The crisis of old spiritual values required some kind of socio-psychological replacement. It was useless to look for a replacement within the Greco-Roman cultural circle, because its thinkers for a long time could not overcome the charm of the ideas created by the polis world, which formally continued to exist for centuries. True, in more modest social strata, not affected by the teachings of philosophers, communities of this type were also noted, where a moral atmosphere was prepared in which Christian teaching could later flourish. Already in the 1st century. BC e. Mithraic communities developed in Asia Minor (see lecture 18). In Greece, even earlier, from the heyday of the polis, Orphic communities existed and continued to exist during the period of the empire. Their teaching was traced back to the ancient mythical singer and musician Orpheus, who supposedly descended into the underworld in a vain attempt to free his wife Eurydice from there. Recognizing the entire pantheon of Greco-Roman deities, the Orphics reinterpreted the myths about them in an ethical-symbolic spirit: from the egg of Chronos (“Time”), Eros was born - the deity of love and light, who created the primary world, only modified by Zeus and the Olympian gods. The Orphics taught that the human soul goes through a cycle of reincarnation, but it can be shortened by the “Orphic” life, which implied contempt for the flesh and asceticism; leaving the circle of reincarnations, the human soul entered the eternal world of bliss and divine immortality.
The teaching of the Orphics, however, also could not answer the painful questions of the era - if only because it did not break with the already hateful “polis” cults and with the cult of the emperor, focusing on self-improvement within the existing system of values. Even more important was that the Orphic communities were secret, strictly closed groups. But it is difficult to deny that Orphism also prepared many ideas for the future of Christianity among the population of the empire - first of all, the idea of the non-finality of death, the possibility of immortality for every righteous person and reward to man according to his deeds in the afterlife.
In the Middle East, things were different. It has been here since at least the 6th century. BC e. Eschatological currents arose - the mysticism of the absolute future, the expectation of the coming of the savior of the world to establish a new, final and impeccably fair order on earth. The expectation of a savior was characteristic of many areas of the Zoroastrian religion, but the hope in the future “anointed” savior was especially characteristic of movements that developed on the basis of the Old Testament religion, apparently not without the influence of Zoroastrianism. In connection with the vicissitudes of Hellenistic history, with the repeated migrations of ethnic groups - including Jews - to all corners of the Hellenistic world, Old Testament ideas became increasingly widespread. The Jews belonging to the “Diaspora” (displaced people from Palestine) were engaged in attracting converts to Orthodox Judaism, but, in addition, in different places, as we have already seen (The Rise of Ancient Societies), various more or less isolated groups and currents such as the Therapeuta in Egypt, the Essenes in the Judean Desert near the Dead Sea, the supporters of John the “Baptist”, and then many others. All of them were characterized not only by eschatological aspirations in general, but also by the expectation of deliverance that would be brought in the “end times” by a specific person. For Orthodox Jews, this must have been a descendant of the ancient King David, anointed by God as king (“anointed” in Hebrew mashiach, in Greek Messiah or Christ); it was expected that he would restore a specific state, but not in its previous form, but in the form of an ideal, utopian-just kingdom, accessible only to the righteous who fulfilled the divinely inspired “Law” of the Torah, or the Pentateuch, attributed to Moses. Belief in the coming of the Messiah has been established at least since the 6th century. BC e. It was often believed that before the coming of the Messiah there would be a new appearance of the prophet Elijah, who supposedly did not die, but ascended alive into heaven and could reappear on earth in the “end times.” Other religious and ethical movements of similar origins maintained faith in the future coming of the Messiah, although they viewed it more from a moral aspect. As already mentioned (“The Rise of Ancient Societies,” lecture 20), the Jews believed that Yahweh had entered into a special “covenant” with his people (an agreement, the material sign of which was circumcision: it was supposed to distinguish the worshipers of Yahweh from any other people). New sects and religious movements began to put forward the idea of a New Testament, that is, a new agreement between God and people, based on the higher moral requirements of a single deity for the human person. The idea of such a personal relationship between God and man could not have developed in the chaotic mythological world of Greco-Roman culture - it could only have developed on the basis of monotheism, faith in one god, with whom man finds himself face to face. Monotheism actually existed in the 1st century. BC e. - I century n. e. only in teachings developed on biblical soil. In addition, it was here that the most dramatic clash with the official ideology of the Roman Empire inevitably took place: monotheism was absolutely incompatible with the ideological justification of the empire - the cult of the emperor as one of the “deities.”
2. COMPOSITION OF SOURCES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EARLY STAGES OF THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
The genesis of Christianity belongs to the problems that can be posed by historical science on two different levels - a more general one and a narrower one. The elevation of eschatologism to a new quality and at the same time its overcoming, which led to the emergence of Christianity, was due to the socio-psychological situation of the Roman Empire. To systematically trace this conditionality means to solve the problem of the emergence of Christianity in a broad sense. The material for solving the problem in this regard is more than abundant: in fact, this is the entire body of available data about everyday life, spiritual anxiety, and ideological quests of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire at the beginning of our era.
It is a completely different matter to pose the problem of the genesis of Christianity in a narrow sense, that is, to reconstruct the actual history of unnoticeable events in Palestine in the 1st century. n. e., which served as the beginning of the Christian movement itself. As has been noted more than once by many Soviet historians, the question of the factual reliability of this or that event or the historicity of this or that person is not an ideological, but a factual question. It is as such that it must be resolved. But at the same time, it is useful to recall how Engels, who himself developed the problem of the origin of Christianity exclusively in a broad sense, protested against Bruno Bauer’s attempt to completely remove the formulation of this problem in a narrow sense: “Of course, Bauer, like everyone who fights deep-rooted prejudices, in many ways went far over the edge. In order to establish, on the basis of literary sources, the influence of Philo and especially Seneca on the emerging Christianity, and to present the New Testament writers as direct plagiarists of the mentioned philosophers, Bauer had to attribute the emergence of the new religion to fifty years later, discard the messages of Roman historians that do not agree with this, and generally allow himself greater liberties in telling the story. In his opinion, Christianity as such arose only under the emperors of the Flavian dynasty, and New Testament literature only under Hadrian, Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius. As a result of this, Bauer also disappears any historical basis for the New Testament stories about Jesus and his disciples; these tales turn into legends in which the phases of the internal development of the first communities and the spiritual struggle within these communities are transferred to more or less fictitious personalities.”
It should be noted that until the 60s, a significant part of Soviet researchers, captured by the fervor of the struggle against “inveterate prejudices,” followed Bauer rather than Engels, even exaggerating the overexposure of Bauer, who was “over the edge.” So, for example, if for Bauer the New Testament authors are “real plagiarists” of earlier writers - Philo (d. about 40 AD) and Seneca (d. 65 AD), then for R. Y. Vipper are plagiarists of Plutarch (d. after 119 AD), which is much more strange from the point of view of chronology, and in other respects.
Over time, the accumulation of new material (in particular, the Qumran discoveries, the finds in Egypt of fragments of the gospels dating back to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, the general development of scientific theories of myth-making) created the preconditions for a more strict attitude to the facts and the gospel tradition; this is felt, in particular, in the latest works of I. D. Amusin, M. M. Kublanov, I. S. Sventsitskaya, A. Ch. Kozarzhevsky.
F. Engels, who criticized the Tübingen school for preserving all the gospel stories, discarding only miracles, and Bruno Bauer for his hypercriticism, wrote that between these boundaries lies the truth and that “new discoveries, especially in Rome, in the East and above all, in Egypt they will help in this matter much more than any criticism.” Discoveries made in the post-war years justify these words of F. Engels.
For a historian, generalizing schemes and fundamental structures can never replace the specificity of facts and personalities. The formulation of the problem of the genesis of Christianity in a broad sense does not negate the formulation of this problem in a narrow sense. However, with the sources in the second case the situation is much less favorable than in the first.
Of course, reports about Jesus of Nazareth and his first followers coming from “outside” and to that extent more or less “uninterested” witnesses—Roman chroniclers of the first half and mid-1st century—would be of particular value. n. e. Unfortunately, all relevant historiography of the early empire, preceding Tacitus and Suetonius, has been lost (with the sole exception of the concise work of Velleius Paterculus, which was also sketched too early - in 29).
Mention of Christianity in Tacitus is interspersed in the story of the famous fire of Rome under Nero in 64 AD. e., giving rise to rumors of deliberate arson. “And so Nero, in order to overcome rumors, found the guilty and subjected to the most sophisticated executions those who, with their abominations, had brought upon themselves universal hatred and whom the crowd called Christians. Christ, from whose name this name comes, was executed under Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; suppressed for a while, this harmful superstition began to break out again, and not only in Judea, where this destruction came from, but also in Rome, where everything that is most vile and shameful flocks from everywhere and where it finds adherents.” After this, the historian describes the executions of Christians, framed as a spectacle. There is no reason to consider this place to be fraudulent or even interpolated. Another question is what information it contains. According to reliable information available to Tacitus, by 64, Christianity existed, reached Rome and was already so well known to the capital's inhabitants that it could be useful for official propaganda as a political scapegoat. All this in itself is important. However, does this message provide information about the beginning of the Christian movement? Tacitus wrote in 116-117. During these years, that Christianity originated in Judea, that its founder was a certain “Christ”, executed by the Roman authorities, and that the procurator Pontius Pilate played some role in this execution, one could hear from the first Christian he met (and after all Tacitus Pliny the Younger personally interrogated Christians in Bithynia). The Annals of Tacitus are a much more valuable source for the history of the Roman stage of Christianity than for the history of its Palestinian stage.
The same applies to an even greater extent to Suetonius’s message about the Emperor Claudius: “He expelled the Jews, constantly agitated by Chrest, from Rome.” Because of this "Crest", about which Suetonius knows nothing more, there was unrest in the Roman Jewish community under Claudius.
This time we learn that, apparently, not only Nero but also his predecessor Claudius had to to some extent reckon with the fact of the messianic movement of the followers of Jesus. It is worth recalling the rescript of the same emperor Claudius dated 41 to the Alexandrians, the text of which was discovered on papyrus found in 1920 in Egypt. The emperor, in somewhat dark terms, forbids the Jews of Alexandria to invite Jews from Syria and Egypt, who spread “as if some common ailment to the entire universe.”
The interpretation of this rescript is controversial; one cannot be completely sure that it refers specifically to Christianity; but he, in any case, speaks of the spread from Syria and Egypt of teachings associated with the biblical tradition and dangerous for the empire. In this sense, the evidence of the rescript coincides with Suetonius’ message about the spread of Christianity under Claudius; but all this, unfortunately, still cannot give us information about the Palestinian origins of Christianity themselves.
It is natural to turn to the historian of Palestine Josephus (37 - about 100). In his “Antiquities of the Jews” (XX, 199-201), under the year 62, it is reported about the murder of James, “the brother of Jesus, called Christ,” and there is a section about Jesus himself (XVIII, 63-64); This section immediately sharply disappoints the researcher: it strikes the eye with statements about the messianic dignity and even the divinity of Jesus, which cannot in any way belong to a believing Jew, like Joseph, but only to a believing Christian, which he by no means was. Of course, the section is spoiled by alterations and insertions (interpolations) of Christian scribes; but is it correct to consider it in its entirety as one large interpolation, or can we try to isolate its true core, discarding the layers? This question, until recently, was the subject of heated, but rather inconclusive debate, until in 1971 the semitologist S. Pines proved with the help of strict philological analysis that the original original text was preserved in the Middle Ages in the Middle Eastern manuscript tradition thanks to an early translation of the Antiquities of the Jews. into Syriac from the original, which has not yet undergone Christian revision. This Syriac translation of Joseph's message about Jesus was preserved for science by a quotation from it (in Arabic) in the “World History” (“Kitab al-unwan”) by the Christian historian of the 10th century. Agania with direct reference to Josephus. The passage we are interested in reads like this:
“...At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His lifestyle was commendable and he was famous for his virtue; and many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death; however, those who became his disciples did not renounce their apprenticeship. They said that he appeared to them on the third day after his crucifixion and was alive. In accordance with this, he was the Messiah, about whom the prophets foretold miracles...”
Unlike the Greek text reworked by a Christian editor, there is no doubt about the humanity of Jesus, no mention of his miracles, no attribution of responsibility for his death to the Jewish elders (contrary to the general trend of the writings of Josephus); as for the resurrection of Jesus and his messianic dignity, they are entirely left to the conscience of Jesus' disciples. This voice is not hostile, but alien to Christianity. In other words, all obstacles to considering the entire section in this form as the original text of Josephus (with a discount, of course, for insignificant deformations that arose during the sequential translation from Greek into Syriac and from Syriac into Arabic) disappear.
The other of Josephus's two major works, The Jewish War, was written in two versions: in Greek, with a Roman audience in mind, and in Aramaic, with a Jewish audience in mind. Only the Greek version has survived, in which Christianity is never mentioned, which in itself is quite understandable: the official historiographer of the Flavian dynasty, proving to the Greek-speaking reader the historical correctness of the empire and the political harmlessness of Judaism, had no need to dwell on messianic movements. As for the ancient Slavic translation of “The Jewish War,” which may at least partially go back to the Aramaic original and conveys colorful details about the political background of the speech and death of Jesus, the problem of this translation is one of the most interesting, but also the most controversial problems of source study. It is not yet time to formulate its results.
Allegorical references to Jesus and early Palestinian Christians ( mines- “heretics”, “renegades”) in the Talmud represent a rather late (2nd-5th centuries AD) record of the peculiar “folklore” of rabbinical schools over half a millennium. Oral tradition has its own properties: it very easily distorts facts, but sometimes very tenaciously retains the image. The anecdotes and rumors about the beginning of Christianity recorded in the Talmud are no different in this respect from all other anecdotes and rumors. The data reported in them should neither be overestimated nor rejected entirely.
Christian literature of the first decades survived mainly as part of a canonical collection called the “New Testament”; it is a body of religious writings, selected by the church from among similar ones as the most adequate expression of the new faith, added to the Septuagint and together with it constituting the Christian Bible. The selection of the New Testament canon mainly occurred in the 2nd century, but was completed only by the end of the 4th century. It includes 27 works of various genres: four “Gospels”, the adjacent “Acts of the Apostles”, 21 “epistles” (teachings in epistolary form), of which 14 belong or are attributed by tradition to the Apostle Paul, and the rest to the Apostles Peter (two) , John the Theologian (three), James and Jude (one each), and, finally, “The Revelation of John the Theologian”, or “Apocalypse” - a fantastic picture of the coming end of the world. All these works are preserved in Greek, the international language of the Eastern Mediterranean; where tradition reports a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) original, as in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, this original has been lost.
The four “Gospels” are compiled in the form of a story about the life and preaching of Jesus, about his death and resurrection. The shortest and perhaps the oldest "Gospel of Mark" says nothing either about the origin, or about the childhood and youth of its hero; the story begins directly with the fact that the ascetic and hermit John the Baptist (not to be confused with John the Theologian, a disciple of Jesus, who is credited with the authorship of a number of New Testament texts) preaches repentance and baptizes his followers in the Jordan River (i.e. their ritual ablution, rooted in Jewish religious traditions), while predicting the coming of a “stronger” than himself; as if in response to these words, Jesus comes from Galilee to John and is baptized. At the very moment of the ritual, Jesus (according to another interpretation of the text - John) has a vision: the heavens open above him, the Spirit of God (mentioned in the Old Testament, but neither there nor in the New Testament is not yet recognized as one of the three hypostases of the Divine, as later among Christians ) descends to him in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven affirms Jesus in the messianic-royal title of “Son of God.” Having prepared for forty days of solitude in the desert, Jesus returns to his native Galilee in the north of Palestine and begins his sermon with the announcement of the messianic time (“the times are fulfilled,” “the kingdom of God is at hand,” “repent!”). The calling of his first disciples is described ( apostles- Greek " messengers ") from among the fishermen of Lake Tiberias, his wanderings, mainly in Galilee, the miracles he performed. Little is said about the teachings of Jesus in this Gospel. A constant motive is clashes with Jewish orthodoxies from among the dominant religious movements of the Pharisees and Sadducees (and partly with the disciples of John the “Baptist”), due to the fact that Jesus, firstly, shows ease in relation to the prohibitions of Jewish religious practice (for example, he violates a prescription for absolute inaction on the Sabbath), secondly, it claims the right to forgive people their sins, which supposedly belongs only to God, and, thirdly, it supports “defiling” communication with outcast sinners. Next, a miraculous vision is told: having climbed with three chosen disciples to the “high mountain” (identified by later tradition with Mount Tabor, in another pronunciation - Tabor), Jesus appeared to them “transformed”, in shining clothes, and in front of their eyes he talked with Moses and Elijah - the legendary prophets of antiquity. After this are the sayings of Jesus condemning wealth and affirming selfless readiness for voluntary suffering as the decisive criterion of spiritual life. Finally, on the eve of the main Jewish holiday - Passover - Jesus approaches Jerusalem, enters this city on a accidentally found donkey, receives greetings from the crowd, turning to him with ritual exclamations as the king-messiah, and imperiously expels the money changers and traders of sacrificial animals. The “sent” people ask him a dangerous question; Is it permissible to pay taxes to the emperor? (If Jesus answers in the negative, he will expose himself as an instigator of resistance; if he answers in the affirmative, he will antagonize the freedom-loving “zealots” of the faith.) Jesus asks for a Roman coin and asks whose image and whose name are minted on it. This question already contains the answer: “Return what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and what is God’s to God.” Following this, Jesus predicts the failure of the Jewish liberation struggle and the destruction of Jerusalem; he also rejects the traditional designation of the messiah as the “son of David,” thus transferring the concept of the messiah from the realm of politics to the realm of religion. All this does not save him from mortal danger: the elders decide to bring him to the court of the Sanhedrin, in order to then hand him over for execution to the Roman authorities (the Sanhedrin was deprived of the right to sentence him to death). Jesus, in the circle of twelve closest disciples, secretly celebrates the rite of the Passover dinner (the so-called Last Supper), during which he predicts that one of the disciples will betray him, and then serves bread and wine to the disciples, calling them his body and his blood, and likening himself to the sacrificial Easter lamb (a prototype of the Christian Eucharist- “participles”). He spends the night with his disciples on the Mount of Olives on the outskirts of Jerusalem, “is horrified and sad,” asks the three most chosen apostles to stay awake with him and in mortal anguish turns to God with the prayer: “Abba Father! Everything is possible for you; carry this cup past me! But let it not be as I want, but as you want.” After this, one of the disciples, named Judas Iscariot, comes along with armed adherents of the Jewish elders; he comes up to Jesus and kisses him - this is a sign of who needs to be captured. The disciples scatter, Jesus is taken to the court of the Sanhedrin, where he confirms his claim to messianic dignity, for which the elders pronounce him a (preliminary) death sentence. Early in the morning, Jesus is taken to the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, to confirm the verdict. Pilate asks Jesus if he considers himself the king of the Jews, and receives an affirmative answer. However, Pilate clearly doubts the political seriousness of the case and is not averse to saving the unusual prisoner. According to custom, one convicted person could be pardoned for the Easter holiday; Pilate offers Jesus, but the crowd demands to have mercy instead of a certain Barabbas, “who committed murder during the rebellion.” Jesus faces the fate of the powerless - corporal punishment and then crucifixion. He is taken to the place of execution (Golgotha) and crucified between two robbers. His suffering on the cross for six hours and his last words are described: this is a quotation from a biblical psalm (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”), given not in Greek, like the rest of the text, and not in Hebrew, as in the original psalm, and in Jesus’ native Galilean-Aramaic dialect: “ elohi, elohi, lamma shebaktani?“The body of Jesus was given to a noble Jew and hastily buried in a stone sarcophagus, in a cave, in the presence of two followers of Jesus. The next day was Easter Saturday - a day when, according to Jewish beliefs, you can’t do anything and you can’t go anywhere. When, at the end of the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene and two other women (“myrrh-bearers”) came to wash and anoint the body of Jesus with incense, the sarcophagus turned out to be empty, and on its edge sat “a young man dressed in a white robe,” who said that Jesus was from Nazareth “has risen and is no longer here” and that the disciples will see him in Galilee. The women left in amazement and fear. The following text is not contained in all manuscripts, and many researchers consider it inauthentic. Briefly relates the appearances of Jesus to Mary Magdalene and “in another form” to two unnamed disciples; Both times those who saw it were not trusted. At the end, another appearance is depicted before all eleven apostles, after which they go to preach the new faith to the world. This is where the Gospel of Mark ends.
The other gospels add new features to the story. Apparently, one of the main obstacles to the Jews recognizing Jesus as the messiah was his humble origins from the family of a Galilean carpenter. Therefore, the “Gospel of Matthew” and the “Gospel of Luke” offer lists of Jesus’ ancestors, tracing him back to King David and the ancestor Abraham. The carpenter Joseph turns out to be an impoverished scion of the royal family. It is further emphasized that the birth of Jesus, by a special coincidence, took place not in the unknown Galilean Nazareth, but in the “David” city of Bethlehem, with which ancient prophecies about the Messiah were associated. Both gospels tell us that Jesus was miraculously conceived and born of a virgin mother; The “betrothed” (fictitious husband) of the Virgin Mary - Joseph was only the adoptive father of the mysterious baby, he adopted him as a descendant of the ancient Davidic dynasty. The “Gospel of Matthew” tells of astrologers from Mesopotamia (“magi”) who were led by a star to bow to the newborn messiah, the “Gospel of Luke” tells of the Bethlehem shepherds who were taught to worship the baby by an angel who appeared to them. The biography of Jesus in both of these evangelists is generally similar to that given in Mark, although the order of events is somewhat different, the detail is more detailed, and more space is given to the miraculous.
But the main difference is that these gospels contain a large number of aphorisms and parables (ancient Heb. mashalim) attributed to Jesus. The so-called Sermon on the Mount is given in particular detail in the “Gospel of Matthew”; it contains the ethical and religious program of Christianity.
In place of the ancient ethic of love for “brothers”, for “one’s own” by blood, a universalist ideal of love for all people, embracing friends and enemies, has been put in place; in place of the commandment of retribution - the commandment of forgiveness; in place of the principle of business concern is the requirement to despise all earthly concerns, not think about tomorrow and wait for the “end times.” There are especially many parables in the “Gospel of Luke,” and among them is such a well-known one as the parable of the Prodigal Son, illustrating the idea of forgiveness open to the sinner.
As for the Gospel of John, its life story of Jesus differs significantly from that offered in the first three gospels, so much so that it is difficult, even impossible, to reconcile it with the narrative of the first three gospels. The events mentioned here are completely different, the action takes place mainly in Judea and especially in Jerusalem, and not in Galilee. It is the Gospel of John that essentially first emphasizes the divinity of Jesus. This gospel is preceded by a theological prologue that sounds like a hymn, which talks about “Logos” (ancient Greek “word”, “thought”, “meaning”) as the second person of God, who existed before the beginning of time and was incarnated in Jesus. This prologue is the beginning of Christian theology.
The meaningful name of the canonical Christian collection “New Testament,” which includes other parts in addition to the gospels, is due to the complex evolution of ideas. As already mentioned, Judaism is based on the idea of a “union” or “agreement” (“covenant”) between God and man (or a community of people), by virtue of which man accepts the commandments of God and does his will on earth, and God protects man and leads him to salvation. The term “New Alliance” (“New Testament”) is found in the 6th century. BC e. in the prophet Jeremiah (chapter 31, v. 31); then, most importantly, it served as the self-name of the Qumran community of the Essenes (II century BC - 1st century AD). Christianity lived by the belief that the new union of God with people was achieved as a result of the reconciliatory mission and sacrificial death of Christ. Unlike the Qumran sect, in the everyday language of Christianity, the term “New Testament” began to be applied not to the community itself, but to the sum of canonical texts, in which they saw new commandments replacing the “old” Mosaic “Law” (Torah). The word “new,” which is included in the designation of the most revered book of Christians, perfectly conveys the eschatological historicism of early Christian religiosity; members of Christian communities hoped for cosmic renewal and themselves felt like “new people” who had entered into a “renewed life.”
Each gospel included in the New Testament is not only a story, but a “message”, not only a life story of Jesus, but first of all a sermon about Christ, the Son of God. Gospel texts were primarily intended for religious readings and recitations at community meetings, for worship; their composition was determined by the logic of liturgical (liturgical) thinking, and the verbal fabric was determined by liturgical rhythm.
The most characteristic in this regard is the “Gospel of John.” In general, the myth of early Christianity without rituals and sacraments does not correspond to historical reality. The external primitiveness and poverty of the rituals of the young and persecuted church was combined with the fact that the very word of the Gospel texts, also very simple and raw, was perceived in its internal setting as a ritual, liturgical (liturgical) word, a verbal “action” and “sacrament”. Such a word was given a special place in life, which source analysis must constantly take into account.
The first three gospels, which, due to the commonality of the material, are usually called “synoptic” in contrast to the fourth, are not as intensely liturgical in each of their phrases as the “Gospel of John,” and the “Gospel of Luke” even reveals a conscious orientation towards the standards and norms of the “secular » Hellenistic historiography; however, they also involve memorization, rhythmic, chanted recitation and slow delving into individual units of the text rather than the usual reading comprehension for us. This makes them similar to other “sacred” books of the East, for example, the Koran (the Arabic name itself expresses the idea of reading out loud), the Vedas, and the texts of the Buddhist canon.
An important source study problem is the clarification of the relative and absolute chronology of the Gospel texts, as well as their dependence or independence from each other. By the beginning of the 20th century. a scheme was developed that still serves, with certain modifications, as a starting point for many researchers: the “Gospel of Mark” and a hypothetical, artificially reconstructed text under the code designation Q (from German. Quelle- “source”) are considered as the basis on which the “Gospels” of Matthew and Luke are built, and the sayings of Jesus, common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark, go back to Q. It is assumed that the "Gospel of Mark" and Q arose before the fall of Jerusalem in 70, the "Gospels" of Matthew and Luke - between 70-90, the "Gospel of John" - between 90 and 120 (the latest dating is supported by the discovery in Egypt of a papyrus fragment of the fourth gospel, which dates back to the first third of the 2nd century).
The question of the dating of the New Testament texts and their connection with the Palestinian stage of Christianity will, no doubt, be revised more than once in connection with new publications of the Qumran texts and new archaeological discoveries.
3. THE GOSPEL NARRATOR AND THE PROBLEM OF ITS RELIABILITY
Since science, not bound by religious doctrine, has no grounds to a priori accept or a priori reject the Gospel story in every detail, it faces the problem of criticizing the source.
In searching for a real basis for such criticism, it is necessary to remember that the texts of the gospels are by no means the fruit of free literary or religious-philosophical creativity. Already in the very process of their formation, they were strictly tied to a very specific utilitarian task: to serve as a consolidation and auxiliary tool for the preaching from which they were generated.
A practical conclusion follows from this: it is advisable to try to highlight in the Gospel narrative such moments that, due to their associations, actually accessible to people of that era and one way or another emerging in the texts, could only hinder the work of Christian propaganda and compromise the sermon itself. If this can be done, it is obvious that the totality of the indicated points will provide that minimum of absolutely uninvented facts (reliable by their disadvantage) that history, not bound by religious dogmas, is obliged to accept. Of course, not every genuine fact must necessarily be inconvenient for the doctrine being propagated, but every inconvenient message must go back to a genuine fact, for the herald of Christian teaching was not in a position to put the burden of these inconveniences on his neck except under the pressure of the truth .
It is advisable to use as fully as possible the still insufficiently appreciated method of finding out exactly which points of the Gospel narrative were inconvenient. To do this, you need to establish what caused the desire to retroactively “fix” it. This possibility is connected with the consideration of the gospels against the background of apocrypha, apologetic interpretations and similar somewhat later literature. To determine what the canonical gospels are, it is useful to first understand what they are not, and there is no better way to do this than to feel the contrast between them and the apocrypha. In the apocrypha (as later in the lives of the apostles and saints), the unrestrained element of Hellenistic aretalogy (the genre of stories of miracles) and eastern myth (and sometimes, as in the stories of “Thomas the Israelite” about the childhood of Jesus, and eastern fairy tales) reigns. Fantasy works in them just as unhindered - and sometimes with the same strange conviction - as in dreams: what is the story of the “Acts of the Apostle John” about how Christ grows his head to the sky like a giant, and after that turns into a dwarf and pinches painfully stumped John by the chin, saying with a mysterious look: “John, do not be an unbeliever, but a believer and do not be clever!” The same apocrypha describes how one of the apostles sees Christ in the form of a stately man, and the other apostle - at the same time in the form of a baby. Even in the restrained “Gospel of the Jews” one could read that the Holy Spirit carried Jesus by one hair through the air to Mount Tabor, and in the “Gospel of Peter”, so close in time and style to the canonical ones, the cross itself walks and speaks. In the apocrypha, unbelief is immediately put to shame: the hand of the daring midwife, who doubted Mary’s virginity, withers; the slave who hit the Apostle Thomas at the feast is torn to pieces even before the end of this feast; and even the boy who broke the dam that little Jesus had built is stricken with the disease. The eternal human dream of compensation for humiliation is fulfilled in apocrypha, exactly as in dreams.
Reading the apocrypha, we see what the canonical gospels would have been like if the evangelist had told events the way he, his listeners and his readers wanted. Here's one example. In the Gospel of Mark we read the astonishing testimony that in Nazareth, where Jesus was greeted with distrust as an all too familiar fellow countryman, he “could perform no miracle... and marveled at their unbelief” (ch. 6, p. 5). This alone is enough to highly appreciate the narrator’s conscientiousness and understand that he is, in any case, not a mythographer here. What we have before us is not some particularly tactful and restrained application of the guidelines of the aretalogy genre, but a certain opposite of these guidelines: it turns out that although the miracles of Jesus are real for believers, exactly where it would be needed in order to, according to all the rules, shame non-believers, shut up their mouths, to force them to believe by a spectacular, demonstrative miracle, it just isn’t there, it disappears somewhere.
Of course, the point is not at all that the evangelical stories are any more plausible than the apocryphal ones. The element of miracle plays a very important role in the canonical gospels: Jesus is described in them as miraculously born, miraculously transformed, miraculously healed, and miraculously resurrected. However, the story of the birth of Christ, present only in Matthew and Luke, has its own special flavor, which in no way characterizes the gospel narrative as a whole. The gospel could, in principle, do without this element, as can be seen in the example of the other two evangelists; on the contrary, it could not do without miraculous healings and the miracle of resurrection. But we must distinguish between miracles of a fairy-tale-mythological nature and the transformation by rumor of certain accomplished events into miracles. There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in popular memory as a miracle worker. History knows a number of well-attested cases when people, in the historical reality of which there is not the slightest doubt, with complete sincerity and seriousness considered themselves and were considered by others to be miracle workers, heart experts, mind readers, etc. (remember, for example, the French folk heroine Joan of Arc). Of course, in treating Jesus as a “miracle worker,” evangelists may from time to time speak in the conventional language of established genres, and relevant cases have long been noted. But when the question arises about the originality of the gospels and the reliability of the gospel story, what is important is not what features of aretalogy are in the gospels, but what features of this genre are absolutely not there. And in this sense, one phrase of the “Gospel of Mark” about how the miracle worker “failed” to perform a miracle in front of his everyday-minded fellow countrymen - not that he did not want, but simply could not - is more important than many supernatural episodes, for it tangibly reveals the border of pious stylization, the limit set by reality.
The authors of all four gospels, as well as their fellow believers in general, are firmly convinced of the bodily resurrection of Jesus after death; they could say in the language of Paul's epistles: “If Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain” (“I Epistle to the Corinthians,” chapter 15, article 14). However, this characterizes precisely the faith of the evangelists, but not their story in its strictly historical aspect. To characterize the latter, it is important to note that in none of the four gospels is the “event” of the resurrection itself described (unlike the apocrypha of Peter and Nicodemus, where it is depicted how angels lead Christ out of the tomb, with the heads of the angels reaching to heaven, and the head Christ exceeds the vault of heaven). The Gospel story at first records only the empty tomb, and later - the appearance of Christ to the disciples, and for faith this means the resurrection, for unbelief - not (from the Gospel story itself we learn that the empty tomb was immediately interpreted by the official authorities of Jerusalem as a staging - the disciples de stole the body; as for “appearances” and “visions”, in ancient times they were often witnessed among certain groups of the population, excited by some real events). As preachers, evangelists proclaim and vouch for their faith; but as storytellers in the proper sense of the word, they act here as elsewhere - they do not give free rein to their imagination. Even in the story of the resurrection we are not dealing with a mythological epic: the triumph of Jesus over hostile forces remains obvious only to those who believe, but is devoid of evidence and demonstrativeness, devoid of clarity.
Against the background of the general picture of the complete external failure of the work of Jesus, which ended with his condemnation by the legal authorities of both the Jewish community and the Roman state, shameful humiliation and death, a number of details can be noted, less striking for our perception, but then quite important; It would be at least unreasonable for the writers of myths to invent them. This is, firstly, the origin of Jesus from Galilee. From the point of view of Jewish theological wisdom, “Gentile Galilee” was inhabited by not very highly moral and not even very smart people ( gelilaa shota- “a stupid, Galilean,” says the Talmud.) Galilean Tivernade, in the vicinity of which the gospel events take place, is a new building of Herod Antipas, named after the reigning emperor Tiberius and at first inhabited mainly by pagans. The lakeside town of Capernaum, chosen by Jesus for the first messianic appearances, is never mentioned in the Old Testament and only once accidentally named in the autobiography of Josephus. And Nazareth, the birthplace of Jesus, is not mentioned anywhere at all - neither in the biblical texts, nor in Josephus, nor in the Talmudic literature (this led to the fact that some scholars generally considered Nazareth an invention of the evangelists, based on the false etymology of the nickname “Nazarene”, which means a person who accepted certain ritual and ascetic prohibitions; however, science has now proven the existence of Nazareth already in the 1st century BC - 1st century AD).
Whether Jesus, by a special coincidence of circumstances, was really born in the legendary Bethlehem, the city of messianic prophecies associated with the memory of King David, science cannot know, and this is not of interest to it. But there is no doubt that his childhood and youth passed in an unknown Galilean town, simply because inventing such details is almost impossible, because it contradicts the interests of the narrators, and this is important for the historian, since it makes it possible to concretize ideas about the ethnic and social environment from which Jesus came out.
Recognition of the historicity of Jesus has nothing to do with the question of the existence of God, with atheism, but it allows us to introduce the particular circumstances of the emergence of an important factor in human history, which was Christianity, into the specific framework of social conditions of a certain place and time.
The arguments we presented above do not convince all Marxist historians. However, from our point of view, there are no serious reasons to doubt that in the first half of the 1st century. n. e. in Palestine, mainly in Galilee, there was a wandering “teacher” named Jesus (Yeshua), who in his lifestyle and social status had much in common with the rabbis of his era, but also with ascetics of the Essene type, although he himself was not part of any circle rabbis, not into any sectarian-ascetic “order” like the Qumran community;
that the environment from which he came and which was the first to accept his preaching were the poor people of Galilee, who, along with the general socio-economic oppression of Rome and their own rich people, were also subject to spiritual pressure from Jerusalem and just in the 1st century. n. e. who gave birth to many freedom lovers and rebels, for example from the Zealots sect;
that at the beginning of his activity he came to John the “Baptist” and allowed the main rite of the “baptismal” community to be performed on him, thereby demonstrating fundamental solidarity with its eschatological aspirations and moral principles;
that after this he founded his own community and declared himself (or allowed himself to be declared) the bearer and herald of the coming messianic time;
that his preaching, directed primarily to the poor and receiving the greatest response among them, fundamentally addressed all categories of Palestinian society, allowing him, in contrast to the Pharisees and Essenes, also “unclean”, religiously rejected persons, which is why his followers were able to convert his preaching to the non-Jews and turn the local Galilean movement into a world religion of the Mediterranean;
finally, that he was executed by the Roman authorities as a result of a conspiracy between them and the Jerusalem elite, so that the political condemnation of Jesus by the Romans was preceded by his religious condemnation by Sanhedrine(Sanhedrin).
This is the case with the existing tradition about the events before the execution of Jesus. The preaching of Jesus became the seed of a teaching that developed further on Greco-Roman soil (see details in lecture 18).
It is difficult to find a religion that would so powerfully influence the fate of humanity as Christianity did. It would seem that the emergence of Christianity has been studied quite well. An unlimited amount of material has been written about this. Church authors, historians, philosophers, and representatives of biblical criticism worked in this field. This is understandable, because we were talking about the greatest phenomenon, under the influence of which modern Western civilization actually took shape. However, one of the three world religions still holds many secrets.
Emergence
The creation and development of a new world religion has a complicated history. The emergence of Christianity is shrouded in secrets, legends, assumptions and assumptions. Not much is known about the establishment of this doctrine, which today is professed by a quarter of the world's population (about 1.5 billion people). This can be explained by the fact that in Christianity, much more clearly than in Buddhism or Islam, there is a supernatural principle, belief in which usually gives rise to not only reverence, but also skepticism. Therefore, the history of the issue was subject to significant falsification by various ideologists.
In addition, the emergence of Christianity and its spread was explosive. The process was accompanied by active religious, ideological and political struggle, which significantly distorted the historical truth. Disputes on this issue continue to this day.
Birth of the Savior
The emergence and spread of Christianity is associated with the birth, deeds, death and resurrection of just one person - Jesus Christ. The basis of the new religion was the belief in the divine Savior, whose biography is presented mainly in the Gospels - four canonical and numerous apocryphal ones.
The emergence of Christianity is described in sufficient detail in church literature. Let us briefly try to convey the main events recorded in the Gospels. They claim that in the city of Nazareth (Galilee), the Archangel Gabriel appeared to a simple girl (“virgin”) Mary and announced the upcoming birth of a son, but not from an earthly father, but from the Holy Spirit (God).
Mary gave birth to this son during the time of the Jewish king Herod and the Roman emperor Augustus in the city of Bethlehem, where she went with her husband, the carpenter Joseph, to participate in the census. The shepherds, notified by the angels, welcomed the baby, who received the name Jesus (the Greek form of the Hebrew "Yeshua", which means "God the savior", "God saves me").
By the movement of the stars in the sky, the eastern sages - the Magi - learned about this event. Following the star, they found a house and a baby, in whom they recognized Christ (“the anointed one,” “messiah”), and presented him with gifts. Then the family, saving the child from the maddened King Herod, went to Egypt, returning and settled in Nazareth.
The apocryphal Gospels tell numerous details about the life of Jesus at that time. But the canonical Gospels reflect only one episode from his childhood - a trip to Jerusalem for a holiday.
Acts of the Messiah
Growing up, Jesus adopted his father’s experience, became a mason and carpenter, and after Joseph’s death he fed and took care of the family. When Jesus was 30 years old, he met John the Baptist and was baptized in the Jordan River. Subsequently, he gathered 12 disciples-apostles (“envoys”) and, walking with them for 3.5 years around the cities and villages of Palestine, preached a completely new, peace-loving religion.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus established moral principles that became the basis for the worldview of the new era. At the same time, he performed various miracles: he walked on water, raised the dead with the touch of his hand (three such cases are recorded in the Gospels), and healed the sick. He could also calm a storm, turn water into wine, and feed 5,000 people with “five loaves and two fishes.” However, Jesus was going through a difficult time. The emergence of Christianity is associated not only with miracles, but also with the suffering that he experienced later.
Persecution of Jesus
No one perceived Jesus as the Messiah, and his family even decided that he had “lost his temper,” that is, he had become frantic. Only during the Transfiguration did Jesus' disciples understand his greatness. But Jesus’ preaching activities irritated the high priests in charge of the Jerusalem Temple, who declared him a false messiah. After the Last Supper, which took place in Jerusalem, Jesus was betrayed by one of his disciples-followers, Judas, for 30 pieces of silver.
Jesus, like any person, in addition to divine manifestations, felt pain and fear, so he experienced the “passion” with anguish. Captured on the Mount of Olives, he was convicted by the Jewish religious court - the Sanhedrin - and sentenced to death. The sentence was confirmed by the governor of Rome, Pontius Pilate. During the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, Christ was subjected to martyrdom - crucifixion. At the same time, miracles happened again: earthquakes swept through, the sun darkened, and according to legend, “coffins opened” - some of the dead were resurrected.
Resurrection
Jesus was buried, but on the third day he rose again and soon appeared to the disciples. According to the canons, he ascended to heaven on a cloud, promising to return later to resurrect the dead, to condemn the actions of everyone at the Last Judgment, to cast sinners into hell to eternal torment, and to lift the righteous to eternal life in “mountainous” Jerusalem, the heavenly Kingdom of God. We can say that from this moment an amazing story begins - the emergence of Christianity. The believing apostles spread the new teaching throughout Asia Minor, the Mediterranean and other regions.
The founding day of the Church was the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles 10 days after the Ascension, thanks to which the apostles had the opportunity to preach a new teaching in all parts of the Roman Empire.
Secrets of history
How the emergence and development of Christianity proceeded at an early stage is not known for certain. We know what the authors of the Gospels - the apostles - told about. But the Gospels differ, and significantly, regarding the interpretation of the image of Christ. In John, Jesus is God in human form, the divine nature is emphasized by the author in every possible way, and Matthew, Mark and Luke attributed to Christ the qualities of an ordinary person.
The existing Gospels are written in Greek, a language common in the Hellenistic world, while the real Jesus and his early followers (Judeo-Christians) lived and operated in a different cultural environment, communicating in Aramaic, a language common in Palestine and the Middle East. Unfortunately, not a single Christian document in Aramaic has survived, although early Christian authors mention the Gospels written in this language.
After the ascension of Jesus, the sparks of the new religion seemed to fade away, since there were no educated preachers among his followers. In fact, it happened that a new faith was established throughout the planet. According to church views, the emergence of Christianity is due to the fact that humanity, having retreated from God and carried away by the illusion of domination over the forces of nature with the help of magic, nevertheless sought the path to God. Society, having gone through a difficult path, has “ripened” to the recognition of a single creator. Scientists also tried to explain the avalanche-like spread of the new religion.
Prerequisites for the emergence of a new religion
Theologians and scientists have been struggling for 2000 years over the phenomenal, rapid spread of a new religion, trying to figure out these reasons. The emergence of Christianity, according to ancient sources, was recorded in the Asia Minor provinces of the Roman Empire and in Rome itself. This phenomenon was due to a number of historical factors:
- Intensifying exploitation of the peoples subjugated and enslaved by Rome.
- Defeats of the slave rebels.
- The crisis of polytheistic religions in Ancient Rome.
- Social need for a new religion.
The beliefs, ideas and ethical principles of Christianity emerged on the basis of certain social relations. In the first centuries AD, the Romans completed their conquest of the Mediterranean. By subjugating states and peoples, Rome simultaneously destroyed their independence and the originality of public life. By the way, in this respect the emergence of Christianity and Islam are somewhat similar. Only the development of two world religions took place against different historical backgrounds.
At the beginning of the 1st century, Palestine also became a province of the Roman Empire. Its inclusion in the world empire led to the integration of Jewish religious and philosophical thought from Greco-Roman thought. Numerous communities of the Jewish Diaspora in different parts of the empire also contributed to this.
Why a new religion spread in record time
A number of researchers consider the emergence of Christianity to be a historical miracle: too many factors coincided for the rapid, “explosive” spread of a new teaching. In fact, it was of great importance that this movement absorbed broad and effective ideological material, which served it to form its own doctrine and cult.
Christianity as a world religion developed gradually under the influence of various movements and beliefs of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Ideas were drawn from religious, literary and philosophical sources. This:
- Jewish messianism.
- Jewish sectarianism.
- Hellenistic syncretism.
- Oriental religions and cults.
- Roman folk cults.
- Cult of the Emperor.
- Mysticism.
- Philosophical ideas.
Fusion of philosophy and religion
Philosophy—skepticism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, and Stoicism—had a significant role in the emergence of Christianity. The “middle Platonism” of Philo from Alexandria also had a noticeable influence. A Jewish theologian, he actually went into the service of the Roman emperor. Through an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, Philo sought to merge the monotheism of the Jewish religion (belief in one god) and elements of Greco-Roman philosophy.
The moral teachings of the Roman Stoic philosopher and writer Seneca were no less influential. He viewed earthly life as a prelude to rebirth in the other world. Seneca considered the main thing for a person to be the acquisition of freedom of spirit through the awareness of divine necessity. This is why later researchers called Seneca the “uncle” of Christianity.
Dating problem
The emergence of Christianity is inextricably linked with the problem of dating events. An indisputable fact is that it arose in the Roman Empire at the turn of our era. But when exactly? And where in the grandiose empire that covered the entire Mediterranean, a significant part of Europe, and Asia Minor?
According to the traditional interpretation, the origin of the basic postulates dates back to the years of Jesus’ preaching activity (30-33 AD). Scholars partially agree with this, but add that the creed was compiled after the execution of Jesus. Moreover, of the four canonically recognized authors of the New Testament, only Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ, were witnesses to events, that is, they were in contact with the direct source of the teaching.
Others (Mark and Luke) have already received some of the information indirectly. It is obvious that the formation of the doctrine extended over time. It `s naturally. After all, after the “revolutionary explosion of ideas” in the time of Christ, there began an evolutionary process of assimilation and development of these ideas by his disciples, who gave the teaching a completed form. This is noticeable when analyzing the New Testament, the writing of which continued until the end of the 1st century. True, there are still different datings of books: Christian tradition limits the writing of sacred texts to a period of 2-3 decades after the death of Jesus, and some researchers extend this process until the middle of the 2nd century.
Historically, it is known that the teachings of Christ spread in Eastern Europe in the 9th century. The new ideology came to Rus' not from any single center, but through different channels:
- from the Black Sea region (Byzantium, Chersonesus);
- because of the Varangian (Baltic) Sea;
- along the Danube.
Archaeologists testify that certain groups of Russians were baptized already in the 9th century, and not in the 10th century, when Vladimir baptized the people of Kiev in the river. Previously, Kyiv was baptized Chersonesus - a Greek colony in Crimea, with which the Slavs maintained close ties. Contacts of the Slavic peoples with the population of ancient Tauris constantly expanded with the development of economic relations. The population constantly participated not only in the material, but also in the spiritual life of the colonies, where the first Christian exiles were sent into exile.
Also possible intermediaries in the penetration of religion into the East Slavic lands could be the Goths, moving from the shores of the Baltic to the Black Sea. Among them, in the 4th century, Christianity in the form of Arianism was spread by Bishop Ulfilas, who translated the Bible into Gothic. Bulgarian linguist V. Georgiev suggests that the Proto-Slavic words “church”, “cross”, “Lord” were probably inherited from the Gothic language.
The third path is the Danube path, which is associated with the enlighteners Cyril and Methodius. The main leitmotif of the Cyril and Methodius teaching was the synthesis of the achievements of Eastern and Western Christianity on the basis of Proto-Slavic culture. Enlighteners created the original Slavic alphabet and translated liturgical and canonical texts. That is, Cyril and Methodius laid the foundations of the church organization in our lands.
The official date of the baptism of Rus' is considered to be 988, when Prince Vladimir I Svyatoslavovich baptized the inhabitants of Kyiv en masse.
Conclusion
The emergence of Christianity cannot be briefly described. Too many historical mysteries, religious and philosophical disputes revolve around this issue. However, more important is the idea conveyed by this teaching: philanthropy, compassion, helping one's neighbor, condemnation of shameful acts. It doesn’t matter how a new religion was born, what matters is what it brought into our world: faith, hope, love.
The reasons for the emergence of a new religion - Christianity. Rome, having conquered many peoples, established such oppression over them as people had never known before. But it was especially difficult for the Jews who inhabited the Roman province of Syria and Palestine. Part of this province was the former state of the Jews of Judea. All means of the struggle for liberation have already been tried, but have not yielded tangible results. However, there was one last thing left: hope in God Yahweh. The Jews believed that he would not abandon them and would free them from Roman oppression.
Jesus Christ and his teachings. The Jews believed that Jesus Christ was sent by God specifically to them, and not to other nations, because most Jews did not know polytheism, but recognized one God, Yahweh. The Jewish religion, unlike the religion of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and other peoples, did not have many created gods. That is why rumors about the birth of Jesus Christ spread among Jews, initially in Palestine, and soon throughout the Mediterranean. Faith in Christ, and later in his teachings, received the name Christianity, and those who supported this faith were called Christians.
With the birth of Jesus Christ, a new historical “era” began - our era. We still count the years BC or AD, and in old books we find them before or after the Nativity of Christ (P. X.). The fact that Jesus Christ is a historical figure is evidenced by the “Bible” - the holy book of Christians and Jews, as well as numerous sources, the reliability of which is recognized by modern science.
Jesus taught that the only way to improve yourself spiritually is through baptism. This first step will help ease souls and hearts and make it possible to understand all the injustice of earthly life. People will then be able not only to have a positive attitude towards their enemies, but also to love them, forgive insults, will not return evil for evil, and will be able to despise wealth. Thus, only through faith in Jesus Christ and spiritual love for God will people be able to get rid of sins, all troubles and misfortunes.
3. Christian commandments. The moral and spiritual purification of a person is facilitated by Christian commandments - laws that were given by God to the Jews through the prophet Moses. There are ten such commandments, three of them teach how to honor God, and the next ones teach how to treat people: honor parents, do not kill, do not steal, be fair, be faithful to your husband and wife, do not lie, do not envy.
Thus, Christianity, without calling for struggle, resolved all problems by moral and spiritual cleansing of man. In real life, any open protest against the harsh living conditions was brutally suppressed.
Organization of the Christian Church. From the very beginning, Christianity proclaimed the equality of all before God, regardless of position. Christians were organized into communities in which all believers had equal rights and shared property. The Spirit of Christ dominated the entire community.
Christians recognized only one God and opposed sacrifices to Roman pagan gods. For this, Christians were persecuted: they were sentenced to death, thrown to predators, and burned alive.
Christianity is the state religion of the empire. As time went. Gradually, the ideas of Christianity about the salvation of man from all misfortunes, about the eternal life of his soul, attracted more and more people. The ideas of Christian patience and humility, non-resistance to evil were perceived not only by the poor, but also by people of the middle and even rich strata of the population.
In 325, under Emperor Constantine, Christianity was recognized as the state religion of the Roman Empire. The new religion was supposed to help strengthen the imperial power and the empire itself.
MOSCOW HUMANITIES AND ECONOMICS INSTITUTE
Tver branch
FOUNDATION LECTURE
By academic discipline
RELIGIOUS STUDIES
Christianity: history of origin, faith and cult
L. V. Pyanova
Tver 2014
The fund lecture “Christianity: history of origin, faith and cult” was discussed and recommended for publication at a meeting of the Department of General Humanitarian Disciplines of the Faculty of Moscow State Power Engineering Institute. Protocol No. 1 dated August 29, 2014.
Reviewers:
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
E. E. Mikhailova
Associate Professor of the Department of General Humanitarian Disciplines
Yu. V. Khokhlova
Pyanova L.V. Christianity: history of origin, faith and culture: Fund lecture. - Tver: Publishing House TF MGEI, 2014. 88 pp.
The fund lecture “Christianity: history of origin, faith and cult” is intended for full-time and part-time students of the direction 0300300.62 “Psychology”, for the qualification (degree) of a graduate of the Tver branch of the Moscow State Institute of Economics and Science and may be useful in independent study of the problems of religious studies, cultural studies, ethics, social psychology.
L. V. Pyanova
Moscow Institute of Humanities and Economics
Introduction........................................................ ........................................................ ....................3
Causes and historical conditions for the emergence of Christianity......5
The Personality of Jesus Christ as the Founder of Christianity....................................21
The Bible is the holy book of Christians.................................................... ....................26
The Creed and its role in the spread of Christianity.................................38
Cult of Christianity................................................... ...........................................40
The main directions of Christianity......................................................... ................54
Let us accept Orthodoxy in Rus'. Orthodoxy in modern Russia.........67
Conclusion................................................. ........................................................ ...............84
Introduction
Christianity, like Buddhism and then Islam, created the ideal of universal human behavior and existence, created a holistic worldview and attitude. At the heart of Christianity is the teaching about the God-man Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came to people with good deeds, commanded them the laws of righteous life and accepted great suffering and martyrdom on the cross to atone for the sins of people.
Christians believe that the world was created by one eternal God, and created without evil. The Resurrection of Christ marks for Christians victory over death and the newfound possibility of eternal life with God. Christianity views history as a unidirectional, unique, “one-time” process directed by God: from the beginning (creation) to the end (the coming of the Messiah, the Last Judgment). The main idea of Christianity is the idea of sin and human salvation. People are sinners before God, and this is what makes them equal: Greeks and Jews, Romans and barbarians, slaves and free, rich and poor - all sinners, all “servants of God.”
The Christian religion claims that suffering in earthly life will bring a person salvation and heavenly bliss in the afterlife, and in resistance to evil it saw the path to moral improvement. She promised that the righteous would be rewarded and that the lower classes would have a future. Christianity acquired the character of a universal, universal religion.
Christianity is the most widespread and one of the most developed religious systems in the world. And although it, in the person of its followers, is found on all continents, and on some it absolutely dominates (Europe, America, Australia), it is primarily a religion of the West. Actually, this is precisely the only religion (not counting its division into numerous churches, denominations and sects) that is characteristic of the Western world as opposed to the Eastern world with its many different religious
However, Christianity has many roots in the culture of the ancient East, from where it drew its rich mythological, poetic and ritual-dogmatic potential. In the person of some individual churches - be it Armenian, Coptic or Syrian - and sects (Nestorians, etc.), it still operates in a number of regions of the East, not to mention the missionary development of many regions of the East in the last few centuries.
Unlike the early religious systems that developed during the formation of ancient centers of civilization in the Middle East, Christianity appeared relatively late, in the conditions of an already developed society with acute social, economic and political contradictions. A new religion emerging in such conditions, claiming wide attention and dissemination, had to respond to the demands of its time and offer some, albeit illusory, but quite significant in the eyes of millions of people, ways and means of resolving the contradictions tearing society apart, resolving them, and directing them in a different direction. The new religion also had to decisively abandon the ethnic limitations inherent in earlier religious systems. This was a necessary condition, since otherwise she would not be able to capture the minds of people, regardless of their origin and social status. And finally, the new religion had to be sufficiently intellectually developed and rich, to include everything that the pre-existing religious systems of the vast Middle East-Mediterranean region had achieved.
It was not easy to satisfy all these conditions. And yet, the “challenge” of the era, the needs of the time, led to the fact that at the turn of our era in the ancient Hellenistic world systems were already being formed that were capable of answering this challenge. Among them it is worth mentioning Mithraism brought from Persia, which became widespread in the Roman Empire and clearly influenced
for the subsequent formation of Christianity. Apparently, under favorable conditions, Neoplatonism, which developed on the basis of the religious understanding of Plato’s idealistic philosophy, could also grow into this kind of system.
Perhaps any of the eastern religions could become such a system, provided that the national framework that limited its capabilities was broken. However, none of them succeeded in their quest to achieve universal recognition. This success fell to the lot of Christianity - a teaching that was fundamentally new, but which absorbed from the concept of teachings that competed with it everything that could enrich and strengthen it.
So, Christianity, as a supranational “universal” religious system, arose in conditions when almost the entire Middle Eastern-Mediterranean world was united within the framework of the supranational Roman Empire. But the initial centers of this religion did not arise in the center of this powerful empire: they appeared on its periphery, moreover, on the eastern and south-eastern periphery, in those centers of civilization mastered by mankind from ancient times, where the layers of cultural tradition were especially powerful and where the centers of intersection were always concentrated various ideological and cultural influences. This was the influence of Jewish sects, and Greco-Roman philosophy, and the religions of the East.
Causes and historical conditions for the emergence of Christianity
Christianity arose on the territory of the Roman Empire at the beginning of the new era, which is counted from the supposed date of the birth of Christ. The prerequisites for its emergence, in addition to subjective ones, were the systemic crisis of late antique culture and the decline of the state Roman religion, when the spiritual Vacuum was filled either with exotic polytheistic cults of other peoples that became part of the empire, or with philosophical systems that actually acquired the status of religion. Noticeable part
the population switched to freethinking and purely external religiosity.
In addition to the purely theological explanation (Christianity as a result of the revelation of God revealed in the God-man Jesus Christ), the following were indicated among the prerequisites for the emergence of Christianity:
The growth of crisis phenomena in the Roman Empire, including the increasing stratification of society and the growth of social and other types of alienation;
Further development of the Jewish religion, determined by internal laws;
Personal factor in the form of the activity of Jesus
At the turn of our era, Judaism was in deep crisis. Despite the fact that the number of Jews, according to the calculations of modern experts, at that time amounted to several million and that solid Jewish colonies had already spread throughout the Mediterranean, including Egypt and Asia Minor, the specific historical situation and the real balance of forces were increasingly leading Jewish society to crisis. The crisis intensified after the subjugation of Judea to Rome. The secular power of the Herodian dynasty did not enjoy authority. The priests of the Jerusalem temple and parties and groups close to them (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots) also lost power and influence, which was facilitated by their obvious dependence on the governors of Rome in Judea. The state of permanent political and socio-religious crisis led to the revival of eschatological prophecies, the intensification of the activities of various kinds of sects with their expectation of the Messiah, who is about to come and, in the name of the great Yahweh, will save the people entangled in contradictions, but still God's chosen people. Almost everyone was waiting for the Messiah (the Greek equivalent of this Jewish term - Christ) any day now.
The eagerly awaited Messiah simply could not help but appear. And he appeared, more than once. Increasingly, in one or another region of Judea, and even outside it, on the periphery, among Diaspora Jews, leaders
individual sects, itinerant preachers or extravagant wanderers declared themselves messiahs, called to save the lost Jews. Usually the authorities reacted painfully to the sermons of such figures. All impostors were immediately declared false messiahs, and their activities were suppressed. This, however, could not stop the process. The losers were replaced by new ones, and everything was repeated all over again. Sometimes the heads of influential sects turned out to be powerful enough to challenge the all-powerful Rome. As a result of the subsequent uprisings and wars (Jewish wars), Judea as a state, and with it Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in the 2nd century. n. e. ceased to exist.
Constant persecution of periodically emerging charismatic leaders and prophets, whose activities and preaching in times of crisis became increasingly visible and in tune with general expectations, ultimately led to the strengthening in the minds of generations of the idea of a great messiah, Christ, who came, was not recognized and understood, died (taking on the sins of people) and, miraculously resurrected, became the divine savior of mankind. It was those who recognized his status as the Messiah - Christ, the anointed one, and received the name Christians. This idea was adopted by those early Judeo-Christian sects that began to appear both in Judea itself and in the areas closest to it where Diaspora Jews settled (Egypt, Asia Minor, etc.) at the turn of our era.
The rethinking of early Christianity in the spirit of Paulinism was the beginning of its transformation towards an organized “universal” church. In this sense, it is the Evangelical Paul who can be considered the first patriarch (if not the founder) of Christianity. From Paul, or rather from the Paulinist attacks on Judaism, originates that sharp antagonism between Christianity and Judaism, which later became so noticeable, despite the fact that the Old Testament of the Jews was included in the Christian Holy Scripture and that Jesus, his mother Mary, his disciples, including the Apostle Paul, were Jews.
Paulinism contributed to the switching of radical Christian activity from criticism of the existing order to criticism of a rival religion, whose representatives were now guilty of all sins, deviations and even crimes - they, after all, crucified Christ. In addition, Paulinism placed a strong emphasis on reward after death, on rewarding patience and suffering with bliss in the next world. These two significant points played an important role in the process of further transformation of early Christianity.
In the conditions of the increasingly rigid dogmatic basis of Christian doctrine, the life of the original sects and communities led by charismatic leaders, full of dangers and persecution, but distinguished by freedom of spirit and action, was becoming a thing of the past. In the new conditions, they were replaced by officials elected by believers (and then approved from above) - deacons, bishops, presbyters. Within the framework of the church-bureaucratic structure thus formed, bishops soon found themselves in the foreground, who at first were only treasurers of communities and were in charge of economic affairs, but then (precisely because of their strong position in the community) began to play an increasingly noticeable leadership role. Already from the 2nd century. The bishops were engaged in the interpretation of complex problems of dogma and cult, actively opposed those communities and sects that had not yet come to terms with the general process of bureaucratization and dogmatization of Christianity and tried to explain in their own way certain of its problems. The need to combat heresies, with the residual influence of charismatic leaders, who continually led one or another of the communities away from the main line of evolution of teaching, contributed to the further strengthening of the episcopal organization, the formation of a strict church-bureaucratic hierarchy, the representatives of which consolidated their unity at ecumenical councils. The first two of them took place in 325 and 381, and the Arian heresy was condemned; the third in 431 condemned heresy
Nestorian.
The replacement of charismatic leaders with a bureaucratic hierarchy is an inevitable phenomenon in the conditions of the emerging church with its strict canons and inviolable dogmas. The “visions” and “divine revelations” of the Orthodox Church, which had transformed and cleansed itself of “heresies,” were no longer needed. Charismatic leaders and prophets-preachers who suffered from them already in the 3rd-4th centuries. They were not only resolutely removed from active church activities, but were simply not allowed to participate in them. Their destiny from now on became different: at their expense, the institution of monasticism was formed, the activities and “holy spirit” of which were now put at the service of the church, to strengthen its authority, and without any particular danger to its strict internal structure, since the monasteries were secluded and enclosed by high walls prevented the wide dissemination of the original “visions” of the holy fathers in monastic cassock, overshadowed by the grace.
Thus, the Christian Church, cleansed of the sins of youth, became an institution quite acceptable to the socio-political elite, the influence of which among the masses made it desirable to get closer to it and use it, which the Roman emperors did not fail to pay attention to. Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century. supported the church (on his initiative the first Christian council was convened), his successors (except for Julian the Apostate, who ruled for a relatively short time) followed his example, and Christianity soon became the dominant religion. From the persecuted, Christians became persecutors, as evidenced, in particular, by the pogrom of the “pagan” library in 415 in Alexandria, a prominent center of Hellenic culture.
Early Christianity, which matured in the depths of ascetic sects opposed to official Judaism and the Roman authorities and then spread throughout the Hellenistic-Roman world, from its first steps declared itself to be the teaching of the oppressed lower classes, the teaching of the dispossessed and suffering. True, this teaching did not call for struggle - and in this sense it was in no way
cannot be considered revolutionary in character. Rather, on the contrary, Christianity was an alternative to various kinds of uprisings and wars, starting with the uprising of Spartacus, which shook the powerful Roman Empire at the turn of our era. And as this kind of “pacifying” alternative, directing the energy of the oppressed into the channel of religious illusions, Christianity was quite acceptable, even beneficial for those in power, who soon realized this and accepted Christian teaching as the dominant ideological doctrine. However, this happened later. Early Christianity in the first two or three centuries of its existence, being a religion of the disenfranchised and persecuted, not only stood in opposition to the authorities, being subjected to severe persecution on their part, but was also not devoid of radical elements, even revolutionary pathos.
In Christianity, which has absorbed a considerable legacy of previous religions and teachings, the doctrines of Judaism, Mithraism with its system of rituals and cults, and the idea of a dying and resurrecting deity from ancient Eastern religions are clearly felt. Later, as it developed, Christianity adopted a lot from Hellenistic philosophy, from the teachings of the Stoics (Seneca) and others. But the essence of the new religion is not reduced to an eclectic sum of borrowed elements. Its originality and strength lie in the new that arose on the basis of a complex process of religious and cultural synthesis of all these elements.
The main idea of Christianity is the idea of sin and human salvation. People are sinners before God, and this is what makes them all equal: Greeks and Jews, Romans and barbarians, slaves and free, rich and poor - all sinners, all “servants of God.” But can people be cleansed of this sin, starting with the “original” sin of Adam and Eve, which hangs like a heavy stone on humanity? Yes they can. But only if they realize that they are sinners, if they direct their thoughts towards cleansing from sins, if they believe in the great divine savior, who was sent by God to earth and took upon himself the sins of men. Jesus Christ redeemed with his martyr's death
these sins and showed people the path to salvation. This path is faith in the great and one God in three persons (God the Father, God the Son, i.e. Jesus, and God - the “holy spirit” - the Holy Trinity), pious life, repentance of sins and hope for the kingdom of heaven after death. The righteous will be rewarded in the next world, any poor man and slave can go to heaven, while the wicked and money-grubbing will go to hell and burn in “fiery hell.” In addition to the “other world,” the wicked and sinners also face the “second coming” of Christ, followed by the “last judgment” here on earth.
This pathos boiled down, first of all, to a sharp rejection of the established norms of life. In one of the earliest and most radical texts of the New Testament - in the Apocalypse (Revelation of St. John the Theologian) - the condemnation of Rome as the “great harlot”, as the new depraved Babylon with all its “abominations”, sounded with great force. The angel of God predicts the fall of this Babylon, the forces of heaven will defeat darkness and abomination, the Last Judgment will occur, and on the renewed earth a “new Jerusalem” will arise in all the greatness of its glory, with the tree of life actively bearing fruit in the name of the common good. The mystical form of the Apocalypse cannot hide the pathos that fills it with the destruction of the old “abomination” and the future renewal of the world.
The revolutionary pathos of early Christianity was reflected in the emphasis on two important aspects of the new religion. Firstly, on her preaching of universal equality. Although this was equality, first of all, only “in sin,” the equality of “God’s servants,” even in this capacity the slogan of universal equality could not help but attract attention. True, in some evangelical texts slavery was justified and slaves were instilled with obedience to their masters, but nevertheless, the proclamation of the principle of universal equality during the heyday of the Roman Empire cost a lot. Secondly, on the condemnation of wealth and acquisitiveness (“a camel will sooner go through the eye of a needle than a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven”), on
emphasizing the universal obligation to work (“let him not work, let him not eat”).
Of course, there is no active revolutionism here, but the very fact of proclaiming egalitarian principles and following them was a challenge to the prevailing social order. It is not surprising that the members of the first Christian communities (especially after the movement, at the beginning of our era, through the efforts of supporters and followers of the Evangelical Apostle Paul, the center of the new teaching from the periphery of the empire to Rome) were, first of all, the offended and oppressed, the poor and slaves, the poor and outcasts.
The first Christian communities borrowed from their predecessors - sects such as the Essens - the features of asceticism, self-denial, piety and added to them the ritual rituals of communion of Mithraism and much more, including the solemn act of baptism as a symbol of faith. These communities were quite closed. They were led by charismatic leader-preachers, “teachers”, prophets blessed with “grace”, who usually listened to their “inner voice”, had “visions”, heard the “voice of God” and therefore were considered to have an undeniable right to leadership. Naturally, at the beginning each of these charismatic leaders was guided by his own understanding of the foundations of the new religion. And if we consider that these leaders were most often mentally unbalanced and easily excitable individuals (those were the ones who were considered overshadowed by the grace of God), then it is easy to understand that in their sermons the real facts of the past were mixed with fantastic stories based on “visions.” All this was more or less harmoniously linked with the mythological and poetic heritage and gradually fit, taking on modified forms, into the basis of Christian doctrine.
In the process of establishing a new religion, many sects and their preachers took part, which could not but give rise to various variants and deviations. However, through the diversity of opinions, dogmas and rituals, the contours of a new religion gradually emerged, the canonical rigidity
which was forged in sharp battles between different directions. Already in the second half of the 1st century. AD Two main currents clearly emerged - the pro-Jewish one, represented by the Apocalypse and genetically going back, apparently, to sects like the Essens, and the anti-Jewish one, associated with the activities of the Apostle Paul. It is with Paul that a break with the national limitations of religion inherent in Judaism is associated; he is credited with saying that for Christianity “there is neither Greek nor Jew,” that everyone is pleasing to God - Jews and pagans, both circumcised and uncircumcised, it is enough just to refuse from the old way of life and believe in Christ, i.e. to live “not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” acquiring righteousness and salvation from sins through faith and confession. Unlike the Apostle Peter, whom the Gospel Paul called “the apostle to the Jews,” Paul, according to legend, called himself “a minister of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles.”
Collapse of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. into Western and Eastern led to a split in the Christian Church. In the Western Empire, where the power of the emperor was weakening, the position of the church gradually strengthened. In the 5th century the all-powerful Roman bishop was proclaimed pope, in whose hands enormous power soon concentrated over the entire politically fragmented Western European Roman Catholic world. By diligently supporting the idea of the divine origin of his power and his own infallibility, the Pope was able to place his authority above the authority of the sovereigns of medieval Europe, who competed with each other and sought his support.
With the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, many cultural traditions of “pagan” antiquity with its free-thinking were consigned to oblivion and condemned. True, the church tradition, which cultivated Latin, contributed to the preservation of a significant part of the manuscript heritage of ancient culture. Revived with the help of slaves, the teachings of Aristotle, significantly corrected by the church, even became (along with the Bible)
a kind of supreme and almost the last word of spiritual culture. However, much was irretrievably lost, and above all spiritual freedom. Catholic priests (who took a vow of celibacy and therefore were not bound in their activities by personal and family interests, who devoted themselves entirely to the service and interests of the church) jealously monitored the strict observance of church dogmas and rituals, mercilessly condemned and punished heretics, which included everyone who dared to deviate from official teaching in any way. The best minds of medieval Europe perished at the stake of the “holy” Inquisition, and the church willingly sold indulgences—absolution of sins—for a lot of money to the rest, the intimidated and humbled “sinners.”
The cruel fanaticism and active aggressiveness of Catholicism, based on the strictly hierarchical centralization of the power of the church headed by the Pope, displeased the rulers of medieval Europe, who gradually overcame feudal fragmentation and strengthened their power. These sovereigns also relied on the authority of the church and used it, as evidenced by the crusades against Jerusalem to liberate the “Holy Sepulcher” from the “infidels.” But over time, they were increasingly burdened by the power of the Catholic Church, which had placed itself above them. Moreover, rivalry with the church to some extent intensified their activities, helping to intensify the struggle for the priority of the secular principle, for liberation from the omnipotence of religion. And this struggle yielded results. Having put an end to feudal fragmentation, strengthened by the cities, i.e., the support of the third estate, the burghers interested in strengthening the central government, anti-clerical forces in the XIV-XV centuries. were already ready to challenge the omnipotence of the Roman Church. And this challenge was thrown, and thrown precisely in the sphere where the omnipotence of the church seemed most complete - in the sphere of culture. The era of the Renaissance has arrived.
The Renaissance in the person of its geniuses and giants (Dante and Rabelais,
Raphael and Boccaccio, Copernicus and Galileo, Thomas More and Campanella, Erasmus of Rotterdam and Cervantes, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo and many others) overturned the church barrier that had been created for centuries, impeding freedom of thought and scientific research. Leaving aside, as it were, church dogmas with their deadening scholasticism, the figures of the Renaissance drew generous handfuls from the treasury of cultural traditions of antiquity, thereby reviving “pagan” norms of freedom of thought and creativity.
The Renaissance, as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, was prepared by the entire course of socio-economic processes taking place in Western Europe. Its significance in this sense goes beyond opposition to Catholicism. However, the blow he inflicted on the church turned out to be the stone that gives birth to a mountain avalanche. If the giants of the Renaissance reformed only the upper layer of culture, reviving the principles of humanism and free-thinking, then the strongest blow to the renewal of Catholicism was dealt by the Reformation, which followed on the heels of the Renaissance and was essentially the church’s reaction to teero.
Pursuing the goal of preserving the church from the blows dealt to it by the Renaissance, and opposing the assimilation of elements of Renaissance culture by Catholicism, the Reformation came down to a decisive reform of the foundations of Catholic Christianity. Its leaders - Luther, Calvin, Münzer - sharply opposed the dogma of papal infallibility, the practice of selling indulgences, the tinsel and pomp of Catholic worship, and finally, against the exaggeration of the role of the church as the middle point between man and God. Beginning in the 16th century, the reform movement quickly spread to large sections of the population of the most developed countries of northern and partly central Europe - England, Holland, Switzerland, and Germany. The idea of simplifying the church structure and the nature of worship, the call for rigor and modesty of the church, for its renunciation of ambitious and power-hungry political claims, for the opposition of internal moral self-control to the ecstatic faith of fanatics - all this appealed to the emerging European bourgeoisie
and suited her interests. Protestantism, as Weber showed in his time, became the spiritual basis and ethical norm of the emerging bourgeois states of Western Europe.
Of course, the Reformation did not mean the death of Catholicism. Having resorted to the help of the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church managed to survive and until today its entire church hierarchy, headed by the Pope, is a serious force, the influence of which is felt in many parts of the world. However, the era of the Reformation dealt Catholicism and, in general, the omnipotence of the Christian Church such a blow from which it was no longer possible to recover. The times of the “Holy Inquisition” and total control over the thought and spiritual life of people by the church began to recede into the irrevocable past. Catholicism - following the Protestant Church - was forced to agree that God has a “divine” place, that is, a very specific place in the life and activities of people, the rest of their time and attention should be given to other matters that were not directly related to religion and independent of her intervention and assessment. This, naturally, did not mean that the role of the church was reduced to almost zero. Even in the 18th century. Voltaire, who actively fought against the influence of the church, could not openly oppose it. And yet, the separation of the church from the state and from various spheres of people’s business activity, which was the result of the Reformation, played a huge role in the further destinies of Western Europe, in its successful development along the capitalist path.
In the Eastern Empire (Byzantium), which outlived the Western Empire by almost a millennium, the position of the church was different. Here she did not receive much independence or her own political influence. Divided, moreover, into a number of patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem), it found itself almost completely dependent on the state and practically identified itself and its interests with the interests of the state. It is also worth noting that the sphere of influence and mass
the base of all these patriarchates was small, and after the Islamization of the Middle Eastern world it became scanty. But with the strengthening of ancient Rus', the Orthodoxy it borrowed from Byzantium gradually strengthened until the metropolitans appointed from Constantinople finally turned into into independent patriarchs. The Russian Orthodox Church not only supported the tsarist power, but also submitted to it and willingly collaborated with it (only occasionally there were exceptions; for example, Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century tried to put the church above secular power and caused a schism).
In the Orthodox Church as a whole, due to its relative weakness and political insignificance, there have never been mass persecutions of the “Holy Inquisition” type, although this does not mean that it did not persecute heretics and schismatics in the name of strengthening its influence on the masses. At the same time, having absorbed many ancient pagan customs of those tribes and peoples who accepted Orthodoxy (there were many of them in Rus' alone), the church was able to rework and use them in the name of strengthening its authority. Ancient deities became saints of the Orthodox Church, holidays in their honor became church holidays, beliefs and customs received official consecration and recognition. Only a few overtly overt pagan rituals, such as the worship of idols, which went back to the fetishism of ancient times, were persecuted and gradually died out, but even here the church skillfully transformed them, directing the activity of believers to the worship of icons.
There are few dogmatic and liturgical differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Orthodoxy interprets the Trinity differently (believes that the Holy Spirit comes only from God the Father), does not recognize purgatory between heaven and hell, does not practice issuing indulgences, and administers communion with bread (and not unleavened, but leavened) and wine. But it always held on to these differences very tightly, especially after the final break with Catholicism in 1054.
Christianity played a big role in the formation of European
culture. Of course, the rich culture of Europe goes back to philosophy, to sculpture, architecture and theater of antiquity, and to the sarcasm of Rabelais and Erasmus, and to the scientific exploits of Copernicus and Galileo, i.e. to everything that opposed Christianity for thousands of years, fought with him. However, one cannot fail to note the great influence that Christianity had on the character and forms of culture, on the way of thinking and the value system of Europeans. The Bible, biblical images and subjects dominated painting and sculpture for centuries, thereby making a significant contribution to the formation of the cult of the deified Christ. The best thing that European architecture created - church architecture - was intended to glorify the greatness of God and the church. Music in the Catholic church (Bach's fugues and chorales), as well as the church choir in Orthodox services, could not help but have an influence on the musical culture of peoples. Of course, church music and singing also drew their origins from folk culture, but everything they created, filled with solemn splendor, served to glorify the divine and strengthen faith.
Biblical aphorisms, images, plots, short and succinct concepts (“heavy is the cross,” “the path to Golgotha,” King Herod, the traitor Judas, etc.) for centuries formed and nourished systems of life perceptions, assessments, and moral concepts. The most important dogmas and postulates of the church about obedience, patience, and retribution in the next world formed among the people the idea of the inevitability, sent down from above, of those orders that reign on earth. At best, one could hope for deliverance from them after the Last Judgment and the second coming of Christ. Before that, you only had to endure and hope for reward in the kingdom of heaven.
Over the course of many centuries, even millennia, norms of life and morality, ideas and associations, cultural traditions and works of literature - all this was formed under the strong influence of the Christian church. However, it is important to take into account that the influence of the church on the traditions, culture and life of peoples
Europe was different in the western (Catholic-Protestant) and eastern (Orthodox) parts. And this difference to a large extent contributed to the unequal paths, rates and results of the social evolution of the countries and peoples of Europe.
In the West, the protest against the omnipotence of the church, which led to the Reformation, gave a strong impetus to anti-clericalism, secular development outside the channel of church influence. In the east, the merger of the Orthodox Church with the state created a much more powerful system of unshakable tradition sanctified by the authority of the church, which turned out to be much more difficult to break. It is known how much effort this required, even in that extremely favorable version for reforms, which is associated with the name and actions of Peter I, who energetically and persistently opened a “window” to Europe. But this window was of great importance: impulses of colossal destructive power penetrated through it, contributing to Peter’s transformations. Achieving this, Peter abolished the Russian Patriarchate, whose place was taken by the “Holy Synod,” which became the emperor’s obedient instrument in his reforms.
Apart from the Russian one, the rest of the Orthodox churches that found themselves in the sphere of influence of the Islamic world did not receive widespread influence. Under their spiritual influence were only the Greeks, part of the southern Slavs and Romanians, who, after the fall of Byzantium in the 15th century. fell under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and relatively few groups of Christians in Ethiopia, Lebanon, and also in Egypt (Copts). True, the prestige of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Constantinople or Jerusalem (while it still existed) was quite high. But these dioceses had almost no real power. The Crusades led to the XI-XIII centuries. to the short-term capture of Jerusalem and even Constantinople, but not for long. In the east of Europe, and especially in the Middle Eastern countries, Catholicism failed to gain a foothold. Orthodoxy has achieved several great successes, strengthening itself, in particular, in Georgia. However, further to the East (not counting the territory of Russia)
Orthodoxy did not come. Only heretical sects that broke away from the church, primarily the Nestorians, penetrated there.
The Nestorians - followers of the Bishop of Constantinople Nestorius (d. c. 451) - were a kind of forerunners of Orthodoxy. Driven by pursuers after the death of their patron, they penetrated quite far to the East. Preserving their communities and their faith over generations and centuries, the Nestorians introduced Christianity to the population of Iran, Mongolia, and even China. Although Nestorian Christianity did not achieve great success in any of these countries, at times it aroused interest on the part of certain representatives of those in power, sometimes even converting to Christianity.
Christianity also played a role in the formation of some religious movements in the Middle East, such as Manichaeism, created by Mani in the 3rd century. based on the synthesis of ancient Zoroastrianism with Christianity. Manichaeism in the III-IV centuries. spread widely throughout the Middle East, reaching India and China. In the 8th century it became for a short time the official religion of the Uyghur Kaganate, but then was supplanted by Islam and practically degenerated into a narrow sect. One of the branches of Manichaeism - Mazdakism (from its leader Mazdak - not to be confused with the ancient Mazdaism-Zoroastrianism!) - spread widely in the 5th century. in Iran, Azerbaijan and neighboring countries of Central Asia. Both Manichaeism and Mazdakism combined the ideas of dualism borrowed from Zoroastrianism (the struggle between good and evil) and some, mainly egalitarian, concepts of early Christianity.
In the late Middle Ages, Christianity appeared in the countries of the East in a different form - in the form of missionary work. True, this movement originated during the Crusades. However, it achieved any significant success only in the 16th - 18th centuries. The main direction of the missionaries' activities was related to the development of America, where Catholicism was especially
succeeded in the south of the continent (Latin America). However, the activities of Christian missionaries also extended to Asia, Africa, and Oceania.
The missionary movement played a significant role in the history of world culture, not so much by converting local peoples to Christianity, but by spreading some of the achievements of European civilization in the East. This, naturally, prepared the ground for the assimilation of more developed and advanced ideas by many countries and peoples of the East. It should not be forgotten, however, that on the heels of the missionaries were merchants and entrepreneurs, and behind them - conquerors and colonialists, which gives this movement a generally unsightly coloring.
The missionary movement in highly developed civilizations, including India and China, had virtually no success, which is largely due to the strength of the conservative inertia of local religious and cultural traditions. Here, the achievements of Christianity came down primarily to the borrowing of certain elements of Western culture, and in this regard, China turned out to be less fertile ground than India. In the peripheral regions of Asia, where the layer of local tradition was smaller and the habit of borrowing from others was more established, the influence of Christianity was sometimes more noticeable and tangible, as, for example, in Southeast Asia.
In general, Christianity, represented by various churches and sects, is now perhaps the most widespread world religion, dominant in Europe and America, with significant positions in Africa and Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand), as well as in a number of regions of Asia. However, it is in Asia, that is, in the East, which is the main object of our attention, that Christianity is least widespread.
Related information.
Christianity arose in the 1st century in the eastern part of the Roman Empire in Palestine. At the turn of our era in Judea, the Messiah-savior, the Son of God Jesus, who, by performing numerous miracles, was born from the Virgin Mary long ago predicted by the biblical prophets, who, by performing numerous miracles, proved that he was sent down from heaven to earth in the name of saving the human race. For speaking out against official Judaism, Jesus was crucified on the cross in Jerusalem. With his martyrdom, he atoned for the sins of man.
Three main branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism.
At the center of Christianity is the image of the God-man – Jesus Christ. According to Jesus, “the kingdom of God is within us,” that is, it is the inner world of man, which he must discover and develop within himself. For a lover there is nothing external, the whole world is inside him. The social crisis that took place in the Asia Minor provinces of the Roman Empire, which began in the era of the ancient world, contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity in this region.
The antagonism between slaves and freemen, Roman citizens and subjects of the provinces, and between the Roman hereditary nobility and the enriched horsemen, as well as the lack of a common ideal and generally accepted morality, created unimaginable chaos in the empire. Christianity became a religion that could be accepted by all layers of society, all nationalities. Christianity arose on the basis of Judaism, going beyond it, even contradicting it in many ways. It proclaims the equality of all people as sinners. Christians create the New Testament. In Christianity, the idea of a better future merged with the idea of a new, transformed person, the person a Christian should become following the example of Jesus Christ. Thanks to this idea and the Gospels, the ideology of progress appeared in Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Jesus affirms the equality of people before the possibility of achieving divine heights, recalls the secondary nature of the Laws, calls for freedom, thus neglecting the rituals established by Moses.
The Gospel is the teaching about Christ, not the teaching of Christ! The center of Christianity is not doctrine, but the Person of Christ. One of the dogmas of Christianity is the Trinity, according to which God is one in essence, but exists as three hypostases: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The term appeared at the end of the 2nd century, the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the 3rd century and caused heated debate in the Christian church. The dogma of the Trinity was enshrined in the 1st (325) and 2nd (382) Ecumenical Councils.
In the 4th century, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and gradually spread throughout the world.
