Читать книгу The Bible as a detective story - - Страница 1

"It is impossible for there to be more or fewer Gospels than there are. For since there are four cardinal points in the world in which we live, and four cardinal winds, and since the Church is scattered throughout the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, it is fitting that she have four pillars." (Hieromortyr Irenaeus of Lyons)

When we read the Gospels, we must keep in mind that we have before us something like a layer cake:

The very bottom, first layer is the real historical events reflected (exactly like that) in them.

Which "peep through" the second layer, which is the Gospels themselves (the canonical and the surviving apocryphal texts, as well as other New Testament texts). For example, Jesus was indeed a Galilean by birth. And he was undoubtedly crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate. And so on. Unfortunately, overall, this second layer is, to put it mildly, not very reliable.

The third layer consists of later edits ‑to the insertion, primarily from the Byzantine era. These were literally stuffed, like raisins into a bun, by the pious bishops of that time into what was supposedly sacred Scripture (let's be kind to them, they were believers, after all). Therefore, Jesus, for example, undoubtedly foretold the imminent coming of the "Son of Man" as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, but he certainly did not send his disciples "to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

The fourth layer is—at least for the Russian-speaking reader—the Synodal Translation, completed in the 19th ‑century and still circulated by the Russian Orthodox Church. I will try to speak about it as carefully as possible in what follows. Otherwise, if I were to speak frankly, this book would not have passed the publisher's censorship.

And finally, the fifth layer is what is not directly in the Gospels themselves, but what the reader usually brings into them without noticing it.

In doing so, we commit two very natural, yet very serious, mistakes. Firstly ‑—and this is especially true for believers—as we read, we often unconsciously introduce our own preconceived notions. For example, at the very beginning of the Gospel of Mark, we read that someone named Jesus came to the Jordan to be baptized by John. And of course, we ‑know that it was God who came to John, born a man from the Virgin Mary! As a result, instead of understanding the author's ideas, we simply project our own familiar template onto the text.

Secondly ‑, we—again, ignoring the author's thought process and without even thinking about it—introduce into his text what is written in another text. After all, all four Gospels recount the same events, don't they? For example, we read in Matthew that after the betrothal of Joseph and Mary, she "turned out" to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. How did this "turn out"? What could that mean? Oh yes, we "know" how—after all, Luke describes the Annunciation scene, where an angel comes to Mary's house with a prophecy! Or, another example: what was the first miracle Jesus performed? Of course, we "know"—he turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. True? Or not? Or was this written by the author of the Gospel of John at the end of the first century, and only by him? And not in the other evangelists?

And of course, believers, Christians, make a third, most serious mistake. Being a priori convinced of the "divine inspiration" of the Gospels, they are unable, purely psychologically, through a subconscious blockade of thought, to question their authenticity. In this case, the result can sometimes become, pardon me, comical. For example, someone reads with their own eyes Jesus's prophecy that not all those standing near him will die before they see "the kingdom of God come with power"—but the believing reader simply cannot accept that Jesus could be mistaken. He is God, and the Gospels are divinely inspired! And so… they begin to resort to all sorts of unthinkable and sophisticated conjectures, so beloved of theologians in such cases (on the other hand, what else can they do?). I urge the reader not to succumb to such weaknesses.

Typically, believers (Christians) perceive the Four Gospels as if four witnesses to certain events had described them, each as best they could and as best they could remember. In such a case, if we were talking about a real event and real witnesses, we would see the following picture: the witnesses' testimonies generally agree, but may differ slightly in detail (one remembered one detail, another another, someone else ‑may have made a slight mistake in their recollection—this is normal), and may even contradict each other in minor details. And, of course, each witness's account will have a distinctive style and language, because each person expresses their thoughts in a way that is unique to them. So, believers, reading the Gospels, perceive them in much the same way: as four authorial accounts by four independent witnesses, or, at least, as records from the words of four witnesses, participants in the events.

With the important addition noted above, believers, as stated above, consider the Bible to be a divinely inspired text. Therefore, despite the differences in the literary styles of various authors and the differences in the details of the descriptions, the text of the Gospels is, overall, truth. Or rather: Truth, with a capital T.

Figuratively speaking (I recall how I myself perceived the Gospels earlier), the Four Gospels are like a painting, simultaneously painted by four artists with four brushes, guided by the Holy Spirit. Some details were painted by one, some by another, and others they painted together, each introducing slight artistic differences—into the overall picture, I repeat. In other words, the Gospels are perceived as a single book. It's as if "God commissioned four authors to write a Gospel each, to the best of their ability, their desire, and their skill, while at the same time being guided by the Holy Spirit and striving to convey a sincere and honest account of the true events, with God accompanying them in this endeavor."

In reality—and I hope this will become clear below—the situation here is quite different. The Gospel of Mark is the original narrative (although biblical scholars are convinced that it is partly based on a certain lost text, "Q," and I would add that it also draws a bit on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul). Then the author of the Gospel of Matthew rewrites it, adding to and changing it as he sees fit. Then the author of the Gospel of Luke rewrites Mark's text, also "correcting" it, while also using Matthew's text *—preserving the latter's meaning but radically altering its narrative outline. And finally, the author of the Gospel of John, the latest (about 70 ‑years after the Crucifixion and almost a century after the Birth of Christ), takes one or more of these texts and, no longer rewrites them, creates a completely original work. In all four cases, the authors draw on the ideas about Jesus that were accepted in their time and within the religious movement to which they belonged. Thus, the Gospels consistently reveal how these ideas changed over time.

* – the fact that Luke relied not only on Mark's text but also on Matthew's is an important point, as the accepted view (including among professional biblical scholars, as far as the author knows) is otherwise. Further in the text, you will see the justification for this thesis.