Nikolay SHABUROV - was born in 1953 in Tbilisi. Graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Associate Professor of the Russian State Humanitarian University, Director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanitarian University. Author of several works on the history of Gnosticism and early christianity, as well as on the current religious situation in Russia. Lives in Moscow.

Points-Puncta

Quarterly Catholic magazine devoted to the problems of religion, culture and society. Moscow: St. Thomas Aquinas College, 2001-2002

The subtitle is intriguing. In the last year, there has been a lot of talk about Catholicism, about its “expansion” in Russia, but these are all words, words, words… In reality, the presence of Catholicism is almost not felt. And here is a magazine that openly calls itself Catholic and at the same time is dedicated not to the affairs of the Russian Catholic community, but to “problems of religion, culture and society.”

Of course, this is not the only serious Catholic publication in Russian. In the circles of the humanitarian intelligentsia, interested in the problems of Christianity, the magazine “Symbol” is widely known, but the editorial office of “Symbol” is located in Paris, and although a significant part of the authors of this almanac lives in Russia, it nevertheless bears a certain stamp of “foreignness”. True, the editor-in-chief of “Points” Father Stanislav Opel from the Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order), who was previously the rector of the Moscow College of St. Thomas Aquinas, lives in Poland. He was, if not the first, then one of the first Catholic priests who were deprived of a Russian visa and lost the opportunity to continue working in Russia. However, in reality, the journal is being created in Moscow through the efforts of deputy editor-in-chief N. Muskhelishvili and the editorial board, which by no means consists only of Catholics - in particular, it includes well-known philosophers Anatoly Akhutin and Vladimir Bibikhin. There are many non-Catholics among the authors. And this is no coincidence. The publisher of the journal is the College (now the Institute) of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas Aquinas, supervised by the Society of Jesus, attracting many professors and lecturers from Moscow universities to teach. At the same time, the main criterion is their professionalism, and not confessional affiliation.

Let us now turn to the contents of the published issues (by the way, in reality the magazine comes out twice a year, and the trick with double issues does not turn it into a quarterly one).

It is not surprising that three out of four issues contain materials dedicated to Ignatius Loyola: in No. 1-2 for 2001 - an article by General of the Society of Jesus P.-H. Kolvenbach "Education in the spirit of St. Ignatius", in No. 3 4, 2002 - an article by the same author, "The Experience of Christ in Ignatius Loyola", as well as a most curious publication from the archives of Sergei Eisenstein, in which the great film director compares the methods of Loyola's spiritual exercises and the Stanislavsky system. But unique in this regard is No. 1-2 for 2002, which contains exclusively Loyola texts, comments and articles about these texts. The issue includes two of Loyola's most important texts in a brilliant translation by Andrey Koval - Autobiography and Spiritual Diary. Until that time, only the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius. I would like these translations to be noticed by the reading public - these are not only significant cultural monuments with high artistic merit, but also stunning evidence of the spiritual and mystical experience of their author, paradigmatic texts of the Jesuit mystic tradition dating back to Ignatius Loyola, representative examples of Western Christian spirituality.

These works differ from each other - the piercingly frank and at the same time soberly serious "Autobiography" immediately captivates the reader, while reading the protocol-dry "Spiritual Diary" requires considerable effort. But these efforts are justified: a thoughtful reader will be rewarded with interest. Indeed, for Russia, acquaintance with the creations of Loyola is a triple discovery. Ignatius, who was always portrayed simultaneously religious fanatic and the cynic, who proclaimed that the end justifies the means, appears as an ascetic who devoted himself entirely to the service of Christ and the Church, a visionary mystic and the subtlest psychologist. The second discovery: The Order of the Jesuits, for centuries denounced as a totalitarian organization that did not disdain anything to achieve its goals, justified any crime by the interests of the cause, created a sophisticated system of manipulating human consciousness, turns out to be a school of spiritual self-discipline and education of a universal human personality.

Here I will allow myself a digression. There are terms whose specific cultural and historical meaning, if not forgotten, is remembered much less often. figurative meaning. Moreover, the concrete meaning of these terms in our perception bears the imprint of the figurative meaning.

Indeed, what is usually associated with the word "scholasticism"? The ordinary idea is reflected in authoritative dictionaries. Dahl: “a philosophy of appearance based on logic or dialectics; in general, scholasticism, scholastic direction, dry, dull, lifeless. Ozhegov (one hundred years after Dahl): “1. Medieval idealistic philosophy, hostile to science, based on the dogmas of the church and distinguished by its extreme abstractness. 2. Knowledge, cut off from life, based on abstract reasoning, not verified by experience, verbalism. Now, thank God, the reader interested in philosophy can turn to the works of Anselm of Canterbury, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Boethius of Dacius, Duns Scotus, W. Ockham, translated in the last decade, to the studies of E. Gilson, F. Copleston, V. Gaidenko, G. Smirnov, S. Neretina, at least to a fragment of Thomas Aquinas “Against the doctrine of the eternity of the world” translated by T.Yu. ). This will help him decide on his own whether scholasticism is so stupid and lifeless.

A similar story with the word "talmudist". According to Ozhegov, these are: “1. A follower and interpreter of the casuistry of the Talmud [in my edition of 1953 with a small letter - N.Sh.], 2. Rev. Reader, scholastic reasoning person (neb.)”. A remarkable, in its own way, definition that refers both to scholasticism, and to casuistry (meaningful judgments about which are possible only within the framework of a conversation about Catholic theology), and to dogmatism (the Old Believers also got it!). But does all this have anything to do with the real Talmud, with its subtle methods of hermeneutics and sophisticated culture of intellectual dialogue?

Or "Pharisee". In Dahl's dictionary - simply "hypocrite". Ozhegov is more detailed: “1. In ancient Judea: a member of the religious-political party of the wealthy sections of the city, distinguished by fanaticism and hypocrisy in the implementation of the external rules of piety. 2. transfer. Hypocrite, hypocrite (contempt.)”. But the last characteristic, readers will say, is based on the Gospel! Yes - but reading for almost two thousand years New Testament, for some reason very rarely paid attention to the words of the Apostle Paul: “Men, brethren! I am a Pharisee, son of a Pharisee; for the aspirations of the resurrection of the dead I am judged” (Acts, 23.6). And if they did, they interpreted it as follows: Paul de called himself a Pharisee for “tactical” reasons; appearing before the Sanhedrin, he wanted to enlist the support of the Pharisees. According to this logic, it turns out that when confronted by a pagan court, Paul, for the sake of saving his life, was able to call himself a pagan. I have a better opinion of the Apostle. It was just natural for Paul to be called both a follower of Jesus Christ and a Pharisee. Moreover, modern New Testament scholarship has revealed many parallels between the sayings of Jesus and the rabbinic teachers, the heirs of the Pharisees. So “pharisaism requires serious rethinking.

And, of course, the words “Jesuit” and “Jesuitism” belong to this verbal series. So, according to Ozhegov, a Jesuit is: “1. A Catholic monk, a member of the so-called "Society of Jesus", which is the backbone of the papacy and the blackest reaction, does not disdain any means to achieve its goals in the fight against progress and democracy. 2. transfer. About a cunning, two-faced person. And Jesuitism is “Hypocrisy”, duplicity, characteristic of the Jesuit” (catch the similarity with the Pharisee?).

The tradition of such an attitude towards the Jesuits appeared simultaneously with the Order itself. In Russia it is especially strong. Let us recall how Alyosha Karamazov characterized the Jesuits: “We know the Jesuits, they speak badly about them.<…>They are just a Roman army for the future world earthly kingdom, with the emperor - the Roman high priest at the head ... Here is their ideal, but without any secrets and sublime sadness ... The simplest desire for power, earthly dirty goods, enslavement ... like the future serfdom, so that they become landowners... That's all they have. They don't believe in God either." Without a doubt, this is close to the convictions of Dostoevsky himself. And if we remember B. Pascal's “Letters to a Provincial”, Voltaire's denunciations, Stendhal's novels and much, much more, we can consider the traditional view to be fair.

But - provided that we turn a blind eye to exemplary Jesuit schools, in which advanced pedagogical ideas were introduced and a great many outstanding figures of European culture and science of the 16th-19th centuries studied, to numerous missionaries who combined the preaching of the Gospel with the study of customs, mores, history , the literature of converted peoples, who compiled dictionaries and geographical maps, wrote poems in local languages, and became the founders of European Indology and Sinology, Japanese studies and ethnology. The book by the French historian Michel Leroy, The Myth of the Jesuits: From Béranger to Michelet, published two years ago in Russian translation, gives an idea of ​​how the stereotype of Jesuit conspirators striving for world domination was created. As for moral uncleanliness, we have to agree with the point of view of one very unpopular politician of the first half of the last century: “The Jesuit order, created in the first half of the 16th century. to rebuff Protestantism, he never taught, by the way, that any means, even if criminal from the point of view of Catholic morality, is permissible if only it leads to the goal, i.e. to the triumph of Catholicism. Such an internally contradictory and psychologically unthinkable doctrine was maliciously attributed to the Jesuits by their Protestant and partly Catholic opponents, who were not shy about the means to achieve his goals. The Jesuit theologians, who, like the theologians of other schools, were concerned with the question of personal responsibility, actually taught that the means itself may be indifferent, but that the moral justification or condemnation of the given means follows from the end. Thus, a shot in itself is indifferent, a shot at a rabid dog threatening a child is a blessing; shooting with intent to kill or kill is a crime. Nothing else but these commonplaces, the theologians of the order did not want to say. As regards their practical morality, the Jesuits were by no means worse than other monks or Catholic priests, on the contrary, they rather towered over them, in any case, they were more consistent, bolder and more insightful than others. The Jesuits were a militant organization, closed, strictly centralized, offensive and dangerous not only for enemies, but also for allies. In psychology and methods of action, the Jesuit of the “heroic” era differed from the average curate, like a church warrior from her shopkeeper. We have no reason to idealize either one or the other. But it is absolutely unworthy to look at a warrior fanatic through the eyes of a stupid and lazy shopkeeper” (L.D. Trotsky. Their morality and ours - see the collection “Ethical Thought. 1991”, M., “Respublika”, 1992). By the way, main enemy Trotsky I. Stalin expressed a diametrically opposite opinion. But how much it says above all about himself! To Emil Ludwig’s question: “But don’t you recognize the positive qualities of the Jesuits?” Stalin replied: “Yes, they have a systematic, persevering work to achieve bad goals. But their main method is surveillance, espionage, getting into the soul, mockery - what can be positive in this?

It is not my intention to write an apologia for the Jesuits and thereby replace one myth with another. But it is time to stop comparing ideal (and often idealized) Orthodoxy with real (and often vilified) Catholicism. I will allow myself one more long quotation: “In those years there lived the heretic Apollinaris, who falsely philosophized about the incarnation of the Lord. He was resourceful in words and skillful in Greek wisdom, as a result of which he greatly confused the Church of God and led many into his heresy. This heretic applied all his labor and all his efforts, from his very youth to old age, to corrupt the Orthodox and to lead them into his error. He wrote many books against the Orthodox, of which two are especially remarkable, since they in them all his soul-pernicious teaching is most fully expressed. He used them as weapons, fighting the Orthodox through verbal contests. These books of his were deposited with a woman who was his concubine. The Monk Ephraim, having learned about these books, devised his own even more amazing cunning against the heretical one: he came to that woman secretly and highly praised Apollinaris, while calling himself a disciple of the latter. As if wishing to learn wisdom unknown to him, he asked the woman to give him for a short time the books of Apollinaria, which she kept, in order to write off the most remarkable passages from them. The woman, being sure that this was really her friend's student, gave him both books, with the condition that he return them as soon as possible and not tell anyone about them. St. Ephraim, taking the books, took them to his monastery and, having prepared glue, he glued all the sheets in them, bending them one by one, until he finally glued them all together so that the books became, as it were, one piece of wood or stone, and not a single sheet can be was separate from the other. Then he took the books to the woman. She, taking them and not looking inside, put them in their place. Then there was a dispute between the Orthodox and the heretic Apollinaris, who had already grown old. No longer possessing the former resourcefulness in disputes and having a weak memory, due to old age, he wanted to achieve victory over the Orthodox with the help of those of his books; but, having taken them, he could not open them, because. the sheets were firmly glued and petrified. He was filled with great shame and left the cathedral defeated and disgraced, and then soon from grief and great shame he lost his life, disgorging his wretched soul in disgrace. (“The Life of Our Reverend Father Ephraim the Syrian” - See Selected Lives of the Saints. M. “Young Guard”, 1992). Is this not an example of "Jesuit" morality?

But let us return to Loyola and mention the third discovery awaiting his readers. Those of them who, having become interested in the “Autobiography” and “Spiritual Diary” or quotes from Loyola’s “Spiritual Exercises” cited by S. Eisenstein, will turn to the full test of the last work (Ignatius of Loyola “Spiritual Exercises. - Bibliotheque slave de Paris, 1966) , will find - provided, of course, that they have read the works of the Greek fathers of asceticism - a lot of familiarity. It is no coincidence that in 1800, compiled on Athos, St. Nikodim Svyatogorets "Spiritual Exercises", which are based on the Italian version of "Spiritual Exercises" by Ignatius Loyola. Let us recall that another outstanding monument of Catholic mysticism of the 16th century. - “Spiritual Warfare” by Lorenzo Scupoli enjoys great prestige in the Orthodox world thanks to the translation of St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountaineer, who called it "Invisible Warfare".

V. Veniaminov (Points, 2002, No. 3-4) writes about the acute and eternally topical topic of Orthodox-Catholic relations in the article “United Christianity”. This pseudonym is usually used by V. Bibikhin). The author develops the ideas of V. Solovyov, and you agree with almost everything that he writes, but with regret you admit that the forces of enmity and division now rule the ball, and sound words have little chance of being heard.

Looking through the four published issues of “Points”, you find that if the first issue is dominated by articles on strictly religious topics (an important exception is the article by S. Khoruzhy “Analyst of death in “Sein und Zeit”), then in the second and fourth (the third, as already pointed out, dedicated to I. Loyola) the emphasis is shifted to the problems of culture and philosophy. The best materials of the journal include, in my opinion, the publications of Augustine (2001, Nos. 3-4) and Foma, articles by S. Khoruzhy about Heidegger (2001, Nos. which the author tries to find fragments of an “alternative” ontology in the philosophy of the modern era, consonant with the doctrines and practice of Eastern Christian ascetics, philosophical essays by A. Akhutin and V. Gubin (both - 2002, No. 3-4).

The editorial staff of “Points” fulfills its promise, stated in the preface to the first issue: “We would like to understand its [the magazine’s] Catholic affiliation - and we would like it to be understood this way - in the etymological sense of the word, namely, universally” .

Characteristically, the journal is devoid of any elements of clericalism. And this is where it differs from even the best Orthodox journals, which cannot escape clerical bias. It seems that such cultural openness and the desire for universality attract many, especially representatives of the humanitarian intelligentsia, to Catholicism. Of course, it is not as deeply rooted in modern Russian life as Protestantism. However, Catholicism has contributed to the development of Russian culture, which is inconceivable without V. Pecherin, P. Chaadaev, V. Ivanov or A. Schnittke. In addition, Catholicism in Russia testifies to a living tradition of Western Christian spirituality, so that the common opposition of spiritual Russia to the unspiritual secular West is based on a poor knowledge of the same West. As such, Catholicism will always be present in Russia. It's only a pity that this example of universalism does not encourage competition, but often causes bitterness and strengthens the particularist tendencies in Russian Orthodoxy.

Am I exaggerating?

I urge the reader to the next experiment. Walk along Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street from Okhotny Ryad to Nikitsky Gates. You will come across two bookstores: a bookstore at the University Church of St. Tatiana and the Catholic store "Paolina". In their assortment there is a considerable amount of the same literature. But take a closer look at the differences - in the Tatian's shop you will never find the works of Freud and Buber, Boccaccio and G. Miller, Luther and the Catholic Encyclopedia. On the other hand, among the Pauline sisters, Orthodox literature is presented in a very large amount, and you will not find only the writings of Nilus or horror stories about the Antichrist in Moscow. Feel the difference, as they say.

Nikolai Vitalievich Shaburov(born January 10, 1953, Tbilisi, USSR) - Russian religious and culturologist. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the current religious situation in Russia. Candidate of cultural studies, professor.

Biography

Born on January 10, 1953 in Tbilisi. According to his own words, he has Armenian roots and, according to family tradition, comes from the Georgian-Mingrelian noble family of Shavdia.

In 1975 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov.

In 1989 he was invited to the Moscow Historical and Archival Institute to the Department of Museology to teach the subject "History of Religions".

Since 1992 - Director of the Educational and Scientific Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanitarian University.

In 1999 he defended his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Cultural Studies on the topic “The Functions of Myth in Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity: On the example of the texts of the Hermetic corpus and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century. (Specialty 24.00.02 - Historical Culturology).

Member of the editorial board of the scientific-theoretical journal "Religious Studies".

Scientific works

Dissertations

• The functions of myth in the Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity (on the example of the texts of the Hermetic corpus and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. cultural studies. M., 1999. 29 p.

Monographs

• Shaburov N.V. Problems of paradox and analysis of consciousness: Cultural-historical and philosophical aspects. - M.: Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1987. - 80 p.
• Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Schreider Yu. A. Symbol and deed. - M., 1987.

Tutorials

• Shaburov N. V. Ch. 3. Christianity // Pages of the history of religion: Proc. allowance. - M., 1992. - S. 48-81.
• Religions of the world: 10-11 cells. Allowance for students in general education. studies, institutions / N. V. Shaburov, L. G. Zhukova, A. V. Zhuravsky and others - M .: Bustard; Natalis, 1997. - 272 p.: ill. - ISBN 5-7107-0982-4. - ISBN 5-88863-0003-9 (erroneous). (The manual "Religions of the World" was approved by the Federal Expert Council and recommended for publication by the Department of General Secondary Education of the Ministry of General and Vocational Education of the Russian Federation.)

Articles

• Shaburov N.V. Perception of Hermeticism by the ideologists of early Christianity: Lactantius and Augustine // Meroe. - M., 1985. - Issue. 3. - S. 243-252.
• Shaburov N. V. Man and the world in Gnostic teachings // Hellenistic philosophy: contemporary issues and discussions: Sat. scientific Art. - M., 1986. - S. 84-103.
• Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Shreider Yu. A. On the symbolism of the sermon // Man. - 1991. - No. 4.
• Shaburov N. V., Muskhelishvili N. L. Heritage of the Russian religious philosophy and ideology of totalitarianism // Country and world. - 1992. - No. 2. - S. 110-121.
• Shaburov N.V. Poymander Hermas Trismegist // Urania. - 1993. - No. 4. - S. 47-54.
• Shaburov N. V. History ancient church and an introduction to the history of the ancients Eastern churches// Collection of training programs. - M., 1997. - S. 75-76.
• Shaburov N. V. Historiography of ancient Hermeticism // Russia and Gnosis: Proceedings of the conference. Moscow. VGBIL. March 23, 1999 .. - M .: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 4-14.
• Shaburov N. V. How is Religious Studies Possible? // Problems of teaching and state of the art Religious Studies in Russia: Proceedings of the Conference. Moscow, December 2-3, 1999. - M.: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 23-30.
• Shaburov NV Religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions // / Compilation and general edition of A. A. Krasikov and E. S. Tokareva. - M.: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006. - S. 88-90.

• Le Statut legal des religions en Russie et L'idee de symphonie // Istina, Paris: Center d'etudes Istina. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 67-77.

Expertise

• Expert opinion on the book by A. V. Borodina “Fundamentals Orthodox culture» from 16.3.2003.

Publicism

• Shaburov N. V. End religious freedom: From ideological sabotage to spiritual aggression // Results. - 1997. - No. 38. - S. 56-57.

Interview

• Nikolai Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanitarian University // Lenta.ru. - 08.07.2009.
• Orlova L. "Religious scholars are still underestimated" // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. - 07.09.2011.

Lua error in Module:CategoryForProfession on line 52: attempt to index field "wikibase" (a nil value).

Nikolai Vitalievich Shaburov(born January 10, Tbilisi, USSR) - Russian religious and culturologist. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the current religious situation in Russia. Candidate of cultural studies, professor.

Biography

Scientific works

Dissertations

• The functions of myth in the Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity (on the example of the texts of the Hermetic corpus and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. cultural studies. M., 1999. 29 p.

Monographs

• Shaburov N.V. Problems of paradox and analysis of consciousness: Cultural-historical and philosophical aspects. - M .: , 1987. - 80 p.
• Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Shreider Yu. A. Symbol and action. - M., 1987.

Tutorials

• Shaburov N.V. Ch. 3. Christianity // Pages of the history of religion: Proc. allowance. - M., 1992. - S. 48-81.
• Religions of the world: 10-11 cells. Allowance for students in general education. studies, institutions / N. V. Shaburov, L. G. Zhukova, A. V. Zhuravsky and others - M .: Bustard; Natalis, 1997. - 272 p.: ill. - ISBN 5-7107-0982-4. - (erroneous). (The manual "Religions of the World" was approved by the Federal Expert Council and recommended for publication by the Department of General Secondary Education of the Ministry of General and Vocational Education of the Russian Federation.)

Articles

in Russian

• Shaburov N.V. Perception of Hermeticism by the Ideologists of Early Christianity: Lactantius and Augustine // Meroe. - M ., 1985. - Issue. 3 . - S. 243-252.
• Shaburov N.V. Man and the World in Gnostic Teachings // Hellenistic Philosophy: Modern Problems and Discussions: Sat. scientific Art. - M., 1986. - S. 84-103.
• Muskhelishvili N.L., Shaburov N.V., Shreider Yu.A. On the symbolism of the sermon // Man. - 1991. - No. 4.
• Shaburov N. V., Muskhelishvili N. L. The Heritage of Russian Religious Philosophy and the Ideology of Totalitarianism // Country and World. - 1992. - No. 2. - pp. 110-121.
• Shaburov N.V. Poimander of Hermas Trismegist // Urania. - 1993. - No. 4. - S. 47-54.
• Shaburov N.V. The history of the ancient Church and an introduction to the history of the ancient Eastern churches // Collection of educational programs. - M., 1997. - S. 75-76.
• Shaburov N.V. Historiography of Ancient Hermeticism // Russia and Gnosis: Proceedings of the Conference. Moscow. VGBIL. March 23, 1999 .. - M .: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 4-14.
• Shaburov N.V. How is religion possible? // Problems of teaching and the current state of religious studies in Russia: Materials of the conference. Moscow, December 2-3, 1999. - M .: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 23-30.
• Shaburov N.V. religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions // / Compilation and general edition of A. A. Krasikov and E. S. Tokareva. - M .: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006. - S. 88-90.

in other languages

• Le Statut legal des religions en Russie et L'idee de symphonie // Istina, Paris: Center d'etudes Istina. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 67-77.

Expertise

• on the book by A. V. Borodina "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" dated 16.3.2003.

Publicism

• Shaburov N.V. The End of Religious Freedom: From Ideological Subversion to Spiritual Aggression // Results. - 1997. - No. 38. - S. 56-57.

Interview

• // Tape.ru. - 08.07.2009.
• Orlova L.// Independent newspaper . - 07.09.2011.

Write a review on the article "Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich"

Notes

Criticism

• Solovyov A. Yu.// Advisory Council "Education as a mechanism for the formation of the spiritual and moral culture of society" at the Department of Education of Moscow. - 09.082003.
• Kuznetsov M. N., Troitsky V. Yu.// Religious security. - 12.02.2003.
• // Information and analytical center "Owl". - 28.07.2003.

Links

An excerpt characterizing Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich

– Madonna Isidora, have you forgotten how to speak? For mercy, the Witches of your "flight" must be stronger! In any case, I have always been sure of it. As far as I understand, you are a Warrior among them? How, then, could you be so easily caught in the simplest “human” emotions?.. Your heart owns the mind, Isidora, and this is unacceptable for such strong Witch like you!.. Don't you, the gifted ones, say: “Be always lonely and cold if there is a war going on. Do not let your heart on the "battlefield" - it will destroy you. Are these not your commandments, Isidora?
“You are quite right, holiness. But that doesn't mean that I fully agree with them. Sometimes love for a person or humanity can work miracles on the “battlefield”, don’t you think? .. Although, forgive my naivety, I completely lost sight of the fact that these feelings are hardly familiar to you ... But, how well do you remember our commandments, Your Holiness! Do you really still hope to return to Meteora someday?.. After all, the one who gave you his "gift" has long been gone. Meteora kicked him out just as she kicked you out... Isn't that right, Holiness?
Caraffa turned deathly pale. All his usual arrogance suddenly flew off somewhere, and now he looked internally helpless and “naked”. He seemed to be desperately searching for the words and could not find them. Time stopped. The moment was dangerous - something was about to happen ... With every cell of my body, I felt a storm of "black" anger raging in it, mixed with fear, which was seemingly impossible to expect from Karaffa. What could be afraid, this almighty, evil person?..
– How do you know this, Isidora? Who could tell you this?!
- Oh, there are "friends" and FRIENDS, as you usually like to say, Your Holiness! – It was these FRIENDS who told me everything I wanted to know about you. Only you and I use different methods to obtain the information we are interested in, you know - my friends did not have to be tortured for this, they themselves told me everything with pleasure ... And believe me, it is always much more pleasant! Unless you are tempted by the torture itself, of course ... It seemed to me that you love the smell of blood, Holiness? ..
I gradually came to my senses and more and more I felt how my warlike spirit was returning to me. There was nothing to lose anyway ... And no matter how hard I tried to be pleasant, Karaff did not care. He longed for only one thing - to get answers to his questions. The rest didn't matter. Except, perhaps, for one thing - my complete submission to him ... But he knew perfectly well that this would not happen. So I didn't have to be polite or even bearable with him. And to be honest, it gave me sincere pleasure ...
– Are you not interested in what happened to your father, Isidora? You love him so much!
"Love!!!"... He did not say - "loved"! So, for now, the father was still alive! I tried not to show my joy, and as calmly as possible said:
– What difference does it make, Holiness, you will kill him anyway! And it will happen sooner or later - it doesn't matter anymore ...
– Oh, how wrong you are, dear Isidora! great importance! You have no idea how big...
Caraffa was already “Caraffa” again, that is, a sophisticated tormentor who, in order to achieve his goal, was ready with great pleasure to observe the most brutal human tortures, the most terrible pain of others ...
And now, with the interest of a gambler, he tried to find at least some open gap in my mind, tormented by pain, and whether it was fear, anger, or even love, it didn’t matter to him ... He just wanted to strike, and which one my feelings will open for him the “door” for this - it was already a matter of secondary importance ...
But I did not give in... Apparently, my famous “long-suffering” helped, which amused everyone around since I was still a baby. My father once told me that I was the most patient child that he and my mother had ever seen, and that it was almost impossible to piss me off. When others completely lost patience with something, I still said: “Nothing, everything will be fine, everything will work out, you just have to wait a bit” ... I believed in the positive even when no one else believed in it . But it was precisely this trait of mine that Caraff, even with all his excellent knowledge, apparently still did not know. Therefore, he was infuriated by my incomprehensible calmness, which, in fact, was not any kind of calmness, but was only my inexhaustible long-suffering. I simply could not allow that, while doing us such inhuman evil, he also enjoyed our deep, sincere pain.
Although, to be completely frank, I still could not explain some of the actions in Caraffa's behavior to myself ...
On the one hand, he seemed to be sincerely admired by my unusual “talents”, as if it really had some meaning for him ... And he was always sincerely admired by my “famous” natural beauty, as evidenced by the delight in his eyes, every time we met. And at the same time, for some reason, Karaffa was very disappointed with any flaw, or even the slightest imperfection, which he accidentally discovered in me and was sincerely infuriated by any of my weaknesses or even my slightest mistake, which, from time to time, to me, like to any person, sometimes it even seemed to me that I was reluctantly destroying some non-existent ideal created by him for himself...
If I didn’t know him so well, I might even be inclined to believe that this incomprehensible and evil person loved me in his own way and very strangely ...
But, as soon as my exhausted brain came to such an absurd conclusion, I immediately reminded myself that it was about Karaffa! And he certainly did not have any pure or sincere feelings inside him! .. And even more so, such as Love. Rather, it was like the feeling of an owner who found an expensive toy for himself, and who wanted to see in it, no more and no less, as soon as his ideal. And if the slightest flaw suddenly appeared in this toy, he was almost immediately ready to throw it straight into the fire...
– Is your soul able to leave your body during life, Isidora? - interrupted my sad thoughts with another unusual question of Karaff.
“Well, of course, Your Holiness! This is the simplest thing that any Vedun can do. Why is it of interest to you?
“Your father uses this to get away from pain ...” Karaffa said thoughtfully. “Therefore, there is no point in torturing him with ordinary torture. But I will find a way to get him to talk, even if it takes a lot longer than I thought. He knows a lot, Isidora. I think even more than you can imagine. He didn't reveal half of it to you!... Wouldn't you like to know the rest?!
– Why, Your Holiness?!.. – trying to hide my joy from what I heard, I said as calmly as possible. “If he didn’t reveal something, then it wasn’t time for me to find out yet. Premature knowledge is very dangerous, Your Holiness - it can both help and kill. So sometimes you need to be very careful to teach someone. I think you must have known this, after all, you studied there for some time, in Meteor?
- Nonsense!!! I am ready for anything! Oh, I've been ready for so long, Isidora! These fools simply do not see that I need only Knowledge, and I can do much more than others! Maybe even more than they are!
Karaffa was terrible in his “DESIRE for what is desired”, and I realized that in order to gain this knowledge, he will sweep away ANY obstacles that come his way ... And whether it will be me or my father, or even baby Anna, but he will get what he wants, he will “knock” him out of us, no matter what, apparently, he has already achieved everything that his insatiable brain set his sights on before, including his current power and visiting Meteora, and, most likely, much, much more, oh what I preferred not to know better, so as not to completely lose hope in victory over him. Caraffa was truly dangerous for humanity!.. His super-crazy "faith" in his "genius" exceeded any usual norms of the highest existing self-conceit and frightened with his peremptory attitude when it came to his "desired", about which he had not the slightest idea but only knew that he wanted it ...
To cool him down a bit, I suddenly began to “melt” right in front of his “holy” gaze, and in a moment completely disappeared ... It was a childish trick of the simplest “breath”, as we called instantaneous movement from one place to another (I think so they called teleportation), but it should have had a “refreshing” effect on Caraffa. And I was not mistaken... When I came back a minute later, his dumbfounded face expressed complete confusion, which, I'm sure, very few managed to see. Unable to bear this funny picture any longer, I laughed heartily.
“We know many tricks, Your Holiness, but they are just tricks. KNOWLEDGE is completely different. This is a weapon, and it is very important in what hands it falls ...
But Caraffa did not listen to me. He was shocked like a small child by what he had just seen, and immediately wanted to know it for himself!.. It was a new, unfamiliar toy that he should have right now!!! Don't hesitate a minute!
But, on the other hand, he was also a very smart person, and, despite the thirst for something, he almost always knew how to think. Therefore, literally after a moment, his gaze gradually began to darken, and the widening black eyes stared at me with a silent, but very persistent question, and I saw with satisfaction that he finally began to understand the real meaning shown to him, my little "trick"...
- So, all this time you could just “leave”?! .. Why didn’t you leave, Isidora?!! – almost without breathing, whispered Caraffa.
Some wild, unrealizable hope burned in his eyes, which, apparently, should have come from me ... But as I answered, he saw that he was mistaken. And the "iron" Caraffa, to my greatest surprise, drooped !!! For a moment, it even seemed to me that something had broken inside him, as if he had just gained and immediately lost something very vital for him, and perhaps, to some extent, even dear ...
“You see, life is not always as simple as we think... or as we would like it to be, Your Holiness. And the simplest things sometimes seem to us the most correct and most real. But this is not always true, unfortunately. Yes, I could have left a long time ago. But what would change from this?.. You would find other "gifted" ones, probably not as strong as me, from whom you would also try to "knock out" the knowledge you are interested in. And these poor fellows would not have even the slightest hope of resisting you.

Press conference

Nikolai Shaburov, director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State University for the Humanities

What do we know about early Christianity? On June 28, Pope Benedict XVI, that scientists confirmed what Christians had long believed without them: the ashes of the Apostle Paul rest in a sarcophagus found in the Roman basilica of San Paolo Fuori le Mura. In recent years, both representatives of the Christian church and scientists and enthusiasts of various levels of competence have presented to the public many discoveries related to early Christianity. In 2006 there was the "Gospel of Judas", in 2007 the world "the tomb of Jesus", and in 2009 - another one concerning the Shroud of Turin. Director of the Center for the Study of Religions of the Russian State Humanitarian University Nikolay Shaburov answered questions from readers of Lenta.Ru about these and other interesting achievements in the field of early Christianity.

Kolya

1. Nikolay, whether Europe and Russia threaten to become a Caliphate.

2. How do you see the coming and actions of the Antichrist?

3. Can the director of the CIR be Orthodox or should he be a skeptic for a cold and equal attitude towards all religions and religious movements?

1. I don't think so. I think it's some kind of fantasy. I don't see any reason for this.

Lenta.Ru: But it is believed that Islam is on the rise, and all the rest ...

On the rise, but, you know, it may be on the rise compared to the denominations that are in European Christianity, but Europe as a whole is a secular society with its own ideology. I think that Islam is unlikely to become so strong in Europe, moreover, in such extreme radical forms. I think it's in the realm of fantasy.

3. The director of the Center for the Study of Religions, like anyone who studies religion, must take a scientific stand. These positions are objective, non-confessional. But he may be Orthodox, he may be an unbeliever, he may be a Catholic - that's another question. We have Orthodox teachers, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, non-believers, but all of them are united by a scientific position, an understanding of what an objective scientific discourse is.

Lenta.Ru: Doesn't one interfere with the other?

Doesn't bother us. I understand that with a certain worldview, maybe this can interfere. What is called a religious position is not a single position, there is a very wide spectrum. There may be a position that denies any objective view, so extremely subjective - and in this case, of course, it is impossible to study religion objectively. And when, let's say, they say - now such a phrase - "Orthodox religious studies" is in vogue - by definition, there can be no Orthodox religious studies, just as there can be no Orthodox or Catholic physics or chemistry.

Lenta.Ru: In Iran, for example, Islamic astronomy is taught.

Well, in Iran it is taught... In Nazi Germany they said that Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish physics, but in Germany they stand on the position of Aryan physics. People can come up with all sorts of things, but science is science. A scientist may have a different worldview. There are many positions within the framework of religiosity that fully allow objectivity, which proceed from the fact that scientific objectivity does not contradict religious views.

Onion

2. How to deal with neo-paganism: feng shui, astrology. The people around them are obsessed with them. How to direct them to the true path?

3. Tell me how to Orthodox tradition is considered: the Mother of God ascended in the body to God? Or is it possible to find her relics on earth?

1. I would say no. Although this requires some clarification.

First of all, it is not entirely clear what is meant by this. Orthodox in what sense? In the sense that Orthodoxy is a historical confession that had a decisive influence on the formation of Russian culture? Oh sure. In this sense, Spain and Italy catholic countries, Bulgaria and Russia are Orthodox.

But is Russia currently Orthodox? I would say no. Despite the fact that, according to the latest sociological surveys, 72 percent of the population consider themselves Orthodoxy, and this number is growing. Ten years ago it was, in my opinion, 54 percent. But it's more of a self-identification. This is not evidence of deep religiosity.

It seems to me that Russia is not a very religious country. And an extremely small percentage of those who regularly attend religious services or really understand the Christian Orthodox dogma. I think that Russia still remains a secular country.

Lenta.Ru: There is one of the common definitions of the United States - "the most religious of the developed countries." Compared to Russia, is the US really a more religious country?

Depends on what we mean by religion.

Lenta.Ru: For example, it is a well-known fact that in the foreseeable future an atheist will not be able to become president in the United States.

First, let's not speculate about the future, it's still in the fog. Could it have been imagined 25 years ago that a black would become the President of the United States? But let's put it this way: we now have such a configuration in Russia that religion, in particular, is Russian Orthodox Church plays an important role in politics and public life. For the United States, this is absolutely impossible, there is a tradition of complete separation of church and state. And there is no such a single big church.

But if we talk about mass religiosity - yes, probably. The United States did not have the era of forced atheism that Russia had. And on the other hand, the tendencies of secularization there were not in such an anti-clerical, anti-religious form, as was the case in Europe. And of course, America as a whole is more religious than Europe.

Although... People consider themselves religious. But in general, the processes of secularization that continue in the world, of course, cover the United States, and it seems to me that the role of religion is slowly declining. And in America too.

3. This is a difficult question. The fact is that the dogma of the bodily ascension of the Mother of God, precisely as a dogma, binding on all believers, exists in the Catholic Church. Moreover, it was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII relatively recently, in the mid-1950s. As far as I know, this is not such a dogma in Orthodoxy. But as a widely held belief, yes, absolutely. From these positions, there can be no relics.

But here's the subtlety: if it's a dogma, like in Catholicism, it means that if you call yourself a Catholic, you can't dispute it, you can't doubt it. In reality, many Catholics may not accept this, but this is already a discrepancy between theory and practice. And if this is not dogmatically defined, as in Orthodoxy, then I think that you can be an Orthodox believer and still consider that there was no bodily ascension and power can be gained.

Lukic

Is the condescension of the Holy Fire a miracle, or is it still sacred, but the creation of human hands?

Here I will express my own position, based on some study of the literature on this. I believe that this is a man-made thing. Moreover, it must be said that over the past fifty years we can state a certain degradation of the Orthodox consciousness towards the assertion of irrationality.

In the first half of the 20th century, there was such a prominent specialist in liturgy from the Moscow Theological Academy - N.D. Uspensky. And in 1949 he read a report at a meeting of the Theological Academy - a detailed historical report on this phenomenon. It has recently been re-released. The facts that Ouspensky cited testified that this was a man-made phenomenon. He revealed when it happened, for what reason, why it continues, and so on and so forth. Now with us - if you deny the miraculous nature of the Holy Fire, then you will simply be called non-Orthodox.

And even if we turn to this issue from a theological position, much can be shown here. It seems to me that a true believer should feel some embarrassment from the fact that the Lord resorts to such, excuse me, tricks.

And all the stories that tell about it are absolutely legendary. And very aggressively confessional. The fact that once there in the 16th or 17th century the Armenians persuaded the Turkish authorities not to let the Orthodox go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher for Easter, but they themselves wanted to get this blessed fire. And apparently they couldn't do it. And the Orthodox gathered at the walls of the temple, on the street - and the fire appeared from the wall. Now they show cracks or soot in the wall ... This is a legendary story, of course. Moreover, again, it existed in different versions, and the Orthodox were not always the heroes there. For example, there is such information that at the end of the 17th century, the Ethiopian church was the leading denomination that controlled everything in the Jerusalem temple. And I read that in the 17th century, the Ethiopians, let's say, produced this fire.

Yes, and there was a recent very ambiguous statement by the Jerusalem Patriarch, who called it rather a sacred rite. He didn't use the word "miracle".

Sergey

Good afternoon!

Please tell us about your attitude to the interpretation of events taking place in Christian times given in the bestseller "The Da Vinci Code". How far is this from the true state of affairs?

It seems to me that this is very far from the true state of affairs. This is partly the fruit of the author's imagination, partly he relies on some, shall we say, pseudo-historical tradition. He relied on some works, but completely unscientific.

If we talk about reliable sources, those that can be trusted, and not about later legends, we have minimal material regarding Mary Magdalene. And the material that we have - say, in the New Testament - does not provide any basis for the constructions that we see in Dan Brown's novel. I think that this should be regarded precisely as a novel and as a kind of writer's fantasy.

Lenta.Ru: That is, we can neither confirm nor deny - we simply do not have enough materials?

It can be assumed that anything is possible. If we do not know something, then everything is possible.

Lenta.Ru: And why then is the generally accepted construction - that Magdalene was a harlot and so on - better than Brown's construction?

First, the fact that she was a harlot is also a legend. Just now, the publishing house "Ves Mir" should publish a book by the prominent researcher Bart Ehrman, translated, which is called "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene". There, firstly, an analysis of all the historical information that we have about these characters is given. And besides, the legends are dismantled, and why these traditions arose.

If you carefully reread the canonical Gospels, you will not read anywhere that Mary Magdalene was a harlot. It was later for various reasons that she was identified with the anonymous harlot mentioned in the Gospel. Mary was one of the women who joined Jesus, his movement, who accompanied him. You can talk about the extent to which she was close to Jesus. Everything else is fantasy.

When we have some statements that are still close to the era of Jesus, then we can somehow raise the question - maybe it was, maybe it was not. And when a certain construction appears in the 21st century, it is not known what it is based on, and then it is said: "Try to refute it," - so you can come up with a variety of fantasies. I do not want to blaspheme, but you can generally tell anything. We have no grounds ... And even more so, everything that is heaped up with this child, the foundation of the Merovingian dynasty - it can be shown that this could not even be.

Tikhon

1. Are there artefacts related directly to Jesus Christ that have been scientifically proven to be authentic? For example, pieces of wood from the cross on which he was crucified, the notorious legionnaire's spear, or something else.

2. How do you feel about the film Zeitgeist (Zeitgeist), in the part where it is about Christianity?

3. Does a modern person, not a specialist, need to know about Christianity in such detail at all? Or just enough general information born, lived, died, resurrected?

Ilya

http://website/news/2009/07/01/turin/

Here again they write that the Shroud of Turin was made by Leonardo. How likely is it that the Shroud of Turin is what it is claimed to be, and not a late forgery?

1. No, there is nothing. For some time there were those who presented the Shroud of Turin as such an artifact, but now the radiocarbon method has shown that this is most likely the 14th century - in which case we can say that there are no artifacts.

It seems doubtful to me that the Shroud of Turin was made by Leonardo. To be honest, I can't speak with full confidence, I don't know this version very well. But Leonardo is still the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, and the shroud dates back to the 14th century. To be honest, I have not heard versions related to Leonardo. , in any case, goes back to times earlier than the time of Leonardo's life.

2. To be honest, I have not seen this film. Unfortunately. We must see.

3. This is a strange question. What does "need" mean? It's very individual. Does a Russian need to know Pushkin and Tolstoy well, read "Eugene Onegin" and "War and Peace" and remember - or is it enough for him to know that there were such poets and writers in the 19th century? Everyone decides for himself.

I. Frolov

Are there reliable materials carrying the genomes of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ (hair, dandruff, traces of blood, relics, etc.)? If they exist, is it possible to determine the genome of God?

I have already answered the first part - there is nothing, no materials. Well, as for the genome of God, such a thing does not fit into my idea of ​​​​God.

Lenta.Ru: But is there a human incarnation in the form of Jesus Christ? So there is a genome?

You know what - it will still be the human genome. God is immaterial, therefore he cannot have a genome.

Lenta.Ru: Well, in general, this is some kind of strange idea about confirming religious dogmas by natural science methods. Is it necessary at all? Should they be clearly separated? This is a favorite argument - "scientists, do not meddle with us in religion, and we, churchmen, then we will not meddle with you in science."

What does it mean - "do not meddle with us in religion"? Yes, the existence of God is scientifically unprovable and irrefutable, and science has nothing to do with this. And the corresponding dogmas, teachings concerning the existence of God - they are in a completely different plane than scientific knowledge. But, let's say, when it comes to some historical facts or some statements - for example, about the dating of the Bible, about the problem of the authorship of biblical books, and so on - then here science may well express its opinion.

Ivan

Russia is experiencing a "religious renaissance" after decades of godless Soviet rule. At the same time, in America (the most religious of the developed countries), the position of religion is weakening (see, for example, the atheist Richard Dawkins swears at the dominance of obscurantist churchmen, and the churchmen - at the dominance of the school of Darwinism.

So what is going on anyway? In what direction is humanity moving - towards atheism-rationalism-materialism or towards religiosity-church-creationism?

I am very afraid of forecasts. Although I am not a deep old man, but I have already experienced a lot of upheavals in consciousness. When some current state was extrapolated to the future, and then it turned out that the world is much more changeable than we think. When I was fifteen or even twenty (and now I am 56), I could not even imagine the world in which I live now.

It is difficult to say how far the decline in religiosity in the United States will go. The so-called religious revival- it is rather a search for self-identification among us, which turned out to be connected with Orthodoxy. Again, it's hard to say how long this will last. Here was the question - is Russia an Orthodox country. I remember well the time when everyone would have answered that Russia is an atheistic country, and that was quite recently, twenty to twenty-five years ago. Therefore, I do not know what will happen in twenty to twenty-five years.

I have a feeling that multidirectional processes are going on in the world. Despite globalization, the world is still quite heterogeneous. The vector of development in the same countries of Islam and in Europe is different. But I would say this: if globalization tendencies intensify, it will most likely lead to some decline in religiosity. If the world becomes more diverse and some regions appear that will go their own way, then the religious factor may also strengthen there.

Alexei

When and on what grounds were the four "correct" Gospels selected, and many other Gospels were declared "apocrypha"? And who were the evangelists? Did they themselves see what they wrote about?

I want to make a reservation: this is a confusing question, there is different points vision. I will state the point of view, which is some scientific mainstream, and has been for a long time. There are other positions, but still they should be considered marginal. I'm talking about scientific positions.

First, why were these Gospels selected? I'd say it's a combination of two factors. The first factor is that they seem to be the earliest of all the Gospels. But there is also a second factor: these are the texts that are more in line with the current in Christianity, which, in the end, won and became dominant.

If we talk about the many apocryphal gospels - about those that have come down to us, or about fragments (generally, quite a few have come down), then they are almost all written in the 2nd century. Disputes are about only one thing - about the Gospel of Thomas, which some date quite early, in the 1st century. There is also a difficult question. The text appears to have gone through some editing.

The Canonical Gospels are older. Now: what time, when they were written, by whom, who are the evangelists and whether they were witnesses of these events. I will now briefly outline the dominant version in science.

The earliest gospel, the first is the gospel of Mark. By the way, it is the shortest. And it was written, apparently, in the early 70s. That is, forty years after the events about which it tells. Mark, the author of this gospel, whatever his name, was not a witness to what he wrote about. According to church tradition, Mark was the secretary, translator of the Apostle Peter and wrote on the basis of his stories. Many dispute this connection between Mark and Peter. We cannot be completely sure that his real name was Mark.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, apparently, in the 80s, that is, later. There is such a term - synoptic gospels. These are the three gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The fact is that it was noticed long ago that these Gospels are very close to each other, there is just a huge degree of closeness. The Gospel of John is very different from them. And there was such a conviction that these three Gospels are somehow connected with each other. Now it is believed that the authors of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew worked independently of each other, but had the text of Mark in front of them, from which they borrowed a lot. In addition, they apparently used another written source that has not come down to us - this is a collection of sayings of Jesus, the so-called "Logia". The gospel of Thomas, apocryphal, is close in genre to this: "Jesus said" ... Mark basically sets out the deeds, and the "Logies" contained the sayings of Jesus.

It so happened that in science this source that has not come down to us is called "Q", the first letter of the German word "Quelle" - "source". In general, at the end of the 19th century, Germans were mainly engaged in the study of early Christianity and the Gospels. There have been many attempts to reconstruct this source.

The author of "Matthew" and the author of "Luke" used "Mark", used "Q", and each of them also used some of his sources - maybe written, maybe oral. And of course, they were not eyewitnesses of the events either. If we turn to the traditional version, Luke was a doctor from Antioch and was close to the apostle Paul. This is the next era. And even this tradition does not claim that Luke was a witness to the events.

It is more difficult with Matthew, because, as we know from the text of the Gospel, Matthew was a publican, tax collector, one of the closest disciples of Jesus. And accordingly, the gospel is attributed to him. But modern science it rejects.

At the beginning of the 2nd century there was such an early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis. His works have not come down to us, but fragments have come down in the retellings of other historians. He wrote that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then, as best he could, transcribed it in Greek. It has become common church tradition. But the fact is that modern philology, modern linguistics very clearly distinguish the original text from the translation. The Gospel of Matthew, like the other Gospels, is written in Greek. This is not a translation from Hebrew. And then, if Matthew really was the author, who was an eyewitness to the events, he would hardly have copied whole pieces from the Gospel of Mark - moreover, Mark was obviously not a witness. Here it doesn't work.

This is about weather forecasters. The Gospel of John is very different both in content and in character. It is the latest. Apparently, this is the end of the 90s. There is controversy over authorship. It is unlikely that this is still John, the son of Zebedee, who is known to us from the Gospels. There was such a version, not so long ago put forward by the German researcher Hengel, that this is Elder John mentioned in the sources, or Presbyter John, who is distinguished from John, the son of Zebedee. This is generally a difficult question in science, the question of the so-called "John's corpus", because under the name of John in the New Testament - the Gospel, two Epistles and the Apocalypse. The Epistles and the Gospel are close to each other. They left the same circle. Apocalypse is very different. Most researchers believe that the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written by different authors. Some, however, see some kind of closeness.

Everything is quite complicated and confusing. Let's say a favorite student is mentioned. It is believed that this beloved disciple is the author of the Gospel. But who is this beloved student - again, it is not clear.

And here is another point related to the question of authorship. The fact is that, in fact, the Gospels are anonymous, the names of the authors are not indicated in the text itself. Authorship was later attributed. But we must bear in mind the following circumstance. There was such a wonderful work by our domestic researcher, Sergei Sergeevich Averintsev, which was called "Authorship and Authority", he wrote there that in ancient times there was no modern concept of authorship. It was replaced by the concept of authority, which was controlled by some community, for example, a religious community. And the role of tradition was very great. There was such a legend that King David led a circle of poets and musicians, song singers, and he himself took some part in this work. And then for centuries all the works of this genre were called "Psalms of David". This was the authority of David, who sanctified this tradition. Just as all such aphorisms relating to worldly - and not only worldly - wisdom, were traditionally attributed to Solomon. Also not authorship, but authority.

It's the same here. The reliability of the Gospel, from the point of view of church tradition, is confirmed by the authority of this apostle. In the Greek titles of the Gospels, the word "kata" appears: "kata Markon", "kata Mattion". This word is not quite correctly translated "from". It is better to translate - "according to Mark (Matthew)" or "according to Mark." This may indicate authorship (then it was taken for authorship), but it may indicate that the author or authors relied on the authority of this apostle.

To sum up: apparently, after all, the evangelists did not witness the events, but these are the most ancient texts about Jesus that we have. And of course, the evangelists, including the very first, Mark, relied on oral tradition and eyewitness accounts. Judge for yourself: from forty years old - Mark - to sixty or seventy years old - John - this is the interval. It's a lot? Few? Hard to say.

Grandfather

Nikolai Vitalievich!

Have you seen Pasolini's gospel of Matthew? It shows well the homosexual nature of early Christianity, this protest against the bestiality into which people fell.

Do you think the Church today can help believers get rid of the homophobia that is so common today?

I saw Pasolini's film, but I haven't rewatched it for a long time. He made a great impression on me and I liked him very much. But I didn't get the impression that there were any homosexual moments. I didn't catch it. Therefore, this question surprised me very much, I need to review the film.

Moreover - I remember that I read something about Pasolini later, I once talked with other people who later saw this film, and never heard about it. By the way, which is typical, the film seems to be so innovative (and it is perceived as such), but there, after all, not a single word has been changed, there is the entire text on the Gospel of Matthew. You can accept it or not, but this is the right of the artist. I think this is a very powerful film. I saw a Scorsese film on this subject, I saw a Mel Gibson film. I would put Pasolini's film in the first place.

As for the church and homophobia, at the moment - I don't think so. The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church stand on completely homophobic positions. There is a strong current in Protestantism that is revisiting this point; but, in any case, I don't think such a more tolerant attitude towards it would come from the church.

Calm

Dear Mr. Shaburov, can I have three questions at once, or rather, four?

Why are Jews blamed for the death of Christ, and not Italians?

What is the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the issue of “guilt of the Jews”?

Is it possible to be both a Christian and an anti-Semite?

Here it should immediately be clarified: probably, it is necessary to say not "Italians", but "Romans".

It is very difficult to give a short answer to this question. Christianity originated in the Jewish environment. Jesus was a Jew, as were all the apostles and closest disciples. But already in the first generation preaching began among the pagans, among the non-Jews. There were Jewish-Christian, pagan-Christian, mixed communities. But due to tragic historical circumstances - the so-called Jewish War, the bloody uprising against Rome, the bloody suppression of this uprising - Jewish Christianity First of all, the Jerusalem community and other Palestinian communities practically ceased to exist. The pagan-Christian communities remained. When I say "pagan" - I mean their origin.

As one author wrote, and I agree with him, blaming the Jews for the execution of Jesus is about the same as blaming the Americans for the Kennedy assassination. But then there was this theological rivalry. According to the Bible, Jews are the chosen people of God. The Christian Church from the very beginning considered itself the chosen people. That the promises that God gave to the Jews in the Bible are transferred to the church, which began to call itself the New Israel. And this concept - it seemed to provide that the former Israel would cease to exist or would be converted to Christianity. That did not happen. And the presence of Israel itself, Jews who professed Judaism, did not fit into this theological picture. Hence such, shall we say, Christian anti-Semitism, which, of course, is somewhat paradoxical and absurd.

If we turn to the texts of the Apostle Paul, that Christian New Testament author who was one of the initiators of preaching to the Gentiles and who brought Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaism, if we read carefully, say, the Epistle to the Romans, we will understand what should not have been soil for Christian anti-Semitism. However, this is a reality that has existed for centuries.

Lenta.Ru: Is she the same age as the Christian church, or is she younger? In this matter, this is what matters most.

This is a painful question. Let's put it this way: these tendencies arose quite early, but they developed and intensified. They argue about it. I would not go too far, because there are such works or such a position that speaks of the anti-Semitic potential of the New Testament. I think it's wrong. But already in the II century we see such a rivalry, the confrontation between Christianity and Judaism, on this basis - anti-Semitism. And after the victory of Christianity in the 4th century, it intensifies, and then all these typical accusations of deicide and so on. Therefore, I can answer the question "is it possible to be a Christian and an anti-Semite"? Yes, it's unfortunate, but it does happen.

Rustam

1. Do you think the New Testament is, after all, the development of those ideas that were in the Old, or did Jesus preach something fundamentally new?

1. Both. It is very difficult to speak with any certainty here.

Jesus, I believe, was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, that is, one who preached the imminent coming of the end times. And Jesus, of course, within Judaism. But it must be borne in mind that Judaism of the first century is very diverse. It was later, due to a number of historical reasons, that normative rabbinic Judaism was formed in the 2nd-3rd centuries with certain limits and boundaries. And the 1st century is a lot of currents that were extremely hostile to each other. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes... And when Christians arose, at the beginning, when the pagans had not yet begun to preach widely, they were in this context. And even in some ways the Essenes, as the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate, were further away from Temple Judaism than the early Christians. Despite the execution of Jesus, many members of the early Jerusalem community continued to participate in the ceremonies of the Jerusalem Temple. And, say, the Qumranites had not taken any part in these ceremonies for a century before.

Of course it's new. Hence the conflict. Hence the execution of Jesus. But this break, this new one, is not as sharp, not as radical as it was believed. In the 20th century, many works came out that compared the sayings of Jesus with rabbinical literature. And there is a lot in common. Although rabbinical literature is also very diverse. There are some points that are very different from what Jesus taught. And there are some things very close. There are statements that are almost identical.

Here I will even allow myself to refer not to literature, but to personal experience. Fifteen years ago I met a very young American rabbi who had been brought up in a traditional Jewish religious family. And he told me that when he was thirty years old, two years before our meeting, he read the Gospels for the first time. He never read the New Testament, he read the Torah. He read the New Testament for the first time and was amazed that everything was recognizable to him. That is, he perceived it as something unconditionally Jewish. But he made the following reservation: "This is, of course, an extremist position. This, of course, is on the verge" - this is his point of view, there are others. But still not outside, but inside.

Vitaly Petrovich

Is it possible to state the fact that by fulfilling the commandments, prescriptions, lifestyle, I can be a rich merchant who has the opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

and if possible:

from representatives different religions(Buddhism, Judaism) I have heard real beliefs that we live in an eschatological age. Those. prophetic writings clearly described the present time as the last?

Thank you in advance,

You know what, this is not a question for a religious scholar, but for a priest, but I will say it anyway. At all times, it was believed that the last times had come. Jesus said that many of his listeners would see the end of the world.

It is natural for people to see the signs of the last times. Especially in eras when there are wars, when there are some misfortunes, epidemics, crises. Or when it seems that there is a decline in morals, and this always seems to people, especially the elderly, in comparison with their youth. And we always see these eschatological expectations. And more than that. The most mysterious New Testament book, the Apocalypse, the Revelation of St. John the Theologian, where in symbolic form it speaks of the End of the World - so all the time it was in modern times that all the signs were seen. It was in the Middle Ages, it was in the 18th century, it was at the beginning of the 20th century – and it is the same now. All this talk about what is described there Chernobyl disaster And so on and so forth. It's as old as the world.

Michael

Do you know what were the political contradictions between the followers of Jesus and the authorities? Is there something under religious veils?

In science, this issue is also debatable. There is such a tendency, and it is now present in the scientific literature, to present Jesus primarily as a social critic and social reformer. Personally, this position is not very close to me. I join those who believe that Jesus is primarily an apocalyptic prophet. But, I repeat, such a position also exists. Such is the social criticism, which was directed at those in power and which, as always happens, also has political overtones. This is one moment.

Another point is that Jesus did not seem to share the mindset of many Jews of his time who wanted an armed uprising to free themselves from Roman domination. Apparently, Jesus was opposed to the methods of armed struggle, in particular, believing that God would intervene and God would put everything in its place. And armed struggle distracts from the most important thing and, in general, contradicts the will of God the Merciful. And this, of course, also caused some discontent.

I read political interpretations of the well-known episode with the expulsion of merchants from the temple - that in general the priestly elite was engaged, as they would say now, in business, and so on. Criticism of Jesus hurt her very much in this regard. We must also keep in mind that now religion and politics are also connected, but we still understand that these are different things. And in that era it was inseparable. These Pharisees, Sadducees are religious movements, of course, but to some extent they are also a prototype of political movements, political parties. It was inseparable one from the other - religion from politics.

Julia

Hello, Mr. Shaburov!

If possible, please answer:

1. To what extent was early Christianity homogeneous?

Is the situation of the first centuries of Christianity comparable to today's, when there are Orthodox, Adventists, Unificates, Mormons and many others, and all are Christians.

2. What determined the formation of the papal version of Christianity as the most influential, "correct" one? I mean that variant of Christianity, which later split into Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox branches.

3. It is believed that the popes are the governors of the Apostle Peter, and who was the second after him?

1. Yes, there was diversity. The situation is comparable. Here, too, there are some controversial issues. There is such a traditional church point of view that recognizes this diversity, but claims that there was a certain main channel, the main tree, but there were some branches, heresies. And there is a position that believes that until quite late, before the 4th century, one cannot speak of any such channel, but there were a variety of currents, then one of them won and retrospectively revised history. The question is complex, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, but, of course, there was diversity.

2. To be honest, I find it difficult to say. There were too many factors due to which some currents lost their popularity, like, say, Gnosticism, and ended up on the periphery, while others, on the contrary, found themselves on the crest. This is a very complex issue and it is difficult to point to any single factor. There were many factors - but what happened happened.

3. This is also such a difficult question. Peter seems to have been the first among the apostles, in the Gospel this is justified by the authority of Jesus himself. According to the Gospel, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church"... And Peter, apparently, after the execution of Jesus led the community, despite the fact that the Gospels speak of his denial, of his timidity - but that no less.

Peter in this respect is the personification of the church. Further. There is a tradition that Peter ended his days in Rome and there he was the leader of the church. It is very difficult to talk about historical validity, we do not have any facts confirming this, although, however, this cannot be denied. You see, everything that is written by Dan Brown - this most likely did not exist, it is too incredible. But the fact that Peter could be in Rome is possible, although not necessary. Already in the twentieth century, the Vatican undertook archaeological excavations, seeking to find artifacts of Peter's sojourn, but found nothing, except that the veneration of Peter in Rome dates back to a very ancient time.

And here is the thought: since Peter is the first among the apostles, the bishops were considered the successors of the apostles, then the successors of Peter, the Roman bishops, are the first among other bishops. But in fact, the so-called monarchical episcopacy seems to come later. And we do not even know - in this era, the 40s of the 1st century, was there a single head of the Roman community? Maybe there was some kind of collegial leadership, it's hard to say.

The first is the authority of Peter, who predetermined the authority of the Roman church. Moreover, we see this very early, already in the 2nd century, when church authors say that the true dogma is that which the Roman Church and the churches that are in unity with it profess.

But one more factor can be pointed out. After all, Rome is the capital. Naturally, the leading role of the metropolitan community. It happens otherwise, but, as a rule, with us, even if we take some religious organizations, always the center is in Moscow. Although, I repeat, there were some exceptions. I think that also played a role. Naturally, the metropolitan church performed such coordinating functions.

Sergey B. Moscow

In the rituals of Freemasonry (and this, as we know, in essence, the 18th century), there are many things reminiscent of early Christianity (as we heard about it), isolation, secret signs (fish in the sand, etc.), the agape ritual and the concept itself (and The Last Supper and Unconditional Love).

How did it come to Freemasonry, after all, so many years have passed? Why do we know about this. Was Jesus still an Essene? Is it true that in the second century, many books about Jesus and early Christianity were destroyed at the cathedrals (the figure is called - more than 300?!).

Is there any information about the books kept in the Vatican under seven seals about this period?

I am not a supporter of the version that Freemasonry has some secret ancient roots. I think that the Freemasons, when they were constituted (even if it was not the 18th, but the 17th century, if we talk about some kind of pre-Masonry), simply invented this symbolism, using early Christian ones as well, based on the knowledge that was at that time . Not on any special secret knowledge early Christianity, but on what was already known then. And the way they understood it. Because in fact, if we sort it out, we will not find very many similarities.

As for the destruction of a mass of books about Jesus... There was no mass destruction, but the books that were not recognized by the Church were not copied, and therefore most of them did not reach us.

Sergey Soldatov

Dear Mr. Shaburov! Do you think the Orthodox Church will ever cross over? Russian church to the Gregorian calendar?

Here again, some kind of futurological question. This cannot be ruled out.

I am faced with the fact that many do not know that most of the local Orthodox churches have switched to a new style. And I always get very jittery when I hear on television: "Today is December 25, Catholic Christmas". Let's start with the fact that not only Catholics, but also Protestants use this calendar, few people know that most of the local Orthodox churches too. In the 20s of the twentieth century there was a meeting of Orthodox churches, at which it was decided to switch to a new It is true that this new style was not called Gregorian, because "Gregorian" is named after Pope Gregory.It was called New Julian.

The old style adheres, in addition to the Russian Church, Serbian and Georgian Church, Jerusalem Patriarchate and Athos monasteries. True, it must be said that in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania this decision caused a split, there appeared old calendarists, like our Old Believers in the 17th century. They exist to this day.

Many Orthodox have switched to the new style. True, this does not apply to the holidays of the moving cycle, Easter and those holidays that depend on Easter. Here Orthodox world adheres to one calendar. With one exception, there is such an autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which celebrates Pascha on the Western Paschalia.

From the church point of view, there are no dogmatic grounds for the "correctness" of the Julian, and not the Gregorian calendar. Although I have seen attempts at such a dogmatic justification in near-theological literature, this, in general, did not seem very serious to me. Rather, it is a cultural custom, a tradition. In addition, this is what distinguishes Orthodoxy from Western Christianity. I would say this: if traditions of separating or opposing Orthodoxy to Western Christianity develop, most likely they will not switch to a new style, and if there are any such other trends, maybe someday they will. There is nothing impossible here. I think that this will not happen in the near future, but in some distant future it is possible.

Victor

Nikolai Vitalievich, I have heard several versions of the assessments of Jesus' activities by the Jews, from accusations of deceit and theft of certain secrets that allowed Him to perform miracles, to regret about the mistake made by the sanhedrin, who condemned Him to death.

In this regard, I would like to know - are there any documentary evidence of the trial of Jesus?

Do your colleagues from Russian scientific institutions take part in excavations in Jerusalem?

In my opinion, the occurrence Christian churches as institutions of power and political instruments, their subsequent fragmentation into currents put an end to the very idea of ​​Christianity, since it gave rise to many passions, the very essence of the teachings unnatural. The ideas that Jesus preached against the backdrop of the Judaism that gave birth to them, permeated with millions of conventions, rules and prohibitions, were simple, understandable and very easy to understand. Nikolai Vitalyevich, do you think that Christianity has been preserved somewhere even a little close to what Jesus preached?

What is the relationship between "science" and the Churches? Which of them are more closed, and which ones help the scientific study of Christianity? Are there really sharp and controversial points and discrepancies between scientific and church views on early Christianity?

Documents relating to the trial of Jesus have not been preserved. We know nothing but the Gospel.

Lenta.Ru: There is also a mention by Josephus Flavius, some more.

As for the testimony of Josephus Flavius, it is very debatable. In any case, the text that we now have is, of course, the fruit of Christian editing. Most likely, Josephus had some mention of Jesus, but it's hard to say what it is. But, again, he doesn't talk about the trial itself.

There are attempts to look at the trial of Jesus in terms of Jewish and Roman legal norms of the time. But these are modern designs. We don't have any documents. Unfortunately, Russian scientists do not take part in excavations in Jerusalem. Among other things, excavations abroad are a very expensive thing.

Lenta.Ru: Here is a question that is quite popular and is repeated in different ways: "Do you think that Christianity has been preserved anywhere, even a little close to what Jesus preached?" After all, each subsequent religious reform begins with the fact that "we return to the apostolic church."

It is impossible to enter the same water twice, all this is already some kind of rethinking. I would say no, it didn't. Everything is developing. It's not necessarily bad. But otherwise, it is probably impossible.

Alexei

Hello.

Please clarify the role of the Apostle Paul in the development of Christianity and how much his understanding of religion diverged from the direct disciples of Jesus. Are there any weighty arguments in science that testify to serious friction during the formation of early Christianity (I-III centuries)?

You know, this is also a very controversial issue. Paul recognized himself as an apostle to the Gentiles. The fact is that as soon as the pagans began to come to the first Christian community, this created certain problems, because the first Christians, Jews, felt themselves to be Jews, and the laws of Judaism limited communication between Jews and pagans. For example, they forbade joint meals. And joint meals were an essential part of the original Christian ritual. And in general, you understand, any religious movement, especially the one that has just emerged, strives for maximum internal unity. And here are fundamentally different categories, different sacred points of view.

Some thought that this issue could be resolved in the following way: Gentiles must first become Jews. We must first be circumcised, and only then water baptism. Paul opposed this. He believed that the gospel was for Jews and Gentiles alike. Gentiles should not be circumcised and generally forced to fulfill the Jewish law, because salvation is through death and through the cross of Christ. And he certainly had serious disagreements with many of the apostles.

Perhaps - and most likely - the book "Acts of the Apostles", written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, somewhat softens these contradictions. Although Paul's epistles, in particular, the Epistle to the Galatians, speak of a case of tough confrontation with the apostle Peter.

The role of Paul is huge. If we take the entire two thousand year history of Christianity, Paul is the biggest figure after Jesus. Christianity in many ways took on the shape it has acquired precisely because of Paul.

Lenta.Ru: And finally, . What is it anyway?

It's hard to say anything with complete certainty. After all, what exactly was determined? That in the place that was traditionally revered as the tomb of the Apostle Paul, there is indeed a burial site dating back to the 1st-2nd centuries. But of course, we do not have absolute certainty that these are indeed the remains of Paul.

A hole was drilled there and analyzed. Well, yes, this is already a lot, but, as you understand, there were many burial places in the 1st-2nd centuries. This has traditionally been considered the tomb of Paul. But from what time it was considered - we cannot say. We have neither in the "Acts of the Apostles" nor in any other text of that time a definite indication of the death of Paul at this very time, during Nero's persecution, which we know about from external sources. For example, Tacitus writes about the persecution and execution of Christians under Nero after the famous fire of Rome.

That is, we have no solid grounds to assert anything. Could be? Could. Is it likely? Yes, in general, probably. But there is no evidence. We have a testimony left about 30-35 years after these events, which indicates that Paul died a martyr's death. And it is not written where and under what circumstances. Only later was it tied to Rome. And we have evidence from the Acts of the Apostles that he was taken to Rome. That is, everything is somewhat shaky. Could this be Paul's tomb? Yes maybe. Can we say with certainty that this is Paul's tomb? No we can not. Maybe they will allow a full autopsy, and there, probably, we will find something, for example, there will be some inscriptions inside - we do not know this yet.

Lenta.Ru: Catholic Church, Russian Orthodox Church, others local churches tend to help in this kind of research or rather hinder?

Differently. But in this case, it is characteristic that the grave was not completely opened, it is still a shrine. And this moment plays its role. That is, apparently, from the point of view of the church, some kind of manipulation cannot be carried out. At this stage, the church does not go for it. She is a supporter of research, but cautious. I think it's not because the Vatican is afraid of some negative results - it really treats this as a shrine. The shrine still requires a careful attitude. I think that the Russian Church has a similar position on this issue. Another thing is that we do not have relics of the original Christianity, of course, because Christianity came to Russia later. But I think the fundamental position is the same.

Nik

Dear Nikolay! Tell me how close to real events are the historical inserts described in the novel "The Master and Margarita"? And a serious question. In your opinion, was early Christianity for the people of that period just a new sect, a new trend, maybe not bad, but we are going against the current canons and concepts? About how we now perceive with bewilderment some "experts" of the truth?

This is a novel. Writer's fantasy.

The case of Dan Brown, I would say, is not good. If Dan Brown took such a position that "I'm a writer, I wrote it, it's my right, artistic fantasy - and who's my judge here" - this is understandable. But after all, he has such a position, as if he dug up some truth.

And Bulgakov, it seems to me, never claimed that he was sure that everything was so. This is the right of the writer, but of course, this is completely unhistorical.

Boris K.

Hello!

Tell me, what influenced the decision of Prince Vladimir to be baptized through the Church of Constantinople, and not the Church of Rome, why did he not accept Catholicism? And for what reasons did he abandon Islam, Judaism?

First, we must take into account one circumstance, which is always forgotten: the baptism of Russia was before the separation of the churches. It happened in 1054, and Russia adopted Christianity at the end of the 10th century.

Lenta.Ru: But in fact, by this moment, the Western and Eastern churches had already diverged a lot?

This is a difficult question. Yes, they were not the best best relationship between Rome and Constantinople. Of course, in fact, this split is the end of a very long process. But this was not universally recognized. Mostly in these newly converted countries. Because we have materials, chronicles and other sources that indicate that at the beginning of the 11th century there were connections with Western Christians. This was accepted as normal. Christians and Christians.

There is a well-known attempt at Christianization under Olga, there were Latin missionaries, but then it ended in failure - the pagan party won, which was grouped around her son, Svyatoslav. But, apparently, there were some historical ties with Constantinople, at that moment more important than with some Western Christian countries. There are various explanations in the chronicle itself. It is difficult to say to what extent one can trust the fact that the ambassadors were shocked by the richness of the services in the Church of Hagia Sophia.

Lenta.Ru: In The Tale of Bygone Years, it is quite clearly divided: the Latins came, and then the Greeks came - the Latins were rejected, and the Greeks were accepted.

Yes. Moreover, why the Latins were rejected is not clear there.

Lenta.Ru: "Our fathers did not accept this."

I will say such a thing - maybe they will not agree with me - it was a moment when the subjective factor, the personality of Prince Vladimir, played a very important role.

The question always arises: is it possible to say what would happen if. But it seems to me that there may have been some other options. Perhaps it would be the adoption of Western Christianity. Why not, when Russia's neighbors adopted Western Christianity - Poland in the west, Norwegians in the north, with whom the Rurik dynasty had close ties ... It was possible. Moreover, I believe that the adoption of Islam was possible. Indeed, the Volga Bulgaria. The variant with Khazar Judaism is much less likely, but the variant of Western Christianity and Islam is possible, and it is clear that then the history of our country would look completely different. Here was such a fork. And here the choice of the prince, his entourage, plus, probably, some specific situational circumstances of that time - they were more interested in ties with Constantinople than with anyone else - determined what happened. Sometimes it happens that, based on some variable events, this or that choice is made, and then it already has huge consequences.

Sergey

Hello!

What can you say about the anti-clerical aspect of Jesus' sermons?

Max

Dear Nikolai Vitalievich! I have two questions. 1. Please tell me how it is that the modern Christian world has nothing to do with the Christianity described in the Bible (for example, there is not a hint of the Trinity, the veneration of images, homosexuality is condemned; it is also known that the early Christians did not interfere in politics and there was no division into clergy and laity, and there was no veneration of any saints, relics, the virgin Mary)? 2. How can one explain such a craze for shrouds, "Christ's tombs", etc., but at the same time a complete disregard for the moral and spiritual principles contained in the Bible and which distinguished Christians of the 1st century from pagans? Thank you.

I think that anti-clericalism is a modern concept, more precisely, the concept of modern times. I don't know what the anti-clericalism of Jesus is, well, except that he criticized the temples, the establishment of the temple, the priesthood of the temple. But, you see, then, I repeat, religion was not limited to the temple, and there were many currents and trends.

Why did Christianity change? There is a lot listed here, maybe not everything is quite accurate. For example, the difference between the clergy and the laity - it arises early.

Lenta.Ru: But again, it's not evangelical, is it?

Everything changes, everything evolves. Every movement that emerges as charismatic is then institutionalized. Charismatic authority is giving way to institutional authority. Christianity is no exception here, and it probably could not be otherwise. As for the hierarchy, the clergy, in general, some ossification.

As for the complete disregard for morality and other things - this is, in general, the position of the author, you can not agree with it.

As for images, relics, and so on - yes, of course, this is the influence of the peoples among whom Christianity spread - the Greeks and others. In particular, the veneration of sacred images, of course, has no roots in the Bible, but rather among the Greeks.

The Trinity... Yes, this is also formed early, but not in the New Testament period. Somewhere in the 2nd century, we see the influence of some also Greek philosophical doctrines, as a result of which the doctrine of the Trinity also arises.

Critic

Dear Nikolay!

Let me ask you a few questions:

1) What is your attitude to "historical fakes", in particular to the document on the Constantine gift?!

2) Don't you think that the nationalization of Christianity, which took place under Popes Leo I and Gregory I the Great, and also later, was reflected in the purity of the faith itself?!

3) How would you interpret the term "heresy" in the modern interpretation?

I will be grateful for your answers.

1. What does "attitude towards fakes" mean? Fakes are fakes, they have always been.

This is the early Middle Ages. Such a document was fabricated in the papal office on behalf of Emperor Constantine. This is the same Roman emperor, under whom Christianity was legalized and the process of its transformation into state religion Roman Empire. Allegedly, before his death, he actually transfers power over the empire to Pope Sylvester. This justified the pope's claims to secular power and supremacy in the church. But already in the Middle Ages, this text was in doubt. It was finally exposed in the 15th century by the Italian humanist, philologist Lorenzo Valla.

2. I wouldn’t really focus on Leo I and Gregory I here. Gregory I was pope in the era of complete collapse, after the fall of the Roman Empire, when the Lombards had just conquered Rome, so this is historically inaccurate. And the fact that nationalization has affected the purity of faith - yes, probably. Depending on the state, depending on the secular power. Although it is possible to explain historically why this happened, why it probably could not be otherwise.

4. I am not a political scientist or a theologian. I would say that this is a conservative pontificate. Of course, this is a victory for the conservative forces of the church. On the one hand, of course, this conservative turn began already under Pope John Paul II. But, say, in comparison with John XXIII, the initiator of the Second Vatican Council and his successor Paul VI, John Paul II was an outstanding charismatic personality. It was a very personal pontificate, and it is difficult for me to limit John Paul II to a conservative worldview. Yes, he was a traditionalist, but he was a broad personality, and this determined many of the phenomena of his pontificate.

And the current pope, it seems to me, is not such a charismatic person, but is simply a church conservative. I don’t want to be a futurist - the question is: is this some kind of such a serious turn or is it a delay before some new update. The big question is who will be the next pope. Will this line continue? There is also a reformist line. The thing is that hopes for renewal were associated with the Second Vatican. Yes, renewal, but the reverse side is the fall of religiosity, the departure of people from the church. Hence now here is such a conservative turn. What will happen next - we'll see.

Lenta.Ru: But is there a basis for the Third Vatican?

Of course there is, but we'll see, I don't know.

Kosmopletov A.M.

First, Renan is still extremely outdated. This is the last century. And it's still not quite scientific literature, rather semi-fiction. It's well written, but of course it's completely outdated stuff.

Our trouble is that in the West, New Testament science developed in the 20th century, there was a large amount of literature, research, and in our country, unfortunately, all this stalled and took on ideological forms. It all started in the 19th century - there were no conditions in Russia, because there was spiritual censorship, and then the Soviet atheistic attitude, when it was necessary to prove that Jesus was a myth in general and so on.

Sventsitskaya's books are the few authentic ones that are available. But recently, some popular books by Russian authors and some translated books have also begun to appear. I'll point something out. First, a book that came out in 2008 by a young domestic author, Gleb Yastrebov, called "Who was Jesus of Nazareth?" It is popular, easy to read, but the author is on the crest of the scientific mainstream. He has his own position, he perfectly knows all the recent literature. This is a very accurate book, it is wonderful, I recommend it.

Further. Eksmo Publishing House has launched a series of literature on early Christianity. They recently released two classics under the same cover. One, however, is also quite old, from the 20s of the twentieth century, Bultman, "Jesus". The second is David Flusser, an Israeli author, probably written in the 80s, also called "Jesus". This is, in general, a quality item.

Dodd's The Founder of Christianity has been reprinted several times. These are all popular books.

The most recent book that came out maybe a month ago by Marcus Borg is called Rebel Jesus. He has a certain position in science, not everyone shares it, but he is, in any case, one of the serious contemporary authors.

I also recommend a collection of two books about Paul. It's called Christ or the Law. There are two classics. One - the beginning of the twentieth century, famous philosopher, theologian, public figure, physician Albert Schweitzer, is called "The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul." And the second is a relatively modern, also 80s, modern author - Sanders, "Paul, the Law and Jewish people Here Sanders was one of the main turning points in the study of Paul in the context of Jewish thought of his time.

Lenta.Ru: It turns out that there are already quite a few.

A lot, yes. But these are fragments, all positions are not presented. There is a sea of ​​literature, much still needs to be translated.

There is such an author Wright, he is an Anglican bishop, he has a slightly apologetic position, but at the same time he is a scientist. His book was published from afar - I name it, but I will not particularly recommend it, it is very large, thick and only those who are interested will master it - "Jesus and the Victory of God" . And more recently, "Eksmo" published his book, dedicated too - "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus". Attached is a translation of the Gospel of Judas, and not from English, but from the original, from the Coptic language. This book can also be recommended, it contains a fairly balanced view of this gospel. A little biased - he's Christian bishop. But, in general, we can agree with Wright.

And now Erman, the book has not yet been released, it will be released by the publishing house "Ves Mir". I was asked to write a preface or afterword. I think she will most likely come out, in the beginning next year- "Peter, Paul and Mary". I really liked the book, and for the future, when it comes out, I recommend it.

Nikolai Vitalievich Shaburov(born January 10, Tbilisi, USSR) - Russian religious and culturologist. Author of a number of works on the history of Gnosticism and early Christianity, as well as on the current religious situation in Russia. Candidate of cultural studies, professor.

Biography

Scientific works

Dissertations

• The functions of myth in the Gnostic and Christian traditions in the era of late antiquity (on the example of the texts of the Hermetic corpus and monuments of theological disputes of the 4th century): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. cultural studies. M., 1999. 29 p.

Monographs

• Shaburov N.V. Problems of paradox and analysis of consciousness: Cultural-historical and philosophical aspects. - M .: , 1987. - 80 p.
• Muskhelishvili N. L., Shaburov N. V., Shreider Yu. A. Symbol and action. - M., 1987.

Tutorials

• Shaburov N.V. Ch. 3. Christianity // Pages of the history of religion: Proc. allowance. - M., 1992. - S. 48-81.
• Religions of the world: 10-11 cells. Allowance for students in general education. studies, institutions / N. V. Shaburov, L. G. Zhukova, A. V. Zhuravsky and others - M .: Bustard; Natalis, 1997. - 272 p.: ill. - ISBN 5-7107-0982-4. - (erroneous). (The manual "Religions of the World" was approved by the Federal Expert Council and recommended for publication by the Department of General Secondary Education of the Ministry of General and Vocational Education of the Russian Federation.)

Articles

in Russian

• Shaburov N.V. Perception of Hermeticism by the Ideologists of Early Christianity: Lactantius and Augustine // Meroe. - M ., 1985. - Issue. 3 . - S. 243-252.
• Shaburov N.V. Man and the World in Gnostic Teachings // Hellenistic Philosophy: Modern Problems and Discussions: Sat. scientific Art. - M., 1986. - S. 84-103.
• Muskhelishvili N.L., Shaburov N.V., Shreider Yu.A. On the symbolism of the sermon // Man. - 1991. - No. 4.
• Shaburov N. V., Muskhelishvili N. L. The Heritage of Russian Religious Philosophy and the Ideology of Totalitarianism // Country and World. - 1992. - No. 2. - pp. 110-121.
• Shaburov N.V. Poimander of Hermas Trismegist // Urania. - 1993. - No. 4. - S. 47-54.
• Shaburov N.V. The history of the ancient Church and an introduction to the history of the ancient Eastern churches // Collection of educational programs. - M., 1997. - S. 75-76.
• Shaburov N.V. Historiography of Ancient Hermeticism // Russia and Gnosis: Proceedings of the Conference. Moscow. VGBIL. March 23, 1999 .. - M .: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 4-14.
• Shaburov N.V. How is religion possible? // Problems of teaching and the current state of religious studies in Russia: Materials of the conference. Moscow, December 2-3, 1999. - M .: Rudomino, 2000. - S. 23-30.
• Shaburov N.V. religious tolerance. Historical and political dimensions // / Compilation and general edition of A. A. Krasikov and E. S. Tokareva. - M .: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2006. - S. 88-90.

in other languages

• Le Statut legal des religions en Russie et L'idee de symphonie // Istina, Paris: Center d'etudes Istina. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 67-77.

Expertise

• on the book by A. V. Borodina "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" dated 16.3.2003.

Publicism

• Shaburov N.V. The End of Religious Freedom: From Ideological Subversion to Spiritual Aggression // Results. - 1997. - No. 38. - S. 56-57.

Interview

• // Tape.ru. - 08.07.2009.
• Orlova L.// Independent newspaper . - 07.09.2011.

Write a review on the article "Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich"

Notes

Criticism

• Solovyov A. Yu.// Advisory Council "Education as a mechanism for the formation of the spiritual and moral culture of society" at the Department of Education of Moscow. - 09.082003.
• Kuznetsov M. N., Troitsky V. Yu.// Religious security. - 12.02.2003.
• // Information and analytical center "Owl". - 28.07.2003.

Links

An excerpt characterizing Shaburov, Nikolai Vitalievich

- He is in the army, mon pere, in Smolensk.
He was silent for a long time, closing his eyes; then in the affirmative, as if in answer to his doubts and in confirmation that he now understood and remembered everything, nodded his head and opened his eyes.
“Yes,” he said clearly and quietly. - Russia is dead! Ruined! And he sobbed again, and tears flowed from his eyes. Princess Mary could no longer restrain herself and wept too, looking at his face.
He closed his eyes again. His sobs stopped. He made a sign with his hand to his eyes; and Tikhon, understanding him, wiped away his tears.
Then he opened his eyes and said something that no one could understand for a long time and, finally, he understood and conveyed only Tikhon. Princess Mary was looking for the meaning of his words in the mood in which he spoke a minute before. Now she thought that he was talking about Russia, then about Prince Andrei, then about her, about her grandson, then about his death. And because of this, she could not guess his words.
“Put on your white dress, I love it,” he said.
Understanding these words, Princess Marya sobbed even louder, and the doctor, taking her by the arm, led her out of the room to the terrace, persuading her to calm down and make preparations for her departure. After Princess Mary left the prince, he again spoke about his son, about the war, about the sovereign, twitched his eyebrows angrily, began to raise a hoarse voice, and with him came the second and last blow.
Princess Mary stopped on the terrace. The day cleared up, it was sunny and hot. She could understand nothing, think of nothing, and feel nothing, except her passionate love for her father, a love which, it seemed to her, she had not known until that moment. She ran out into the garden and, sobbing, ran down to the pond along the young linden paths planted by Prince Andrei.
“Yes… I… I… I.” I wished for his death. Yes, I wanted it to end soon... I wanted to calm down... But what will happen to me? What do I need peace of mind when he’s gone, ”Princess Marya muttered aloud, walking quickly through the garden and pressing her hands on her chest, from which sobs frantically burst out. Walking around the circle in the garden, which led her back to the house, she saw m lle Bourienne (who had remained in Bogucharovo and did not want to leave) coming towards her and unknown man. It was the leader of the district, who himself came to the princess in order to present to her the need for an early departure. Princess Mary listened and did not understand him; she led him into the house, offered him breakfast, and sat down with him. Then, apologizing to the leader, she went to the door of the old prince. The doctor, with an alarmed face, came out to her and said that it was impossible.
- Go, princess, go, go!
Princess Marya went back into the garden and under the hill by the pond, in a place where no one could see, sat down on the grass. She did not know how long she had been there. Someone's running female steps along the path made her wake up. She got up and saw that Dunyasha, her maid, obviously running after her, suddenly, as if frightened by the sight of her young lady, stopped.
“Please, princess ... prince ...” Dunyasha said in a broken voice.
“Now, I’m going, I’m going,” the princess began hastily, not giving Dunyasha time to finish what she had to say, and, trying not to see Dunyasha, she ran to the house.
“Princess, the will of God is being done, you must be ready for anything,” said the leader, meeting her at the front door.
- Leave me. It is not true! she yelled angrily at him. The doctor wanted to stop her. She pushed him away and ran to the door. “And why are these people with frightened faces stopping me? I don't need anyone! And what are they doing here? She opened the door, and the bright daylight in that previously dim room terrified her. There were women and a nurse in the room. They all moved away from the bed, making way for her. He lay still on the bed; but the stern look of his calm face stopped Princess Marya on the threshold of the room.
"No, he's not dead, it can't be! - Princess Mary said to herself, went up to him and, overcoming the horror that seized her, pressed her lips to his cheek. But she immediately pulled away from him. Instantly, all the strength of tenderness for him, which she felt in herself, disappeared and was replaced by a feeling of horror for what was before her. “No, he is no more! He is not there, but right there, in the same place where he was, something alien and hostile, some kind of terrible, terrifying and repulsive secret ... - And, covering her face with her hands, Princess Marya fell into the hands of the doctor, who supported her.
In the presence of Tikhon and the doctor, the women washed what he was, tied a handkerchief around his head so that his open mouth would not stiffen, and tied his diverging legs with another handkerchief. Then they put on a uniform with medals and laid a small shriveled body on the table. God knows who and when took care of this, but everything became as if by itself. By night, candles burned around the coffin, there was a cover on the coffin, juniper was sprinkled on the floor, a printed prayer was placed under the dead, shrunken head, and a deacon sat in the corner, reading a psalter.
As horses shied away, crowded and snorted over a dead horse, so in the living room around the coffin crowded people of strangers and their own - the leader, and the headman, and the women, and all with fixed, frightened eyes, crossed themselves and bowed, and kissed the cold and stiff hand of the old prince.

Bogucharovo was always, before Prince Andrei settled in it, a private estate, and the men of Bogucharov had a completely different character from those of Lysogorsk. They differed from them in speech, clothing, and customs. They were called steppes. The old prince praised them for their endurance in their work when they came to help clean up the Bald Mountains or dig ponds and ditches, but did not like them for their savagery.
The last stay in Bogucharovo of Prince Andrei, with his innovations - hospitals, schools and easier dues - did not soften their morals, but, on the contrary, strengthened in them those character traits that the old prince called savagery. Between them there were always some kind of obscure talk, either about listing them all as Cossacks, or about a new faith to which they would be converted, then about some royal lists, then about an oath to Pavel Petrovich in 1797 (about which they said that then even the will came out, but the gentlemen took it away), then about Peter Feodorovich, who will reign in seven years, under whom everything will be free and it will be so simple that nothing will happen. Rumors about the war in Bonaparte and his invasion combined for them with the same vague ideas about the Antichrist, the end of the world and pure will.
In the vicinity of Bogucharov there were more and more large villages, state-owned and quitrent landlords. There were very few landowners living in this area; there were also very few servants and literates, and in the life of the peasants of this area were more noticeable and stronger than in others, those mysterious jets of Russian folk life, the causes and significance of which are inexplicable to contemporaries. One of these phenomena was the movement between the peasants of this area to move to some warm rivers, which manifested itself about twenty years ago. Hundreds of peasants, including Bogucharov's, suddenly began to sell their cattle and leave with their families somewhere on southeast. Like birds flying somewhere beyond the seas, these people with their wives and children strove to go there, to the southeast, where none of them had been. They went up in caravans, bathed one by one, ran, and rode, and went there, to the warm rivers. Many were punished, exiled to Siberia, many died of cold and starvation along the way, many returned on their own, and the movement died down by itself just as it had begun without an obvious reason. But the underwater streams did not stop flowing in this people and gathered for some kind of new force that could manifest itself just as strangely, unexpectedly, and at the same time simply, naturally and strongly. Now, in 1812, for a person who lived close to the people, it was noticeable that these underwater jets produced strong work and were close to manifestation.
Alpatych, having arrived in Bogucharovo some time before the death of the old prince, noticed that there was unrest among the people and that, contrary to what was happening in the Bald Mountains on a sixty-verst radius, where all the peasants left (leaving the Cossacks to ruin their villages), in the steppe zone , in Bogucharovskaya, the peasants, as was heard, had relations with the French, received some papers that went between them, and remained in their places. He knew through the courtyard people devoted to him that the peasant Karp, who had recently traveled with a state-owned cart, and who had a great influence on the world, returned with the news that the Cossacks were devastating the villages from which the inhabitants came out, but that the French did not touch them. He knew that another peasant had even brought yesterday from the village of Visloukhovo, where the French were stationed, a paper from the French general, in which the inhabitants were declared that no harm would be done to them and that everything that was taken from them would be paid for if they stayed. As proof of this, the peasant brought from Visloukhov one hundred rubles in banknotes (he did not know that they were fake), given to him in advance for hay.
Finally, and most importantly, Alpatych knew that on the very day he ordered the headman to collect carts for the export of the princess's convoy from Bogucharov, in the morning there was a gathering in the village, at which it was supposed not to be taken out and wait. Meanwhile, time was running out. The leader, on the day of the death of the prince, on August 15, insisted on Princess Marya that she leave on the same day, as it was becoming dangerous. He said that after the 16th he was not responsible for anything. On the day of the prince's death, he left in the evening, but promised to come to the funeral the next day. But the next day he could not come, because, according to the news he himself received, the French suddenly moved in, and he only managed to take his family and everything valuable from his estate.
For about thirty years, Bogucharov was ruled by the headman Dron, whom the old prince called Dronushka.
Dron was one of those physically and morally strong men who, as soon as they enter the age, grow a beard, so, without changing, live up to sixty or seventy years, without one gray hair or lack of a tooth, just as straight and strong at sixty years old like at thirty.
Dron, soon after moving to the warm rivers, in which he participated, like others, was made headman steward in Bogucharovo, and since then he has been flawlessly in this position for twenty-three years. The men were more afraid of him than the master. Gentlemen, and the old prince, and the young, and the manager, respected him and jokingly called him a minister. During all the time of his service, Dron was never drunk or sick; never, not after sleepless nights, not after any kind of labor, did he show the slightest fatigue and, not knowing how to read and write, never forgot a single account of money and pounds of flour for the huge carts that he sold, and not a single shock of snakes for bread on every tithe of the Bogucharov fields.