than this copy. The second tip is contained in the events mentioned in the book: it is completed in any case later than the last of them. But so we will learn only the earliest possible date of writing, and not the greatest, representing the greatest interest. The author of the books of judges suggests the time of writing, repeating that in those days there was no king from Israel; Everyone did what he seemed fair (court 17: 6; 21:25). The obvious conclusion is that the author knew the order that could only exist at the king, and wrote after the establishment of the monarchy, to which it was clearly positive. If there is no such explicit instructions in the text itself, the researcher has to rely on indirect data and its own views.

The second most important task of historical analysis is to relate text with historical reality and, if possible, reconstruct it. How can we learn how much the story matches historical fact? This main question can be divided into slightly smaller. How close is the document to the events described? Is it supported by its statements by other sources, biblical or non-biblical, or archeology? Could events occur exactly what they are described? In trying to answer these questions, the historian will be able to draw a more complete and expressive picture of the events that occurred. Recognizing the author or source, you can shed light on the content of the narrative; Non-biblical sources can often help recreate the historical and cultural context of the events described in the Bible.

Actually, "Biblical Criticism" and began in essence with attempts to reconstruct the history of the ancient Israel (Old Testament) and the events described in the Gospels (New Testament), and the methods of analysis of biblical texts played the role of source disciplines. A kind of apogee such criticism has become in the middle of the XIX century. Book D. Strauss "Life of Jesus, critically recycled." Strauss tried to exclude from his reconstruction any details of the Evangelical narration, which was invalid and insistant - for example, all the narratives of miracles (by the way, about the same principles, the editors of the Gospel, performed by L. N. Tolstoy). Of course, with the traditional Christian faith, this approach is completely incompatible. In essence, it was the first conscious attempt to search for the "historical Jesus", as this direction will be called at a later time.

The limitations of this approach is quite obvious. We know, for example, that Jeanne d'Ark is a completely historical person and that she really achieved a radical fracture in a centuryary war. But the narratives about it are bellped with miracles, and if the Strauss methodology applies to them, most likely it will turn out that no Jeanne existed at all. This is absurdity; It will be wiser to say that Jeanne is a real historical figure, we know about her role in the Central War, but its mystical experience lies outside the sphere of knowledge of historians, you can believe it or not to believe, but it is impossible to confirm or refute it with scientific methods. In the same way, when analyzing the biblical texts, the historian is entitled to draw conclusions about the external canvas of events, but not about their spiritual meaning And even more so no about miracles, which, in principle, are outside the sphere of scientific knowledge.

As for the Old Testament, it is perhaps the last large-scale attempt to restore his history can be considered the work of M. note on the reconstruction of the history of ancient Israel. Over time, it became obvious that each author has its own version of this story, depending on its own initial installations, and the complete objectivity is simply impossible here.

IN lately Among the archaeologists in general, the direction was so called. "Minimalism", according to which ideas about the history of the ancient Israel should be reduced to a definitely confirmed archaeological data "minimum". One of the most authoritative representatives of this direction F. Davis does not find between the biblical story about the completed history of Israel and the data of archeology practically nothing in common - a kind of impasse of historical criticism that has come to negate its own sense. Of course, minimalists are wrong: if you twine from ancient history Everything that does not have reliable archaeological evidence, it will not be so many facts in it, so it makes no sense to make more stringent criteria for the history of Israel than to the history of other ancient peoples.

However, with a more careful approach, problems arise a lot. For example, one of the modern Russian supporters of the historical method determines it like this: "The historical perspective is based on the fact that Jesus was a living person from flesh and blood and that there are a number of written evidence about his life. Accordingly, the historian has the right to approach his biographies with the same historical standards and methods that are studying the lives of Socrates and Alexander Macedonsky, Gautama Buddha and Karl Great, Prince Vladimir and Savonarola. "

However, in this list - two kinds of names, and the attitude of historians to them is not the same. About Alexander Macedonian and other political and public figures There are many objective data. If all written sources about Alexandra had disappeared, the material monuments would reliably allow all major events from his life, even his name and appearance were imprinted in statues, on coins, on mosaics, etc.

But Socrates, Buddha and Jesus did not win battles, did not base the cities, did not destroy and did not create empires. Everything we know about them is the memories of their disciples. Do not be these memories, we would know about them exactly the same as we know now about other residents of a small village named Nazareth: nothing. The trail left on the ground is not material. Here, on the history of Buddhism, Christianity or Socratic philosophy, the historian will have many different sources, but in all these teachings, the images of the founders will already be given in the finished, "canonized" form. Any attempt to extract from this canonized image historically reliable grain is doomed to too much subjectivity.

Further, in the Gospel, miracles occupy a key place (for example, an adolescence or resurrection). The same researcher is trying to consider them from a scientific point of view and even in general takes the accuracy of the information about the resurrection of Jesus. But then he says no longer as a scientist, because a miracle is on the miracle that it violates the laws of nature, and science is engaged in the study of these laws. The concepts of "miracle" and "science" exclude each other.

Therefore, the possibility of establishing dating, and the possibility of reconstruction of historical events on the basis of biblical text is increasingly being seriously doubted. An increasing distribution receives a "probabilistic model", according to which one or another historical reconstruction can be adopted only with a certain share of probability. The story may even be understood as an attempt to reconstruct events, but as a study of the collective memory of the people about these events. In fact, we are rather interested not exact dates Life of Abraham or Moses, and the place that they occupied in the minds of the Israelites.

Historical criticism was often perceived as an atheistic attack on the authority of Scripture. Often it really was so, but it should not necessarily be: the statement that one or another biblical text is not a historically accurate narrative, it does not necessarily mean a subtle of its authority - this may be a figurative, poetic or prophetic speech. It may be no less true to truth than historically accurate narrative, but its loyalty is not literally accuracy.

On the other hand, historians often give useful objective criteria: for example, the non-canonical gospels, unlike canonical, often contain many anachronism, geographical inaccuracies, etc. It becomes obvious that the author of such a text represents the Palestine I c. According to R. Kh. It is very approximately about, and he has no reason to trust it - but the historian can make this conclusion.

Analysis of sources

If the textology claims that the text of the biblical book is not at all the exact copy of the text that came out once from under the author's pen, and if, on the other hand, historical science requires a critical analysis of any source, it will be quite natural for a scientist to think about how In general, this text arose. Of course, this approach is incompatible with faith in a literal revelation, which sees God with a direct author of any biblical text - in this case there can be no history. That is why this approach for a long time was also considered traditionalists unacceptable liberty, but in fact, with less radical traditionalism, it is quite compatible. Indeed, the biblical author could have any sources - for example, the Evangelist of Luca clearly indicates that before writing his text, he studied them carefully (LK 1: 3). We see and in the Old Testament that the psalter was written not for the reception, and the authors of the historical books of the kingdoms refer to the "Book of Righteous" (Nav 10:13; 2 Tsar 1:18) and "Chronicles of Kings" (3 CAR 14: 19,29, etc.). Therefore, there is nothing scandalous in trying to reconstruct such sources, although any such reconstruction will be controversial.

However, the first material for analyzing sources was the case of texts, which does not refer to anything, namely the pentateuch. This central for the Old Testament, a collection of texts is clearly heterogeneous, full of repetition and parallel narratives, so the conclusion about his "nonlinear" originaged by himself. The first guessed that the pentateuch did not write entirely by one Moses (at least because the 34th head of Deuteronomy describes his death), expressed in the XII century. Jewish Eksegeet Ibn Ezra, but up to the new time, such assumptions did not lead to any scientific theory. Only at the beginning of the XVIII century. H. B. Witter, and then, in the middle of the century, regardless of him, Zh. Astryuk offered to allocate various sources in Pentateuch depending on how the Creator was called in the text.

The "authors" of these sources received conditional names (although, of course, it is wiser here about some tradition than the individual authorship): Elohist (or Eloogist), called the Creator God, and Yahvist (or Yagvist), who preferred a more complete name - the Lord God . Later, two more were added to these two sources: a fairly independent Deuteronomy and a separate priestly code, which was previously considered part of the tradition of Elochist. The classic appearance "the theory of four sources" brought in the last quarter of the XIX century. Y. Wellgauzen. Since then, four sources are traditionally designated four capital letters: E (Elohist), J (Yahvist), D (from Lat. Deuteronomium 'Deuteronomy'), P (from him. Priesterkodex 'Priestain Code'). This theory was called "documentary hypothesis" (Documentary Hypothesis).

The famous work of Wellgausen, published in 1882, was called "prolegomen (preliminary considerations) to the history of Israel." Indeed, for him the theory of sources was important primarily as a step towards the reconstruction of the history of Israel, and above all his religious history: in each source, he expected to see one or another stage of development of the Old Testament religion. Such a historical search also had its own goal: in this way it was possible to get to the very "core" of the revelation, which was subsequently buried under the layers of the lawful tradition and, which, according to the researcher, should have been released from under these later surplus.

In relation to the new Testament, the research sources seemed to be particularly promising: after all, weather forecasters (MF, MK, LC) perfectly used somehow common information and legends. Therefore, in 1924, B. H. Striater suggested such a theory: the most brief gospel was written first, MK, and then MF and LC took advantage of this material for their works. At the same time, they were clearly and some of their material, which entered MF and LCs, but is absent in the MK. This material is customary to signify the letter Q (from it. Quelle 'source'). However, there is another, less popular theory, according to which the first was written by MF.

Nowadays, it's hard to find a scientist engaged in such research. The most convincing hypothesis have already been expressed, in the absence of new finds (for example, genuine manuscript Q or similar materials) it is difficult to count on some new steps in this direction. On the one hand, scientists came to the conclusion that in fact the situation with the origin of biblical books is much more difficult and cannot be unambiguously reconstructed. It is possible that the connection of the elements of the narratives with different origins was made long before the final fixation of the text of the Puzzle. Yes, and the purpose of searching in the text of a certain original source, subsequently a distorted tradition, began to seem less reachable and meaningful.

In any case, it turned out that any theory of sources can be challenged, a reasonable alternative to it can be proposed.

Analysis of traditions

This, of course, does not mean that the analysis of the history of the text is meaningless and harmful occupation, as fundamentalists believes. No, he can be quite interesting and useful, he just does not answer all questions, but only on some, besides, not the most important.

One of the most prominent professionals in the field of Old Testament Tech, D. Bartelemy, far from fundamentalism and a well-known scientist friendly with the complex history of the biblical text, wrote about this: "Some books were lost, others are thoroughly reworked. However, it was in this form that the Word of God came to us. And such is the will of the Holy Spirit, so that we get it (Bible - A. D.) in this form; Critical studies help us understand the process of its change, however, the purpose of these studies is not at all to replace our Bible with its earliest version. We must adopt that the Bible inherited by the Fourth Greets is a fully established work with inner unity, and on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and under his guidance it reached such maturity, which was the sacred library of the peoples of the new and eternal covenant. An adequate sacred writer way of reading is "Lectio Divina", that is, reading at which it is considered as a work of one author, and God is this author. "

Another explorer, J. Cathotto, offers another researcher, the Book of the Amosa Prophet clearly consists of two unequal parts: from the very beginning and up to 9:10, the prophet refuses the sins of Israel and foreshadows punishment, and poems 9: 11-15 talk about the coming recovery of David Israeli dynasties and prosperity. Scientist writes: "Everything says that these latter poems have been added later. In fact, their images, content and focus in other compared to the entire previous book, are proven quite convincingly. But what conclusion does it lead to us? Just discard these verses as prophecies from another time, mechanically affiliated with an inattentive editor - this is too light path in the end, the book of Amos in the way, in what she reached us, this is a single text, and to understand its value, so it and her Read. It does not matter that this text did not belong to the historical character named Amos. But this is the text of Amos. "

Moreover, we know that the texts of the Old Testament Prophetic Books have already been somewhat different in the days of the New Testament, which in the days of their pronunciation, not by chance, evangelists (for example, MF 1-2) are quoted so fluently and retell the "Messianic places" of the Old Testament About each of which a supporter of biblical criticism will immediately say: this is exactly a friend! Yes, a friend, but the context changes, the audience changes, which means that the text value can change. Is it worth refusing such an opportunity? From the point of view of classical biblical criticism, it is simply necessary to refuse, only the initial meaning invested by the author is valuable. Russian scientist E. M. Vereshchagin called this position of the biblical criticism "refusal to take into account the increments of meanings." Any text has a certain initial value, but as it lives in a certain culture, it begins to be understood somewhat differently, and this other understanding may be no less valuable than the original meaning.

Such a relation to the text is associated with the philosophy of existentialism (with all the vagueness of this term), which refuses to share the whole world on the subjective and objective sphere, as the rationalism of the XIX century did, naively believing that scientific methods can be completely objective, independent of the researcher. . Any choice of man, its conclusions and solutions are largely subjective and depend on its free will. Aware of this subjectivity, learn to reconcile one subjectivity on the other, build bridges between them - this is the task that increasingly and more often began to put in biblical studies of the XX century.

In particular, this connection with existentialism in the works of Protestant theologian K. Barta, who, speaking simplifier, returned to traditional theology, rejected the extremes of liberalism and fundamentalism in many respects. "God can only know thanks to God himself. And if we have the opportunity to talk about something in faith, it means: I am a Slavor, I thank you God-Father, the Son and God-Holy Spirit there is what he is and what does; For the fact that he discovered and revealed myself, "he describes the process of God's knowledge. His comment on the most theological book of the New Testament, the Message to the Romans, showed a similar existentialistic approach, characterized by both scholastic clushematics, and rationalistic reconstructions, and from rationalistic reconstructions.

In conclusion, I would like to bring an extensive quote from A. V. Kartasheva's speech, spoken in 1944 in the St. Sergius Great Academy in Paris. Despite its solid age, she did not lose the relevance:

"Of course, the church dogmas is still, but reasonable disclosure and substantiation of their and scientifically apologetic equipment should be moving to the measure of the historical movement of humanity, for" Saturday of a man for the sake of ". And so, it must be recognized that the fixed historical conservatism of the Universal Church (in the person of all its religion) is already too sufficient, for almost two millennia resisted any negative, stray and critical attitude to biblical materials so that it was possible to reproach in special levity and Protestantism, and Anglican, and the Roman Catholic Church, that they are from half of the XIX and in the early XX centuries, in the face of most of their most powerful workers of theological science, the most good scientific publications, with the permission of their highest censorship, moved to almost universal adoption The main conclusions of the wind-cherished biblical criticism

Biblical criticism is the historical and philological science itself with its critical methods in the appendix to the Bible. Is it appropriate for the use of scientific and critical techniques to the Holy Scriptures, by the Word of God? To work our scientific mind next to this perception on faith dogmatic teachingcontained in the sacred books, there is still a huge field of activity, the same as in learning any literary monuments of antiquity. For the Bible physically lives, like other books, exposed to all the transfers of books fate especially for the long millennium of their handwritten existence

In connection with the issue of the authenticity of the composition and materials of this text of the Holy Books, the problem of the authenticity of the most informed information about the life of the world, human history and the wonders of God's fishery in the latter will now not be sought in the Bible lessons in science, according to sciences and in general Sciences as such. The Bible has a different science, spiritual science: about the secrets of salvation. On the things of positive, subject to reason and rational knowledge, it says to conversational, ordinary, and by antiquity and childhood. It, although it is written in inspiration over, but written by people and for people, and therefore completely natural, that is, limited and defective, quite appropriate, the limited and defectivity of human nature

Critical work is appropriate because it is attached to the human element to be managed: it is completely given here. Dan, for the Bible is not only the word of God, but also the word human in their harmonic combination, more precisely - the word Bogochlorian but the meaning of the Scripture is portable, spiritual, prophetic, dogmatic at the same time remains for us is constantly and mandatory in the form and spirit, His holy apostles and their chicken successors were opened to us - fathers, pillars of the Church, a new biblical science, working as a historical-critical method puts on the turn before the Orthodox theologians all new and ever-changing tasks of the combination in each individual case of the typological meaning of this Scripture with re-understandable Letter. "

In general, we can say that these tasks and today are facing us. Of course, biblical criticism as it still existed when this speech was uttered, it has long ceased to be modern and relevant. But the challenge from Western philosophy and Western science still exists, and the Orthodox Scripture researcher will have to answer it anyway. It's not worth chasing here newest fashionnor blindly deny everything that does not belong to the fathers of the Church.

It can be hoped that this essay helped the reader at least partly to deal with the complex conglomerate of names and ideas, which is familiar with the "biblical criticism" and which, with all its limitation and tendency, preceded modern biblical and largely identified its current appearance.

However, not without exceptions: already J. Calvin in the comments on being noted that the story about the creation of the world, in particular, shining, represents us the look of an ancient Jew, and not a modern scientist armed with a telescope.

So outlined understanding of his task German historian L. Sämtliche Werke. Leipzig, 1874. BD 3. S. VII), and this expression has become the motto of positivistic historical science. - A. D. Penetration of this principle in the mass has long been tragicomic character; So, T. Mann writes that the typist, reprinting his novel "Joseph and his brothers" (the work is deliberately subjectivist), said that now she knows, "as it really was." - Ed.

English Criticism, it. Kritik, but specific disciplines often wear the name Geschichte 'History' (traditions, forms, etc.).

For more information about these disciplines and schools, see Hughes P. E. Compositional History // Craig C. Broyles, ED. Interpreting The Old Testament: A Guide for exegesis. Grand Rapids, 2001. P. 221-244 (for the Old Testament); - Interpretation of the New Testament. Collection Essay on Principles and Methods / Ed. A. G. Marshal. St. Petersburg, 2004 (for the new); Haynes S. R., McKenzie S. L. (EDS). To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Louisville, 1993, as well as separate articles in dictionaries: Archpriest A. Men. Bibliology dictionary; Coggins R. J., Houlden J. L. The SCM Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London, 1990; Soulen R. N., Soulen R. K. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Louisville, 2001.

In English Language Both Russian term usually meet the concept of Textual Criticism, although sometimes there is a term textology; in him. TEXTKRITIK.

At one time, Alfa and Omega published the text of the speech A. V. Kartasheva "Old Testament Biblical Criticism" (see No. 4 (30), 2001; No. 1 (31), 2002.). Since the text was published with abbreviations given by A. S. Desnitsky fragments intersect with it not completely. - Ed.

BIBLE: For, for, for -
And against.

Bible, Mark Twain, his "Reflections on Religion":
(Moral God of the Old Testament and God of the New Testament).

Beloved! Do not believe any spirit
But feel the perfume: from God God,
Because a lot of falseproorok appeared in the world.

(1 John, 4:10)

If I told you about the earth, and you do not believe. -
How to believe if I tell you about heaven?

(Gospel from John, 3:12)

І. Old and new words about the Bible.

ІІ. Place Mark Twain in world literature and in atheistic propaganda.

III. Mark Twain. Reflections on religion. Chapter first:

§one. Compared to the Biblical God Nero - Angel of Light and Perfection.
§2. The treachery of the biblical God towards the first person.
§3. Low test concepts of God about justice and justice.
§four. Not merciful, not moral and not father.
§five. Two halves of the God of the New Testament.
§6. Failure to earthly half of the Christian God.
§7. The God of the Old Testament is the personality of the terrible and disgusting, but more consistent God of the New Testament.

IV. Aphorisms brand tween

1. Old and new words about the Bible.

More than two thousand years are read and worshiped biblical books of the Old Testament (Jewish Tanya); Over the 18th centuries are read and worship the biblical books of the New Testament. In the 4-5 century, our era of Christian clergy were selected at the church cathedrals, the books of the New Testament were canonized. In the 10th century of our era, the clergy of Judaism was selected and canonized books of the Old Testament (Tani). Since then, no significant changes have been made to the content of these books, and no letter was changed in the Judaish Tanach. Consequently, during the 18-22 centuries, nothing new in these books appeared, as they remained unchanged. But despite this, the content changed in interpretation and the powerword in relation to new conditions, to new requirements, to new persons or as Saltykov-Shchedrin said, "in relation to meanness."

On the Bible itself and on its maintenance over the centuries, theologians and atheists, popularizers and scientific researchers wrote. As a result, it can be said, the Bible is considered from all the benevolent to her and uncipient to her parties. The work of the past centuries is abundantly used by theologians, in orthodox churchFor example, on the Bible and now look through the prism of the writings of the so-called "holy fathers". Moreover, a number of theologians, being embarrassed to the wall atheistic criticism, are confident from her a reference to the fact that by a particular patient for the holiness of the Bible have long been written "Holy Fathers", if we take them all together, not so much interpreted "correctly" the Bible how many more contradictions and delusions added to it. In any case, in views on the Bible between the "Holy Fathers" more absurdity and contradictions, rather than absurdity and contradictions in the Bible itself. But still, the creation of past centuries and old theologians preachers of religion will not ignore, but are used in all. In this regard, we, going for the logic of the ideological struggle, it is necessary to criticize the religious worldview and biblical legends to use the achievements of the Past's atheists in this regard. There will be no atheist, starting the criticism of the religion itself from the beginning and to the end to create this criticism. God ordered the theologians, and we should not take advantage of the achievements of the past.

It should not be thought that the atheistic criticism of religion and the Bible is outdated. Of course, in the light of new scientific achievements there is something to fix something, something new to add. But, do not tell me ... there is a lot and much does not completely outdated, and if it is outdated, it is only so outdated as outdated, for example, a religious worldview, the content and text of the Bible is outdated. No more and no less. If the preachers of religion say that the Bible is an eternal book, then the atheistic criticism of the Bible is the criticism of the eternal Bible, it is criticism - eternal. Our task to convey to the believers already existing an eternal atheistic criticism of the eternal content of the Bible. And when there are such obsolete, although the newly new, theologians, as Diaconishka Kuraev, with their spiritual son Sergei Queen, are talking about the oddity of atheism, then let them look at the measure of the outdue of their religion and their Bible. They, at the same time, refer to some new finds, new essays and new discoveries. But after all, all truly new finds, interpretation and discoveries also confirm the eternal truth of Atheism: there is no God, and the Bible is a mess, primitive and completely erroneous work of ignorant writing. Yes, they appeared, for example, new scientific research in the field of biblicalism, but they only confirmed, so to speak, quite the earthly origin of the Bible, showed that there is nothing supernatural in it, and throughout this, the criticism of the content of the Bible is not outdated because it remains The same old Bible content.

Over the centuries, a solid golden foundation of the atheistic criticism of the Bible has accumulated. Which has not yet been outdated and refutes the Bible with the same success, with which she refuted it 100 - 200-5,5 - 1.000 and 2.000 years ago. And so we, atheists, it would not be reasonable to look for only some completely new elements of the criticism of the Bible and new approaches to the criticism of the content of biblical content, although we, atheists, are never barely.

Churchs are trying to make this criticism, the scientific explanation of the Bible did not reach believers. In the Catholic Church, it is still considered blasphemy to the believer to interpret the Bible. This, they say, the prerogative of the graceful Popov yes deeply studied the Bible of the Catholic theologians, who look at believers, as on biblical eunuhov, who "do not mean anything, if shepherds do not put them" (Act, 8:31).

Now, recently there have been many new so-called charismatic churches, in which every chapter of a current course announces that he has just discovered himself, how to understand this or that place in the Bible ... But such "charismatics" affect only completely exalted And the dark believers, which, as a rule, do not read the Bible themselves and expect similar reading with a clear explanation only from their sent to him from God himself, the preacher. This, in the words of the Bible, lazy believers slaves (Matthew, 25:26), lazy womb (Tita, 1:12).

And how would they " holy Fathers", Newly new Kurayeva or" charismatic "shepherds have not interpreted the Bible, its content will not change from it. What is written there, then you will not cut down the axes, you will not catch out the disintegration language of the Bogoslovsky interpretation.

But the womb has not yet gotten, bringing the bastards of religious utopia. Belief in God and the Bible have not yet been commissioned in irrevocable and not rehabilitated archives of history. And therefore, the antidote of religious sores and the hot delirium deliberates is effectively serve both old drugs and new construction produced by cultural progress. But still, it is impossible to do only with the latest medicines, since the majority of religious nonsense is treated at theteistic medicine tested in practice. They need to arrange modern militant atheists, it must be in every way to convey and present to believers to enlighten their insane religion of consciousness.

That is why, criticism of faith in God and the criticism of the biblical text will be obscured only as faith in the holiness of the unrealistic text of the Bible. And therefore, it is necessary to use the atheistic works of the past of such prominent atheists as I.A. Kusheelieva, Abbot Lauzi, I.D. Amusin, Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feyerbach, Immanuel Kant, R.Yu.Vipper, Voltaire, Yaroslav. Galant, Paul Golbach, Denis Didro, Arthur Husz, Sigmund Freud, R.G. Ingersoll, A.P. Kahdan, S.I. Kovlev, M.S. . Belliy, Ya.A. Lenzman, Jean Moles, Stepan Tudor, G.V. Pleuhanov, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin, Archibald Robertson, Bertaran Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, I.I.Skvortsov-Stepanov, Leo Taxil, M.I. Shakhovich M.I., David Strauss, Charles Estlen, Amboroioo Donini, Zenon Kidosovsky, Alexander Osipov, David Yum, Emelyan Yaroslavsky, Lunacharsky and many, many others.

Today we provide visitors to our atheistic site the opportunity to get acquainted with the atheistic thoughts of Mark Twain (Mark Twain) - Samuel Clemens, born in 1835 and who died in the 76th year of his life in 1910.

ІІ. Place Mark Twain in world literature and in atheistic propaganda

Mark Twain is the classic of world literature and at the same time the most American of all American cultural figures. He is ancestor of the actual American literature. English-language world, and with him and the creative intelligentsia of Europe is trying to see distinctive features American character is like that Mark Twain began to describe it.

His first work, a small story "Galant Fireman" (A Gallant Fireman) Mark Twain published in his native brother "Western Region" (Western Union ) in 1851. The story so far would be forgotten if it did not write the future Mark Twain . Mark Twain Sensational fame brought and approved his two subsequent books: "Solemnly jumping frog from Calaveras County County, published by him in 1865 and" Naive out of their house "(The Innocents Abroad), published by them In 1869. These books were first signed by the pseudonym "Mark Twain", which means "double - twelve-sided - depth under the keel". (In our literature, his pseudonym is sometimes interpreted as "Mark Gemini", which is incorrect.) The unfavorable world fame Mark Twain brought his books: "The Adventure of Tom Sawyer" (1876) and the Adventure of Hilkberry Finn (1884), "Prince And the beggar "(1882)," Yankees from Connecticut at the court of King Arthur "(1889), and, of course, his main work -" Tragedy of Wilson, the head of the Padding family "(The Tragedy of Pudd" Nhead Wilson - 1884). Mark Twain I had a huge impact on the work of many Writers of the United States, especially for Jeengueia and Folkner.

Common sense, humanism, anti-ray and the atheistic spirit reign in all the works of the brand of twee. Humor and Satire writers organically combine with the grace of style and attense. Expressions from his works, personal correspondence and feast conversations immediately became publicity and organically entered folk creativity. During his lifetime, as after death, Mark Twain was drawn by a mustache handicap, with an invariably tube in the teeth and the utterance. Mark Twain continued to produce a centance and after his death. Now researchers creativity classics world and american literature They collected these pearls of folk art and published in the form of an encyclopedia called "what Mark Twain did not really say."

After her seventieth anniversary, Mark Twain said that he finally could talk and write everything that he thinks, not afraid of any consequences for himself, and began writing his "autobiography", a number of sharp satirical atheistic - can even say: militant atheistic! - Works that, sparing the religiosity of your family and friends, bequeathed to publish in 25-50-100 years after his death. All these works for the first time and were fully published only in 1962-1965.

From the prominent atheistic works, the brand of tween should be called its brilliant criticism in the composition of the "Christian science" fashionable at that time, the movement of Scientology, which offered to treat all the sores, to overcome all the troubles and seek the sorrect success only focused, "scientifically" compiled prayer. This work, the writer offended his daughter to Climine, who was a man with a religious and adherent of Scientology. During the life of a writer, his work was published in which he subjunted the unilent criticism of Mormon's teachings (church of the last day). Work was also published: "Captain Captain Stro-Commission to Paradise." During 1901-1902, Mark Twain writes an extensive satirical work entitled: "The Secret History of Eddypus, The World-Empire), in which he draws the tragic and comic state of the state in which The aspirations, the dominant position occupied religion. Modern researchers believe that this essay Mark Twain inspired Orwell to write anti-nightopia "1984".

But the most acute atheistic works are written after 70 years. At the same time, he reported to his future readers: "I always remember that I am talking from the grave, because I will be dead before that of these my books will see the light, but from the grave I speak more youter than the language of living, and for what reason: I I can do it free! "

In the Soviet Union, except for individual works, a 12-Tomny collection of writings Mark Twain was published. It has the main atheistic works of the writer. But after 1962, after the publication on the will of new works, the latter were published separate publications or collections. The last of these is the collection "Diary Adam", the Publishing House of Political Literature, Moscow, 1982, 295 pages. We will reproduce from this publication at present only one chapter from the composition of the brand of Twain "Reflections on Religion".

Translate and read Mark Twain is a pleasure. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that Mark Twain wrote for American readers who knew the Bible perfectly, Christian tricks. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) There are no such Soviet citizens of such theological knowledge. And therefore, the literal translation (or even worse - "squatting") often do not convey to our reader of the whole depth and all satirical thought of the writer about religious doctrine. And therefore, using already in cash, we once again compared it with the original, took into account the level of perception of our readers and made some expansion into the transfer of thoughts in Russian, and in extreme cases did some notes.

So, as they say: "With God!" - Start reading golden thoughts about the religion of the classic world literature.
Mark Twain.

Reflections on religion.

Chapter first.

§one. Compared to the Biblical God Nero - Angel of Light and Perfection

The Christian Bible draws the image of God with exhaustive and ruthless accuracy. The portrait that she suggests us is basically a portrait of a man fulfilled and overwhelmed by malice outside of human limits; Portrait of a person with which now - when Nero and Caligula have long passed away - no decent person in the world would want to drive. All those depicted in the Old Testament of the Acts of God are talking about his evil, injustice, petty, vitality. He just does that punish: punishable for insignificant deeds with a thousandth rigor; punishars of innocent babies for misconduct their parents; Carats who have not guessed the citizens of the country for their rulers; It even lies even to the fact that it collapsing the bloody revenge on the humble calves, lambs, sheep and oxen, in order to shiver the trifling sins of their owners.

A more vile and accusatory life of God's personality than in the Bible, there is no way in print. After reading about God in the Bible, you begin to consider Nero Angel Light and Perfection.

§2. The treachery of the biblical God towards the first person.

The bioblast life of the biblical god opens with a story about his monstrous treachery; The treachery is the leitmotif of the entire book. Her beginning, probably, was invented in a pediatric pirate - it is so frozo and at the same time infant naive.

Adam, read in the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, was forbidden to eat the fruit of some tree. The first person who came out of the hands of the Creator just a few days ago, without a shadow of smile it is reported that in the case of disobedience he will die. How could you expect the Overall to God that such a threat would make at least the slightest impression on Adam?! After all, Adam at the time was an adult man only appearance. And on knowledge and on life experience, he did not exceed a two-year-old baby, who had just learned to say to speak. Adam could not know what was "die" what "death" is. He never seen a single dead creature in his life. He never heard about death. This word did not have any meaning or meaning for him. With the same success, God could contradict the fact that if a person is eating the Forbidden fruit, it will immediately turn into a meridian, - Adam could not even understand the divine threat or the last word.

§3. Low test concepts of God about justice and justice.

It was possible not to doubt that the fluid intelligence, a significant considerable threat, escorted by all sorts of other duty, based on very low-base concepts about justice and justice. So it came out! It was announced, we read in the Bible that all the descendants of Adam, that is, all of humanity, to the condation of the century, they will bear the kara for violation of a non-violation of the law, which was reported to the generic team of the human race even before he, the ancestor, came out of the diaper. During the innumerable millennium, without exception, the people, one after another, were subjected and exposed to tireless injury and all sorts of troubles in punishment for the ordinary children's prank, which theologians, following the Bible, are called "the sin of Adam" or "original sin" ...

And throughout this endless time, there was never a lack of rabbis, in the dads of Roman, bishops, priests, pastors and worldly slave souls, who enthusiastically glorified this infant crime of God, proclaimed him inhabitedly fair, righteous and trembled incessantly creating evil so much so much and Unbelievable landing that anyone, except for the biblical god, having heard something similar, would turn away with embarrassment and gadiness ...

Although the long-habit of flattery and harden our oriental monarchs, they could not even be demolished on Sundays in the temples of shameless praises, which biblical God listens to the smug and satisfactory.

§four. Not merciful, not moral and not father.

We, not blushing, call our god source of mercy, although I know well that in the whole history there is no case when he actually showed mercy. We call it a source of morality, although his history and his daily behavior, about which our own feelings testify to us, irrefutably prove that it is absolutely deprived of any likeness of kindness or morality. We call him a father, and at the same time not in the mockery, although we would penetrate hatred and disgusting to any earthly father, if he expose his child at least a thousandth share of those suffering, sorrow and cruelty of the troubles, to which our God condemned them daily in The course of all centuries that have passed since the minute when this great crime was made - when Adam ate an apple.

§five. Two halves of the god of the New Testament

The Christian idea of \u200b\u200bGod is a ridiculous and ridiculous mixing of ideas. We share God in half. We leave one half of this god in the deaf corner of the Earth, where he fully devoted himself to concerns about the salvation of the tiny tribe of the Jews, and no one more, which is said on all pages of the Gospel. And the second half of him we are sitting on the heavenly throne, where he, with anxious, curiosity and contempt, looks at all of humanity down, waiting for the last day with solvent, is what the new Testament on all pages.

We are awe with a reverence worthy of much better use, we study the history of the first half of God and contrary to all the rules of logic and morality, we make a conclusion that this one half of the Christian God in the image of Jesus Christ has corrected, acquired high moral qualities in the New Testament and all sorts of virtue has lost Whatever similarity with its Old Testament, evil half of God. We believe that the first, in the image of Jesus Christ, half of the reality, merciful, good, the mugger, was fulfilled by the all-sustainment and compassion for the flour of mankind, which she tries to soften and destroy. But in this, earthly, half of the New Testament God sits his former, the Old Testament part, which on the pages of the New Testament is manifested in the descriptions of hell - lakes from fire and sulfur, in which those from people who did not bother to recognize only his only God, not They were baptized in his name and not worship him properly, - burn in the "Gien of the Fire" eyelids eternal. And we will not burn not only, notified by our Christian preachers, - all billions of people of the pre-Christian and non-Christian generations are doomed to this terrible fate, although they have never heard of the New Testament God and put forward by the conditions of the New Testament Himself from the eternal torment fellow by him by these merciful and loving God. Such an example of the mercy of the God of the New Testament should be called brilliant. How far these earth savages and bloodthirsty forest predators!

On behalf of the New Testament, we ordered to seven times seventy times a day to forgive your neighbor; Rejoice and be grateful if, after the pious life, our soul on a mortal apparent will not have time to escape from our body before the priest gets to us so that heaves, with his mutters, candles and chants to supply it, our soul, pass to the kingdom of heaven. This example of inexhaustible readiness to forgive can also be called brilliant.

6. The inferiority of the earthly half of the Christian God.

Theologians assure us that two halves of our God (the earth Jesus Christ and the God sitting on the heavenly throne) are separated only by sight, and in fact they remain single and equally powerful, despite the division. And here is the earthly half - Jesus Christ; The one who mourns the suffering of mankind and would like to destroy them and is quite capable of destroying them at any time when it is pleased with him - it is satisfied with the fact that he returns sight from the case to the case, instead of returning it to everyone blindly; From the case of the case heals the cripping, instead of healing all the crop; Speakers treats five thousand people with breakfast and provides millions to starve as before. And all this time, the Gospel Jesus Christ instructs a powerless person to save all his neighbors from the evils, who himself brought them on them and which he - he wanted to - could be destroyed by a common word, thereby fulfilling his direct duty, which he neglected from the beginning of time And it will be neglected until the condation of the centuries. He raised several people from the dead. It is obvious that he considered it very good act. But in this case, it would be not good to limitate only by five or six people; He should resurrect all the rest of the dead. I myself would not do this, because I think that the dead are the only people who can be envied; And I mentioned about it only in passing, as about one of those strange contradictions that all biblical sacred writing are crowded.

§7. The God of the Old Testament is the personality of the terrible and disgusting, but more consistent God of the New Testament.

Although the God of the Old Testament is the person of terrible and disgusting, he, in any case, is more consistent. He does not make a look, as if he has any morality or any virtues, "except in words. In his behavior it is impossible to find a trace of something like. In my opinion, he is incomparably closer to being worthy of respect than its corrected "I", so ineffectively distinguished in the New Testament. Nothing in history - even in its entire history, taken as a whole, and remotely cannot be compared for brutal cruelty with the invention of hell.

The Old Testament "I" seems to be the most kindness, meekness and decency compared to his "corrected" earth and heavenly "I" of the New Testament. In heaven, he, Old Testament God, does not claim all the advantages and really does not possess any one - if not to consider that he attributes to himself. And the New Testament God claims to possess all and every dignity from the entire catalog of advantages, but it proves them only occasionally, very straightened, and ended up with all his hedge, who once destroyed all his fictitious advantages.

Aphorisms brand tween

When you read the Bible, you will be more surprised by the ignorance of God, rather than His Mention.

Before starting prayer for the rain, read the weather forecast.

Christian religion is a terrible religion. In the seas of innocent blood, which were spilled, could not interfere with all fleets of the world.

By no means the ability to argue creates Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Moometanine, Buddhist, or Mormon, - they create a medium.

Read your debt today, and repent of time you have time.

Do not leave only tomorrow what you can leave on the day after tomorrow.

Do not talk about your fishing people who know you; Especially do not talk about fishing to those who know what fish is.

Time is money. But geological time is no money.

I am represented in the fact that in my works there is a lot of water and a little strong wine. This is true: because the water drink everything, and strong wine - only alcoholics.

Perfect girls live only in books.

There are such types of morality: political morality, moral trade, Moral church and just morality.

The most honest creatures in the world believes themselves and the Lord God.

Nothing matches theft like a terrible poverty and great wealth.

The dog can scare a thousand fleas, but a thousand dogs do not bother one flea.

Everyone wants to buy classic literature, but not everyone wants to read.

A person who does not read good books has no advantage over one who does not know how to read.

The ideal life consists of good books, good friends and responsive conscience.

I wrote "Tom Sawyer" and "Gilcberry Finn" exclusively for youth. But I'm stunned by the fact that some take an example from my literary heroes. Blurred in your youth consciousness Never wash your boyfriend for the rest of my life.

(To be continued)

Douluman E.K.

Notes

The section of the chapter on paragraphs and their names are ours. - E.D.

The charter waiting for the return of Moses from Mount Sinai, the Jews made themselves the Golden Taurus and decided to pray to him as God. For this, God destroyed 3 thousand Jews (Exodus, 32:28); For that, "someone from the sons of Israeli led to his sleeping some kind of Madiamtyanka" God "struck 24 thousand innocent Jews (Numbers, 25: 9) and many similar descriptions.

The above material can be freely copied, multiplying, used by preachers of religion, simple believers and unbelieving without any restrictions.

The emergence of "biblical criticism"

Renaissance fruits in Western Europe XV-XVI centuries. - interest in antiquity and ancient languages, the development of universities and other educational centers, the invention of the printing machine, and then transfers to the Bible into national languages \u200b\u200b- gradually led to the fact that the Bible began to read and comment on not only the clergy and individual laity, and exclusively in church The context, as it was in the Middle Ages, but also almost all educated people. At the same time, they approached the text from different positions, compared it with other texts, merged different manuscripts and publishing among themselves. It appeared the possibility of fairly wide and qualified discussions about the Bible with the appeal not only to its Latin translation (Vulgate), but also to the Greek and Jewish editions of the original. Of course, it is impossible not to say that before such discussions did not happen at all, but now they did not just become more - they went to a qualitatively new level.

– Sola Scriptura.: Only the Scripture can serve as the basis for Christian theology. This does not mean that reformers completely rejected the previous church tradition - they, unlike their Catholic opponents, did not consider this tradition as a mandatory and regulatory way of interpretation of Scripture. For them, these were private opinions with which one can agree or disagree, but only Scripture had evidential force. Therefore, there was an urgent need to develop some general principles of interpretation of the Scripture, which could be proved by this or that position.
– The Bible interprets itself: To understand the text of Scripture, there are no external sources of knowledge, we can learn all the necessary information in Scripture. This statement also stimulated the development of biblicalism as relatively objective science.
– Two levels of Scripture: At the external level, Scripture is fully accessible to any reader, no special education or spiritual insight is required to urge the main meaning of the text. At the same time, the spiritual knowledge of the truths hidden in Scripture is possible only by the action of grace of the Holy Spirit. Such an approach has opened ample opportunities for the study of the external, literal meaning of the Scripture from the point of view of ordinary humanitarian disciplines, which has become the basis of biblical criticism. On the other hand, he perfectly corresponded to the second basic principle of reformers: Sola Gratia, only by graceful of God, and not for his own merit, a person is saved and generally gets every gift from God.
– Faith as the key to understanding: A genuine understanding of the Bible is inseparable from the Christian faith. This thesis is associated with the third basic principle of the Reformation: Sola Fide, only faith finds a person salvation.
– Unity of Scripture: The Bible should be understood in its integrity, the new and dilapidated covenants are inextricably linked with each other. In this, however, the reformers fully agree with Catholics and Orthodox.
– Biblical news as a call for updating: The meaning of Scripture is primarily to call all people to revive and update.

The highest reality is comprehended by no mind, but a moral feeling, so the task of building dogmatic theology is essentially removed.
Revelations over in the sense, in which the prophets are understood (the immediate undoubtion of the Will of God) does not exist.
Jesus was a great man who founded the spiritual and moral system, free from the shackles of dogmatics, which were then superimposed by the Church Christianity.
All religions, not excluding both Christianity, arose and developed according to their own laws, which should be studied how other historical processes are studied.

Varieties of "Biblical Critics"

Textology

Errors can sneak into any document rewritable, and sometimes conscious corrections are made to it. Therefore, textology has developed some basic principles over time. Here is some of them:

not the number of evidence is taken into account, and their "weight", that is, antiquity and degree of independence from other witnesses;
manuscripts must be compared with each other to identify their relative genealogy, and then compare the "parents" of each such "family";
a quieter option is usually initial, as the corresponders are characteristic of adding rather than to skip the text;
if there is in a more complete version of the literal repetitions, on the contrary, it is preferable, since the skipping of the text between the reversals is easy to explain the nestlessness of the correspondence;
the text is more complicated for understanding, it is commonly initial, since the corresponders are characteristic of simplifying rather than complicate the text;
explanations for incomprehensible word or expression may be late glossa (notes), randomly deposited in the text, etc.

Historical analysis

First, historical criticism has developed a method of approximate document dating. How can we find out when he was written and when was the copy located in our hands? If this is not the original, then the text itself, of course, is older than this copy. The second tip is contained in the events mentioned in the book: it is completed in any case later than the last of them. But so we will learn only the earliest possible date of writing, and not the greatest, representing the greatest interest. The author of the books of judges suggests the time of writing, repeating that in those days there was no king from Israel; Everyone did what it seemed fair (). The obvious conclusion is that the author knew the order that could only exist at the king, and wrote after the establishment of the monarchy, to which it was clearly positive. If there is no such explicit instructions in the text itself, the researcher has to rely on indirect data and its own views.

The second most important task of historical analysis is to relate text with historical reality and, if possible, reconstruct it. How can we find out how much does the story correspond to the historical fact? This main question can be divided into slightly smaller. How close is the document to the events described? Is it supported by its statements by other sources, biblical or non-biblical, or archeology? Could events occur exactly what they are described? In trying to answer these questions, the historian will be able to draw a more complete and expressive picture of the events that occurred. Recognizing the author or source, you can shed light on the content of the narrative; Non-biblical sources can often help recreate the historical and cultural context of the events described in the Bible.

The limitations of this approach is quite obvious. We know, for example, that Jeanne d'Ark is a completely historical person and that she really achieved a radical fracture in a centuryary war. But the narratives about it are bellped with miracles, and if the Strauss methodology applies to them, most likely it will turn out that no Jeanne existed at all. This is absurdity; It will be wiser to say that Jeanne is a real historical figure, we know about her role in the Central War, but its mystical experience lies outside the sphere of knowledge of historians, you can believe it or not to believe, but it is impossible to confirm or refute it with scientific methods. In the same way, when analyzing the biblical texts, the historian is entitled to draw conclusions about the external canvas of events, but not about their spiritual meaning and the more about the wonders, which in principle are outside the sphere of scientific knowledge.

Recently, among archaeologists, there was a direction so called. "Minimalism", according to which ideas about the history of the ancient Israel should be reduced to a definitely confirmed archaeological data "minimum". One of the most authoritative representatives of this direction F. Davis does not find between the biblical story about the completed history of Israel and the data of archeology practically nothing in common - a kind of impasse of historical criticism that has come to negate its own sense. Of course, minimalists are wrong: if everything that does not have reliable archaeological evidence from ancient history, there is not so many facts in it, so it makes no sense to make more stringent criteria for the history of Israel than to the history of other ancient peoples.

However, in this list - two kinds of names, and the attitude of historians to them is not the same. There are many objective data about Alexander Macedonian and other political and statesmen. If all written sources about Alexandra had disappeared, the material monuments would reliably allow all major events from his life, even his name and appearance were imprinted in statues, on coins, on mosaics, etc.

Therefore, the possibility of establishing dating, and the possibility of reconstruction of historical events on the basis of biblical text is increasingly being seriously doubted. An increasing distribution receives a "probabilistic model", according to which one or another historical reconstruction can be adopted only with a certain share of probability. The story may even be understood as an attempt to reconstruct events, but as a study of the collective memory of the people about these events. In fact, we are rather interested not to the exact dates of the life of Abraham or Moses, but the place that they occupied in the minds of the Israelites.

Analysis of sources

If the textology claims that the text of the biblical book is not at all the exact copy of the text that came out once from under the author's pen, and if, on the other hand, historical science requires a critical analysis of any source, it will be quite natural for a scientist to think about how In general, this text arose. Of course, this approach is incompatible with faith in a literal revelation, which sees God with a direct author of any biblical text - in this case there can be no history. That is why this approach for a long time was also considered traditionalists unacceptable liberty, but in fact, with less radical traditionalism, it is quite compatible. Indeed, the biblical author could have any sources - for example, the Evangelist of Luke clearly indicates that before writing his text, he studied them carefully (). We see and in the Old Testament that the Psalter was written not for the reception, and the authors of the historical books of the kingdoms refer to the "Book of Righteous" (;) and the "Chronicles of the Kings" (etc.). Therefore, there is nothing scandalous in trying to reconstruct such sources, although any such reconstruction will be controversial.

In relation to the new Testament, the sources of sources seemed to be particularly promising: because weather forecasters (MF, MK, LC) perfectly used some general information and legends. Therefore, in 1924, B. H. Striater suggested such a theory: the most brief gospel was written first, MK, and then MF and LC took advantage of this material for their works. At the same time, they were clearly and some of their material, which entered MF and LCs, but is absent in the MK. This material is customary to signify the letter Q (from it. Quelle 'source'). However, there is another, less popular theory, according to which the first was written by MF.

In any case, it turned out that any theory of sources can be challenged, a reasonable alternative to it can be proposed.

Analysis of traditions

Moreover, we know that the texts of the Old Testament Prophetic Books have already been somewhat different in the days of the New Testament, which in the days of their pronomization, it is not by chance that evangelicals (for example,) so freely quote and retell the "Messianic places" of the Old Testament, about each of which A supporter of biblical criticism will immediately say: this is exactly about the friend! Yes, a friend, but the context changes, the audience changes, which means that the text value can change. Is it worth refusing such an opportunity? From the point of view of classical biblical criticism, it is simply necessary to refuse, only the initial meaning invested by the author is valuable. Russian scientist E. M. Vereshchagin called this position of the biblical criticism "refusal to take into account the increments of meanings." Any text has a certain initial value, but as it lives in a certain culture, it begins to be understood somewhat differently, and this other understanding may be no less valuable than the original meaning.

In conclusion, I would like to bring an extensive quote from speech uttered in 1944 in the St. Sergiyevskoy Academy in Paris. Despite its solid age, she did not lose the relevance:

Biblical criticism is the historical and philological science itself with its critical methods in the appendix to the Bible. Is it appropriate for the use of scientific and critical techniques to the Holy Scriptures, by the Word of God? For the work of our scientific mind next to this perception on the faith of dogmatic teaching, contained in the Holy Books, there is still a huge field of activity, the same as in learning any literary monuments of antiquity. For the Bible physically lives, like other books, exposed to all the transfers of books fate especially for the long millennium of their handwritten existence

In general, we can say that these tasks and today are facing us. Of course, biblical criticism as it still existed when this speech was uttered, it has long ceased to be modern and relevant. But the challenge from Western philosophy and Western science still exists, and the Orthodox Scripture researcher will have to answer it anyway. It is not worth chasing here the newest fashion, nor blindly deny everything that does not belong to the fathers of the Church.

Archpriest A. Men. Bibliology dictionary. T. 2. M., 2002. P. 509-511.

The more accurate translation of the German expression Ding An Sich is the thing in itself.

According to Archpriest A. Men. Bibliology dictionary. T. 2. P. 128-129.

English Criticism, it. Kritik, but specific disciplines often wear the name Geschichte 'History' (traditions, forms, etc.).

In English Language Both Russian term usually meet the concept of Textual Criticism, although sometimes there is a term textology; in him. TEXTKRITIK.

For details, see Tov E. Textology of the Old Testament. M., 2001 and Wyngrin J. Introduction to the textology of the Old Testament. M., 2002 (for the Old Testament), Metzger B. Textology of the New Testament. M., 1996 (for the new).

Strauss D. F. Das Leben Jesu Kritisch Bearbeitet. Zweite Verb. Auflage. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1837.

NOTH M. GESCHICHTE ISRAELS. Göttingen, 1986, etc.

Davies pH., ED. In Search of "Ancient Israel" // Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, NO. 148. SHEFFIELD, 1995; Davies pH. What separates a minimalist from a maximalist? NOT MUCH // Bible Archeology Review. 26 (2000). P. 24-27; 72-73. Review of the minimalism discussion See: Zevit Z. Three Debates About Bible and Archaeology // Biblica. 83 (2002). P. 1-27.

Hawks G. G. Who was Jesus from Nazareth? M., 2008. S. 9.L. Grilyez. Archeology of text: Comparative analysis of the Gospels from Matthew and Mark in the light of the Semitic Reconstruction. M., 1999.

See, for example: RendTorff R. The Paradigm IS Changing: Hopes and Fears // Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches. 1 (1993). P. 34-53.

It. TraditionsGeschichte, letters. 'The history of tradition, English. Tradition Criticism.

Interpretation of the New Testament. P. 199.

It. FormgeSchichte, letters. 'Form history', or literaturgeschichte letters. 'History of Literature', English. Form Criticism, TJ. it. GattungsForschung, English Genre Analysis 'genre analysis' (term Gunkel).

It. Sitz IM Leben expression, letters. The 'place in life', has become a term and is often used in texts written in other languages, including Russian.

Hyatt J. P. EXODUS, NEW Century Bible. London, 1971. P. 63.

Bart K. Message to the Romans. M., 2005.

At one time, Alpha and Omega published the text of the speech "Old Testament Biblical Criticism" (see No. 4 (30), 2001; No. 1 (31), 2002.). As the text published with abbreviations, the fragments crossed are not completely crossed. - Ed.

1. Biblical criticism as scientific discipline

Both Christian and the Jewish religion teach the fact that all biblical books are "injunctive" works, that is, that their content is inspired by God to some people who recorded it. Who were these people?

For most biblical books, the church indicates certain authors. She attributes the pentateuch with Moses, pointing at the same time when he supposedly lived? XV century BC e. The book of Joshua Navina wrote allegedly Jesus Navin, who occupied after the death of Moses, the post of leader's Jews. The rest of the Books of the Old Testament is also attributed to various Old Testament characters, and if the book is called someone? Either by name, then he is considered its author. So, all the books of the Prophets are considered belonging to the relevant prophets: Isaiah's book? Isaoy, Ezekiel? Ezekiel, etc. As for the New Testament, the Church claims that the Gospels are written by four evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luka and John; Acts? Evangelical Luke, Messages? those persons whose names they are named; And finally, John the Theologian is attributed to the Apocalypse. However, in essence, from a religious point of view, this question should not have absolutely no meaning, for the author of the Bible? One, is it? God, and the people who produced relevant entries played only the role of correspondence. Therefore, biblical books are considered "sacred", because they should not be mistakes or contradictions.

As for the time of writing biblical books, on religious teachings, the main ones were written in the order in which they are located in the biblical canon. First, all the books of Pentafi were written by Moses, then for several centuries they wrote the remaining books of the Old Testament, and the overwhelming majority of them were supposedly written to the Babylonian captivity. The Gospels and the rest of the books of the New Testament were written, as the Christian Church believes, in the middle of the first century N. e.

This scheme of origin of the biblical books has long begun to cause doubts from many, even believers who tried to approach the Bible from the point of view of common sense. With regard to Moses as the author of the penalty, a certain Persian Jew Hii Gabalki in the 9th century. e. spoke very skeptical; He pointed out, in particular, to the fact that in one of these books the death of Moses is described; I could not tell a man how he was dying and how he was buried! After two hundred years after Hiwi, the studios of the Old Testament was engaged in a Jewish writer and theologian ibn? Ezra (XI century). He left behind very foggy statements that were not understood by his contemporaries. Only in the XVII century, they were deciphered by the famous Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632? 1677), which generally laid the beginning of the scientific research of the Bible. There is a scientific discipline, which is specially engaged in the study of the Bible; She is called biblical criticism. Biblical criticism means a comprehensive analysis of the biblical text; This makes a special emphasis on the study of the history of this text. Not only unbelievers are engaged in biblical criticism, but also believers, including the theologians of both Jewish and Christian religions. A particularly important role in the history of biblical criticism was played by the theologians of Protestant religion. Many did a lot for biblical criticism of philosophers, historians, specialists in the ancient languages \u200b\u200bof Semitic, ancient Greek, Latin.

The scientific study of the Bible was conducted by various groups and directions of scientists from different positions. Some scientists proceeded from the desire to reveal the actual historical truth, others were guided by the desire to "save" from the Bible what you can, sacrificing the most obvious inconsistencies. Big influence The ideological struggle between the defenders of interests of different class groups was provided to the course of research, between representatives of different worldviews. For example, bourgeois scientists consistently opposed scientific positions in the criticism of the Bible at the time when the bourgeoisie was interested in overcoming the feudal church ideology. At present, the bourgeois biblical criticism is increasingly rolling on the anti-scientific positions, seeking to embellish the Bible and its history. As for the churchists, they, in particular, Catholics, are engaged in falsification of the history of the Bible. In the Vatican there is a special so-called Biblical Institute, the formal task of which is a "scientific" study of the Bible. In fact, he is not doing anything other than the falsification of the science of the Bible.

Biblical criticism examines mostly the history of the Bible, thus, in the main science of historical. At the same time, the criticism of the Bible can be conducted in other destinations. For example, French materialists and enlighteners of the XVIII century showed the inconsistency of biblical legends in terms of common sense and logic. In this chapter, we will focus only on historical criticism, i.e., on the disclosure of the history of biblical books and biblical text.

Attempts to critical analysis of the Bible were taken in antiquity, the systematic scientific research began about three hundred years ago. In this small chapter, we cannot illuminate the entire history of biblical criticism in detail, so we will dwell only at some of the most important points. Will we consider the work of some classics of biblical criticism? those largest representatives of this scientific discipline that have had particularly serious positive influence For the entire history of scientific research of biblical texts.

From the book How did the Bible arose [with illustrations] Author author unknown

6. Biblical criticism: Old Testament Fragment of one of the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament. Located in the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem. We have already talked about the fact that the history of the creature of the Old Testament is described in chapters 2 and 3 as it is understood by the authors of this book. This

From the book as the Bible arose Author Religious science author unknown -

What is biblical criticism? Simply put, biblical criticism is the science of origin of the text of the Bible and its state. And here we have to distinguish between two concepts: (1) "criticism of a low level", or just "criticism of the text", engaged

From the book Bibliology Dictionary Author Mary Alexander

7. Biblical criticism: The New Testament This chapter is directly related to the previous ones and is a continuation. Many problems, such as historical development, philosophical background and discussions about the positions of critics, the same for criticism of both the old and new

From the book of mind for God: why among smart so many believers by Keller Timothy

Biblical criticism: Old Testament We have already talked about the fact that the history of the creature of the Old Testament is described in chapters 2 and 3 as it is understood by the authors of this book. This point of view, however, does not share many modern theologians. But the theory described by us corresponds

From the book of the Master of Illusions. How ideas turn us into slaves Author Nosyerev Ilya Nikolaevich

What is biblical criticism? Simply put, biblical criticism is the science of origin of the text of the Bible and its state. And here we must distinguish two concepts: (1) "Criticism of a low level", or just "criticism of the text", engaged in

From the book Introduction to Biblical Exegetics Author Desnaitsky Andrey Sergeevich

Historical criticism The biblical industry * Isaagogic, K-paradium is engaged in comparing historical. Bible data with aftal. Monuments of material and spiritual culture. One of the ch. funds IK is the study of the results of the Bible. * Archeology (Ancient and Antich.). By B.ch., these

From the book forty questions about the Bible Author Desnaitsky Andrey Sergeevich

Criticism biblical scientific Studying holy Scriptures included in * Isaagogy. Under the word "critic" is usually understood: a) the analysis of one or another teaching, books, etc. In order to show their inconsistency; b) Review of art. works with TZR. their skill I.

From the book of the author

Literary criticism Biblical industry * Isaagogi; Explores holy. Scripture as a monument of literature. The need is a bibl. L.K. It is related to the fact that a more accurate understanding of the meaning of the Word of God requires the study of those lith. Funds and receptions, to K-rhy the bias. Writers. Already

From the book of the author

Low criticism biblical other name * Textual criticism. In the present Time Term N.K. almost emerged

From the book of the author

Negative criticism Bible study of the Bible in order to undermine the foundations of Christianity or religion at all. Term OK Bible in the Bologosl. LIT-RE 19-20 centuries. Often used expanding inaccurately. Often to representatives OK Related and believing authors, the views of the

From the book of the author

Radical criticism The biblical general designation of those directions in biblical, K-rye differ from extreme leads and * hypercriticality (see eg., CT. Mythological theory of the origin of Christianity). The concept of rk practically coincides with the concept of * negative

From the book of the author

Textual criticism The biblical section * Isaagogs, the purpose of which is the reconstruction of the original. The text of the holy design, as well as the study of history * transfer and * translations of this text. Other, almost left of use, Title. - "Low criticism". In the church is not

From the book of the author

Biblical criticism of religion Extremism and fanaticism leading to injustice and oppression is a constant threat to any group of believers. For Christians, the antidote from her it becomes not mitigation and moderation of faith, but rather, more comprehensive and true faith in Christ.

From the book of the author

The criticism of memetics, scientific and not too memetics - a young discipline: a scientific interest in it began to awaken only in the second half of the 90s of the 20th century, and it continues to cause acute criticism from adherents of traditional cultural approaches. Above I.

From the book of the author

2.3. Biblical Criticism and its inheritance In this section, we will look at some of the most common features of a scientific or critical approach to the biblical text characteristic of a new time. In fact, elements of a scientific or critical approach can be found in deep

From the book of the author

13. What is "biblical criticism"? Today, you can often hear criticism in the address of "biblical criticism", and it usually happens. Just do not always clarify that we are talking about the methods of about a hundred years ago, which in pure form have long been practically