Two words in defense of "Biblical history in the light of recent research and discoveries"

A forced rebuke to two critics Judge not, lest ye be judged. By speaking to the public with this or that work, every author thereby submits himself to the court of public opinion, and has no right to claim if not all the voices expressing this opinion respond to the work exactly as its author would like. The latter, having difficulty enduring his brainchild, is always predisposed to value it more highly than it really deserves, and therefore it is sometimes painful for him to meet harsh and disapproving reviews, which sometimes, like a double-edged sword, penetrate into his very heart. But this is the inevitable fate of every author. He must be ready for anything, and as a consolation he can only cite the well-known, historically attested fact that even the greatest writers have never been greeted by their contemporaries with the enthusiasm with which later generations treat them. Even such literary geniuses as Byron and Pushkin had to withstand a fierce storm of criticism before all the pettiness and malice of their bitter critics fell silent before their mighty genius. There is nothing to say after this about the ordinary works of an ordinary pen, which can only claim for itself one or another merit of the work itself, and the value of the time spent on it. Our work was not without hostile reviews. True, we can say with self-satisfaction that our book was generally received with great sympathy and goodwill from both the spiritual and secular press, which welcomed in it the appearance of a work capable to a certain extent of satisfying the urgent need of social thought. In some cases, sympathetic reviews went even further than we are able to accept them or than the work itself deserves on its own merits; but even without accepting all these praises scattered to us from different sides, we console ourselves with the thought that our work, in any case, is not superfluous and, although it partially satisfies a certain need of social thought. And we, of course, will not dwell on the consideration of these reviews, which it is enough to mention with gratitude as those that kept us cheerful, which gave us the opportunity to one way or another complete this considerable work. We are more interested in other kinds of reviews, in which a different attitude towards our work was reflected, namely, a negative attitude, and these reviews interest us not so much as the personal voices of individual critics, but as an expression of the views of a certain social environment. We have essentially two such reviews, which, coming from two opposing camps, had the obvious purpose of casting a shadow of doubt on the dignity of our work. We will dwell on them, with the goal of finding out, as calmly as possible, how thorough these reviews are, both in their particulars and in their general conclusions. As a matter of fact, we could easily ignore these reviews; but since in them the question is posed so broadly that the very essence of the matter is affected, leaving them without refutation would mean harming the matter itself, which, by its very news, we certainly need to protect it from the attacks of unkind or prejudiced criticism. The first of the two reviews under consideration belongs to an unknown critic who took refuge in the pages of the Historical Bulletin under the initials S. A-v 1. We are not particularly interested in finding out who he is, although the author, apparently, carefully tried to cover up the traces of his personality, since on the cover of the magazine in the general table of contents he appears under the initials A. S-v, and we are by no means inclined to treat such a concealment of the critic with such merciless condemnation as Schopenhauer did 2; but, in any case, it would be better to deal with an open opponent, boldly and with a consciousness of his dignity, speaking on the field of critical competition, than with one who prefers to act in a mask, which makes it impossible to discern who he is and whether he deserves a serious fight with him. However, the pen itself serves as a sufficient definition of what category our critic belongs to. This is obviously one of the representatives of that emerging environment in our country, in imitation of the West, in which negative biblical criticism is accepted as something that must be accepted with full faith in its infallibility. Since our book has a clearly and definitely stated goal “to take advantage of the latest research and discoveries to refute the extreme conclusions of negative criticism,” our critic did not like this goal in the first place. He begins his critical article directly: “Mr. Lopukhin has received so much praise for his latest work that we hope he will not complain about us if we, without wasting time and space on praises, directly proceed to pointing out those important shortcomings that catch the eye when reading his book to everyone who has dealt with the same issues as Mr. Lopukhin. Let's start with the fact that the author set himself the goal of proving that everything that is told in the Bible is the undoubted truth, and the historical facts contained in it are as immutable as its moral teaching. But we can’t agree with this.” Well, of course, if we set out to prove that the historical facts described in the Bible do not have historical significance, that all this is the fruit of popular imagination - that the history of the creation of man, the Fall, the flood, the confusion of languages - matters only to the extent that through the mystical darkness one can consider known moral truths, then our critic would be quite pleased, because this exactly corresponds to the point of view on which he stands, having climbed on the shoulders of Western scientists of the negative school. After all, this theory put forward by the author that “the divine inspiration of the holy books appears precisely in the area of ​​morality and faith” - with the interpretation that the critic gives it, is only a very inexperienced cover for the complete denial of the historical dignity of the Bible, and even such a biblical scholar as Renan and others like him will completely agree with it. We, of course, know that very respectable Western biblical theologians and, for example, adhere to this theory. in the field of natural history issues, even such a famous researcher as Reisch, the author of a classic work of its kind, “The Bible and Nature”; but the fact of the matter is that this theory, for its correct application, requires a very subtle understanding of the matter, a thorough weighing of the facts, and for this, two or three original phrases, even borrowed even from Baronius, are by no means enough. Our critic’s phrase that “it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit, in inspiring the sacred writers, had in mind to reveal scientific truths or write universal history” - directly exposes the entire crudeness of his understanding of the theory put forward. Of course, “I did not intend to reveal scientific truths or write a universal history,” but at the same time, it is even more certain that even in the absence of this goal, what was communicated by St. writers in a publicly accessible, non-scientific form of truth and historical facts show their divine inspiration in that they are in complete agreement with the most reliable scientific discoveries both in the field of nature and history. It is enough to point out that all the most important facts of primitive Biblical history, so many times subjected to the most fierce criticism of various theorists, find striking confirmation in the latest research, and their historical authenticity appears the clearer the deeper science itself penetrates into the secrets of nature and primitive history. Our entire book is aimed at clarifying and confirming this truth. The critic, however, believes that at one point we are inclined to his point of view, namely on the issue of biblical chronology, declaring that “chronology, as not having a direct relationship to the fundamental principles of faith and morality, is a secondary subject in the Bible, its exact definition was not part of the task of the writer of everyday life, but was left to the discretion of reason and the knowledge of science.” The critic triumphs when he cites this passage, and wonders how we did not carry out this idea consistently and in application to other facts. But at the same time, he did not finish one thing, that biblical chronology is not at all a categorically stated fact, that in its general conclusion it is in fact the result of scientific research, and not the work of a divinely inspired chronologist. We are given only individual numbers, which are accepted as facts, and the very conclusions from them are a matter of purely human calculations and considerations, and if from the creation of man to R. X. is considered to be 5508 years, then this figure is by no means a biblical fact, but rather the result of later calculations, which therefore may be subject to one or another verification. That is why the Western Church adheres to a completely different date (4004), which is in no way imputed to it as heresy and is not at all in conflict with the Bible, precisely because the Bible does not give a chronological definition of all history. By reproaching us for inconsistency, the critic here precisely showed all the rudeness and ill-consideredness of his understanding of the theory he put forward from hearsay. Without attributing unconditionally historical significance to the accepted biblical chronology, we nevertheless insist on it not simply out of “obstinacy,” as the critic thinks, but because, with all its uncertainty, this chronology is still, in general, in immeasurably greater agreement with the undoubted data of history and archeology than the fantastic calculations of those scientists who get confused in millions of figures when determining the historical duration of human existence on earth. In our book, we provide ample data to prove how these millions were often scattered by unexpected discoveries that exposed the fantastic nature of such calculations. Meanwhile, the critic continues: “After all, this stubbornness led Mr. Lopukhin to great absurdity. Trying in every way to reduce the antiquity of the Egyptian and Babylonian monuments, he found that they could take us no further than 3000 years BC. Having reached this result, Mr. Lopukhin triumphed - it turned out that 2½ thousand years had passed between the creation of the world and the emergence of the most ancient states; therefore, there was enough time for the proliferation of the human race and the development of civilization. But the author missed it a little: after all, 3000 years before Christ, a flood occurred that destroyed all people except Noah and his family, and all civilizations except the faith in the One True God. How could the flourishing power of Mena and the highly developed Babylonian culture appear immediately after the flood?! Such a contradiction between facts and biblical chronology forces us to completely abandon it and at the same time shows what price Mr. Lopukhin’s tricks have by hook or by crook to support the letter of the Bible.” It would be difficult to collect even more exaggerations and absurdities than are collected in this short tirade of our critic. The fact is that, first of all, he plays with numbers with unacceptable ease. Even if we exactly accept the figures of the usual biblical chronology (although, as stated above, there are no sufficient grounds for this), then the situation is still different from what the critic sets out. The Flood occurred in 2262 from the creation of man, therefore, 3246 years ago. BC This means that if the Egyptian and Babylonian monuments take us no further than 3000 years BC, there are still as many as 2½ centuries left for the development of civilization. And this is quite enough for its development in view of the fact that there was no need to create it again, but only needed to plant and spread a ready-made culture, which in the person of Noah and his sons had experienced carriers who had all the necessary knowledge and means (and even ready-made domestic animals). To deny the possibility of this means to deny the clear example of America or Australia, which transformed from wild countries into civilized ones in no more than the same or even shorter period of time. And if we take into account the fact that even 3000-year-old antiquity is not recognized by all scientists in Egypt and Babylonia, then it means there will be more than enough time for the development of civilization in them. Of course, ironizing our situation, the critic proceeds from the view that the founding of the power of Mena dates back to 5700 years ago; but to adhere to this view means either to not know oneself, or to deliberately mislead readers by keeping silent about the fact that the last figure is not at all a historical axiom, and regarding the time of the founding of this power, first-class scientists differ by more than 3000 years (as indicated in our book - I vol. pp. 154, 155). Thus, if anyone “didn’t look a little,” then it is precisely our critic, quick to draw conclusions, who in every possible way manages “by hook or by crook” to support his favorite theory. Remaining true to himself, our critic is then indignant at us because we did not recognize the notorious theory of dividing the Pentateuch into documents of the “Elohist and the Egovist,” supposedly now shared by “all serious scholars,” including, of course, the critic. It would be more correct to say - “all scientists ignoring the latest discoveries of cuneiform,” since these discoveries, representing the coexistence of both named documents in the most ancient monuments, completely confused the ranks of these theorists, so it is still unknown when they will get out of this unexpected difficulty. To accept this theory in its present broken form, when it is difficult to identify two scientists who would completely agree with each other in the distribution of even the most important passages between the two classes of so-called documents, would mean, leaving positive ground, to grasp at a ghost that is constantly ready to disappear completely. We even accepted the form “Jehovah” everywhere instead of the form Yahweh recommended by the critic because the latter hitherto constitutes a very problematic result of dubious guesses, and not a positive, definitively verified fact. We could give several more examples of overexposure and extremes in our critic’s short article (for example, at least his reproach to us that we “tried to curtail the sublimity of Egyptian religion and morality,” while in reality it was given full tribute on the pages of our book and even almost the same excerpts from the ancient religious system of the Egyptians are given, which he also cites to “refute” us), but this is enough for characterization techniques of our critic. His entire article is an artificial interweaving of one-sided considerations, aimed at showing that this is what true science teaches in the West, and from this side it is very significant. Having found a place in a very popular historical journal, which is widely circulated among our intelligentsia, it thereby serves as an indicator of the persistence with which the results of negative biblical criticism strive to penetrate this environment and how necessary, therefore, early counteraction to this tendency. Since our book aims precisely to provide a counterbalance to this dangerous trend, we think that its appearance was by no means unnecessary for our biblical-historical literature, which, as we know, has never tried to present apologetic material of this kind in such a wide scope as is done in our book. If a critic of the negative camp with irritated indignation tries to present our book as a collection of stretches and distortions, as a work that “gives the Russian public a completely wrong idea about the study of the Bible in the West,” then this only shows that we have hit the very target, and thereby alarmed the anthill of negative criticism that is emerging in our country. If thus the anonymous critic of the negative camp remained dissatisfied with our book, then this is quite natural, since it could not have been otherwise. What communication is there between light and darkness? – But it was already somewhat surprising that another disapproving and downright unkind review came from among our spiritual science – from Prof. Kazan Theological Academy of Ya. Bogorodsky. The very position of the critic forces us to dwell longer on the analysis of his review, especially since it reduces the question to a broad and even fundamental basis, and bluntly raises the question of the very concept of Biblical history, which our book, although it bears that very name, does not seem to correspond to. “What is Biblical history”? - our critic asks a question in his article, and such a question, despite its elementary nature, as it turns out, needs some clarification 3. It is somewhat strange, of course, after we have been officially using the well-known name of a science for decades, studying it in secondary and high schools, writing scientific studies on it, to suddenly ask ourselves the question: what kind of science is this and how to understand its very name? But in reality this is exactly the case. The fact is hardly comforting, and in any case it can lead to the idea that, according to the degree of our scientific development, it is too early for us to engage in science itself, and we still need to understand what the name of this or that science means and how to determine the range of those subjects that are included in it, in a word, to deal with what can be called the ABC of scientific nomenclature. But since this fact exists, it is necessary to reckon with it. By posing the question to readers: “what is Biblical history”? prof. Bogorodsky tries to give an answer to it, and from the answer he gives it is clear that a clarification of this subject is indeed necessary, if not for those who write “Bible Stories,” then at least for those who read and criticize them. What is Biblical history? Having complained to us that neither in our “Manual” nor in our “Biblical History” we did not consider it necessary to explain what the science on which we are writing is and what we mean by its name, the critic goes into a fairly detailed analysis of this name and finds that the term “Biblical history” is associated with a concept that is far from being as definite as, for example, what is associated with the concept of the term “church history” or "Russian history". After a rather lengthy (and, let us add, not entirely clear) discussion on this topic, the author finally comes to the conclusion that Biblical history is “history according to the Bible”; but since this inevitably raises the question: “history—what exactly,” the critic finds himself forced to look at the Bible “in its most general content,” and finds that its content consists of monuments that testify to God and His relationship to the world and to man in his relationship to God. And since religion is made up of these relationships, it means that “Biblical history is the history of true religion according to the guidance and spirit of the Bible” (in that period, the critic who embraces biblical legends hastens to make a reservation). So this is how you need to understand Biblical history and how you need to write it. In general, we have nothing against such a view of Biblical history, and, on the contrary, it seems to us completely reasonable, having its well-known basis not only in a special view of this science, but also, so to speak, in time-honored practice, since this particular view was predominant in our theological school and was expressed and repeated more than once in school textbooks and manuals. But if our esteemed brother wants to say (as he does say) that this alone is the true and exclusive view of Biblical history as a science, then we immediately and decisively rebel against it. Such a view reveals in our criticism a strange one-sidedness and narrowness, which is by no means justified by the nature and essence of science. In saying this, our critic has fallen into the gross misconception that Biblical history can be viewed and presented only from one certain angle and only from one exclusive point of view. In fact, Biblical history can be viewed from very different points of view and, as a result, necessarily receives a different character and interest. In this respect, from a scientific point of view, it is in exactly the same position as any other history, be it “Russian history” or “church history.” It is in vain that our critic imagines that the term “Biblical history” gives precisely the definite concept that he connects with it; he also does not give this concept, just as such terms as “Russian history” and “church history” do not give an essentially accurate and definite concept. The whole point depends on from what point of view and for what purpose the author begins to present it. In parallel to our critic's argument, we can illustrate this idea with a specific example. According to Mr. Bogorodsky, the expression “Russian history” is identical with the expression “history of Russia”; but in reality it turns out that our most famous historians do not all share his opinion, and if, for example, Solovyov translates this term exactly this way, then others, like, for example, Karamzin calls his Russian history “History of the Russian State”, Polevoy - “History of the Russian People”, etc., each in his own way. This variation in the interpretation of the same concept is by no means accidental, and on the contrary it is in close connection with the point of view with which one or another the author looked at Russian history. And this point of view, in turn, leaves a sharp imprint on the entire historical work, and the Russian history of Karamzin, for example, has a completely different physiognomy, pursues different goals and, as a result, uses different material than, for example, the Russian history of Polevoy or, even more so, Kostomarov. Each of them is the fruit of a well-known historical school, a certain state of historical science and, finally, a certain general worldview. If Karamzin in his Russian history concentrated all his interest on the fate of the Russian state, then this fully reflected the historical view that prevailed in his time, according to which the decisive importance in historical life was given more to the external form than to the internal content,” a view that, with the greater development of national self-awareness, had to give way to another, the opposite, that the most important factor in historical life is not the state, but the people themselves, which from their inner life develops well-known, state forms corresponding to its character. And so Polevoy acted as the exponent of this new historical worldview, who as a result gave his Russian history the name “History of the Russian People.” For exactly the same reasons, Russian history can also modify its character, depending on what interests its author will primarily pursue, so that over time, perhaps, we will have such a type of Russian history as “The History of Russian Civilization,” etc. We say all these elementary things in order to show our critic that even such an apparently simple and definite term as “Russian history” can be combined with very different, almost opposite concepts; Moreover, such a broad term as “Biblical history” cannot be subsumed under only one point of view. Prof. Bogorodsky categorically asserts that Biblical history is “the history of biblical religion” and cannot be otherwise. For our part, we say that this is only one type of Biblical history and is by no means exceptional. Next to the “history of biblical religion,” another type of biblical history can rightfully exist, namely, in the sense of “the history of the biblical people,” i.e., that people whose historical fate is the subject of the biblical narrative and who was the chosen bearer of the true religion. To deny this would mean the same thing as if Karamzin began to categorically assert that Russian history cannot be anything other than “the history of the Russian state”... The famous historian, of course, was too educated and learned a person to fall into such narrow one-sidedness, which the scientific-historical consciousness of subsequent times would not be slow to expose; but our critic is so guilty of this one-sidedness that he excludes even morality from the field of Biblical history, and by his definition, even such a work could not be called Biblical history, which would set forth “the history of morality according to the guidance and spirit of the Bible”; since, in his literal words, the Bible contains monuments that “testify about God in His relationship to the world, and about man in his relationship to God,” and that’s all, and as if it no longer contains any other monuments, at least those that would testify “about the relationship of man to man”! This is what can be agreed upon in the consistent implementation of the concept of Biblical history put forward by Mr. Bogorodsky. If, therefore, we had every reason to look at Biblical history as the “history of the Biblical people,” then this fully explains the entire character of our book. A people is not an abstract principle, but a living organism that lives in certain conditions of space and time, is subject to various influences - internal and external, enters into relationships with other peoples, in certain respects itself influences them and in others is subject to their influence, creates unique forms of social and state life and develops its own special culture, laying an indelible imprint on all manifestations of its historical life. And to depict the historical destinies of this people - not only in religious terms, but in all respects of their deeply amazing and wonderful historical life was the task of our book, called “Biblical History”. Bogorodsky considers that the exclusive subject of the presentation of Biblical history is that religion is included in our book as a part, albeit one that in its importance constitutes the animating principle of the entire life of the people. And if our critic asserts that this part of the historical content of the biblical narrative can be called Biblical history, then with all the more right we can assert that the entire totality of the content of this narrative can be so called, and on the contrary, if he further asserts that only this part should be called so, then he asserts the absurdity that the name belonging to a known object can and should be given only to one of its parts (even the most important one), and not to the whole object... Understanding “Biblical history” in the sense of the history of the biblical people, we then had the full right to use all the material related here as required by the given state of historical science and our personal historical interest. We really couldn’t, when compiling a historical book in 1890, be guided by those historical techniques and views that existed in science half a century ago, and put forward those aspects of the subject that were more interesting to Mr. Bogorodsky than to ourselves! And at the present time, if only our critic knows this, historical science, thanks to a huge mass of interesting archaeological discoveries that have shed light on many hitherto dark sides of historical knowledge, has itself received to a large extent an archaeological imprint and focuses its greatest interest precisely on those details of cultural life that are brought to the light of God by archaeological researchers and thanks to which we, of course, first got the opportunity to penetrate into the inner sanctuary of the peoples of hoary antiquity ancient east. As a result, the “world history” of our time bears a completely different imprint, represents a completely different type than what it was at the time when Schlosser wrote his “world history,” which is now decidedly outdated for our time. The “World History” of our time is no longer the history of politics, but the history primarily of internal cultural life, and the leading expression of this emerging type of history is the “World History” published in Berlin in separate editions, edited by the German professor Oncken, a collective work of several German historians 4 . The type of “world history” developed by science is, of necessity, a model and measure for any particular history, including Biblical history, which no one has the slightest right to exclude from the cycle of history. And if our critic were familiar with the current state of historical science in general, with its methods and tasks, then he would find that our book represents an attempt (how successful is another question) to build “Biblical history” precisely according to this new type, developed by pan-European science. This fully explains the fact that the main interest in it is focused on clarifying the details of the historical life of individuals and an entire people - details that, taken individually, may seem like trifles, but which in their totality constitute the historical background against which the entire movement of historical life unfolds and which, as a result, gives one or another degree of clarity, brightness and even artistic picturesqueness to the whole history. But this is not all that can serve to justify the title we have adopted for our book. Our critic imagines that history can only take the form of a strictly systematic, steadily consistent presentation of the facts of the historical narrative, and since our book does not have this systematic straightforwardness and the thread of the narrative in it is continually interrupted by deviations into details and explanations that are unnecessary for a strict system, he believes that, in view of this, our book has no right to the name “Biblical history.” But here the critic again showed a strange unfamiliarity with historical science and literature and seemed completely unaware that in addition to consistently systematic history there is also a type of history of a different nature, namely “history in biographies and essays,” and this type has the same right of citizenship in science and brilliant authorities can be put forward in its favor both in civil, church and biblical history 5 . Our book belongs precisely to this type, and we can only be surprised that our critic, who thus turned out to be an ardent denier of an entire class of historical literature and an opponent of the high authorities of historical science, did not realize this. Finally, there is another justification for our book. Every historical work, in addition to its general historical task, usually has and has the right to have its own special, private task, be it the task of criticism, edification or apologetics, and so on, and this particular task necessarily puts its imprint on the historical work, without at the same time depriving it of the general character and type of historical work. The task of our book was, as we directly say in it, “to take advantage of the most important of the newest discoveries” in the field of ancient historical knowledge for the defense of biblical truth (p. 50), and in view of such a clearly expressed task, we already had the decisive right to use the material related here in its entirety, and we do not at all consider it a mortal sin if we included in our book something from this material that has only an indirect relation to the main subject. Apologetic literature of this kind in the West is so rich, but in our country it is so poor that, in view of the enormous significance of apologetics of this kind, we, despite the reproach of Mr. Bogorodsky, would be ready, if only it were possible, to give Russian readers even more of this deeply interesting material, and we are confident that the gratitude that has already been repeatedly expressed to us for this book, both in literature and in private, would not have suffered any damage from this, and the book itself would not have ceased to be “Biblical history in the light of the latest research and discoveries” 6 . To support his opinion about our book, Mr. Bogorodsky, in conclusion, refers to the authority of “one highly enlightened and theologically educated person,” who, after reading our book, exclaimed: “Please tell me, what is this (?) Biblical history?” In contrast to this, we could refer to the authority of not one, but several, probably no less “highly enlightened and theologically educated persons,” who expressed a completely opposite view of our book; but we leave them aside and give a somewhat parallel review of a different nature. When the huge work of the famous English writer-theologian Farrar, “The Life and Works of St. Apostle Paul,” then many of the “not highly enlightened” book buyers, having not previously seen anything like this in our theological and historical literature and looking at this huge volume of more than a thousand pages, asked the publisher in naive amazement and bewilderment: “Please tell me, why can you write so much about the Apostle Paul?..” We admit, we do not see any difference between these two exclamations, and we think that as bewilderment the Kazan “highly enlightened person”, and the bewilderment of the St. Petersburg “neveglas” flowed from the same source, namely, complete unfamiliarity with the modern state of biblical-historical knowledge. The thesis in defense of which we oppose our venerable brother is, therefore, that Biblical history, as a science, cannot be viewed only from one exclusive angle and that, on the contrary, in this respect it is dependent on the general methods of historical science and must necessarily reflect one or another of its conditions. To deny this, in our opinion, means to unnecessarily narrow the field of biblical-historical knowledge and even deprive oneself of very significant benefits that may appear to a biblical scholar in the sense of using the latest results of scientific-historical knowledge in defense of the truths of religion. This is how this science stands today in the Western Christian world, and for us, with our poverty in this regard, with our amazing backwardness, for which we still do not have even a satisfactory textbook on Biblical history, it is least fitting for us to abandon the methods and results of this science developed there. We repeat, we do not at all deny the legality of the prof. Bogorodsky’s concepts of Biblical history are even ready to recognize his (in theological interest) advantage, but we deny the idea expressed by him that this is the only way Biblical history can be. In essence, we could limit ourselves to this in our forced rebuke to our venerable critic, since, we hope, enough has already been said to justify the thesis we have put forward. Unfortunately, there is one more side to the article of our esteemed colleague, which, with all our reluctance to engage in polemics (uselessly separating us from more positive work), forces us to extend this article somewhat. This is exactly the technique that Prof. Bogorodsky uses it to show that our book, even in its execution, is an impossible thing. We admit that we would least like to go into this aspect of the matter, since here we have to personally defend ourselves, and this defense is much more difficult than defending a general principle, simply because this kind of self-defense is most easily capable of arousing in the reader suspicion of the predominance of subjective coloring against the general background of the argument. But since our Kazan colleague, by the very tone of his remarks, makes us a rather sharp challenge to this, we do not consider ourselves to have the right to evade the challenge, and as briefly and sine ira as possible, we will note those points in which we do not consider ourselves subject to such a harsh sentence from our critic. First of all, a few words about our criticism in general. This type of literature is generally in great use among us, and we Russians are ardent critics. We work little in the positive field, and there are departments of scientific knowledge for which there is absolutely not a single tolerable textbook, although sometimes very respectable forces work in the field of science itself. But as soon as some work appears in this abandoned area, intended to even in the slightest degree fill the glaring gap, a mass of critics immediately appears, who consider the very appearance of this book to be a personal insult and, with incomprehensible bitterness, begin to torment it from all sides. And at the same time, the same, very monotonous techniques are always used. The critic (sometimes without even reading the book thoroughly) first of all declares that the content of the book does not correspond to its title, that its author does not even understand the ABCs of his subject, that he has gone into the wrong field and produced an impossible book, and in support of these provisions he pulls from the book certain passages, gives them an impossible meaning in his interpretation, with touching care collects all real or imaginary contradictions, and meaningfully hints at the dependence of the book on works known to the critic, will blame the author for all proofreading errors, will list on one hand all his voluntary or involuntary sins, will expose him as a vessel of all uncleanness and defilement, and after all this will triumphantly declare that this is who and how history is written in our country. And it’s also good for that author, about whose book a harsh critic at the end of his article deigns to make a few softening remarks, saying, “nevertheless, he does not deny some significance behind the book”; Most books do not experience this happiness, and their authors are left tormented in their conscience by the consciousness of the grave sin that they committed by publishing their books, naively thinking of helping them in the spiritual weakness of their fellows. Criticism in our country obviously continues to carry its vulgar type of defamatory literature, and in this we see one of the most powerful brakes on the development of the book industry in our country. We constantly complain that our public is indifferent to books, that they do not buy books, and as a result our writers are doomed to a pitiful fate - eternally half-starved workers, hopelessly wasting their health and strength on thankless work. But how can this be otherwise, when we ourselves, with our ardent criticism, are only trying to undermine in the public any faith in the dignity of newly published books? By this we do not at all want to say that this entire characteristic can be entirely applied to the criticism of our venerable brother. This is our common, so to speak, national vice, and only as such, unfortunately, it could not help but be partly reflected in our critic’s article. But let us turn to the particulars of Professor Ya. Bogorodsky’s critical comments on our book and, of course, we will turn our attention only to the most important of them. We recognize the statement in our critic’s article that we do not understand “the spirit of ancient life” as a very significant accusation against ourselves (pp. 182–3). Of course, in its general form, this is a type of accusation that, by its very essence, cannot be the subject of refutation; but our critic expresses this accusation on a private occasion and thereby gives us the opportunity to present our opposing arguments. He sees a misunderstanding of the spirit of ancient life in the fact that we “with casualness use modern special terms to designate objects of ancient Egyptian life: we call Egyptian schools universities, teachers - professors, school departments - faculties, students - students,” which all “hurts the ear of anyone who understands the spirit of ancient life,” and so on. To this, first of all, we can say that special terms are a very conditional thing, and their use cannot be limited to strict time limits. A well-known term, although developed in modern times, can also be used in application to ancient times, if only the concept it denotes found some correspondence there in reality. In ancient Egypt, undoubtedly, there were higher schools in which the highest education of that time was received, various special sciences were studied (astronomy, medicine, law, etc.), there were respectable teachers from respectable sages or scientists and adult students preparing for various specialties of practical life. There were not many such schools and they served as centers of mental movement among the people and, in general, constituted the same important factor in the mental life of ancient Egypt as those higher schools that we now call universities. In view of such a close analogy, it does not seem to us a great sin to call these schools a term with which we are accustomed to connect a certain concept and which is therefore capable of immediately giving a more or less clear idea of ​​the nature of the ancient Egyptian higher “schools of wisdom.” But our critic sharply denies any similarity between them and says that “between the ancient Egyptian schools at the churches and our modern universities there is no more similarity (if not less) than between the ancient Lyskovsky (?) grain barns and the newest elevators of American design. To this vulgar comparison we can only say that it reveals a strange imprudence in our criticism. Consistently pursuing this argument, we will have to deny for Egypt all the latest scientific terms, the very names of sciences, such as astronomy, medicine, geometry, jurisprudence, since undoubtedly the difference between the corresponding Egyptian and the latest sciences is as great as between the schools themselves. And yet this never occurs to anyone. Even the very houses in Egypt were of a completely different construction from our modern houses, and yet we do not call Egyptian houses simply by the vague terms of "dwellings" or "dwellings." The only justification for our critic’s thought can be that the very term “university” is of recent (and in essence not “newest”, but medieval!) origin, and its very idea is as ancient as the desire for higher scientific education in humanity is ancient. Finally, the very comparison of Egyptian higher schools with Lyskovsky barns hardly stands up to historical criticism. These were schools that not only served as centers of the intellectual life of the country, but also extended their influence far beyond its borders, attracted talented youth from all over the civilized world, gave the first scientific impetus to the famous schools of Greece and Rome - schools that saw within their walls the Moses, Pythagorean, Plato, and subsequently Clement and Origen. Such schools were obviously of good design and contained such grain, which is not always found in sufficient quantities in the newest “elevators of American design,” and in their significance they were fully consistent with our higher schools or universities. In view of this, it is not surprising if the new term “university” is sometimes applied to Egyptian schools, as well as to ancient schools in general, by very respectable authorities in historical science. As for ancient higher schools in general, such a term is constantly applied to them, for example, by the famous English writer-theologian Farrar, especially in his new work “The Life and Works of St. fathers and teachers of the church,” and in relation to Egyptian higher schools, the name “university” is applied even by such a pan-European celebrity as Rawlinson, whose essay on the “Five Eastern Monarchies”, as well as a commentary on Herodotus, constitute a classic work in historical science on the ancient East. We think that if our Kazan critic were familiar with this fact, as well as with the fact that in our book the life of Moses (in the section about which we use controversial terms) is predominantly presented precisely according to the latest monograph by Rawlinson, then he would refrain from those harsh judgments that he scatters with such generosity at our expense, falling into the role of that notorious seminary teacher who condescendingly criticized the student sermon, which in fact turned out to be one of the best sermons of Philaret of Moscow... If Rawlinson, in the opinion of our esteemed brother, does not understand the spirit of ancient life, then, we admit, we are quite ready to share this misunderstanding with him, preferring it to the “understanding” of the Kazan critic. Then Professor Bogorodsky accuses us of introducing into our book various arbitrary assumptions that have no basis in the Bible. We cannot completely deny this, just as no science, least of all historical science, which is often forced to fill in the gaps of the chronicle narrative with probable assumptions, denies the legitimacy of the conjectural element (according to the law of probability). We even admit that due to the novelty of this area of ​​​​biblical-historical knowledge, in this regard we have sinned partly against the rigor and accuracy that are required by the very seriousness and importance of the subject. But at the same time, we think that the examples given by our critic are extremely unfortunate. Thus, against our statement that “Moses intended from the very beginning to break into Canaan immediately after leaving Egypt” and only the cowardice of the people made this impossible, as a result of which it was necessary to turn south to Sinai, our critic says that “not a single feature of the Bible gives reason to assume this” (p. 188). Meanwhile, for this assumption there is almost a direct indication, namely in Exodus 13:17. True, our critic tries to weaken the force of this testimony by referring to Ex. 3:12, where he sees the command of God to perform the ministry at Sinai, which Moses was supposed to fulfill. But at the same time, our esteemed critic himself made a mistake that is unacceptable in exegesis, namely, he confused two completely different concepts - a sign and a command. In the place he indicates, we have precisely a sign 7, which differs from a command in that it assumes a certain element of surprise, unforeseenness, miraculousness (as, for example, in the famous three signs to Saul, from which he had to be convinced of the truth of the high destiny predicted for him), and thus this unforeseenness of the turn to Sinai does not at all eliminate the possibility of Moses’ intentions to lead his people to the promised land by a straight, long-trodden path. We can explain such a confusion of such different concepts in our brother only by the haste with which he wrote his criticism and for which he repeatedly reproaches us, although this haste was much more excusable for us when writing 2,000 pages than for him when writing some two printed sheets. But in our critic’s article we encounter not only signs of haste, but also some unacceptable negligence in the argumentation. Generally treating “the latest research and discoveries” and all the extra-biblical material collected in our book with an incomprehensible dislike for us, the author finally, in one place, directly expresses doubt about the reliability of the information we report. So, regarding the statement we made that the locusts in Egypt, penetrating into houses, “eat up everything that is made of wood,” our critic boldly says (p. 185): “I confess, I have not heard anything like that. I have heard that hungry locusts eat the bark of a tree and even try to gnaw on the wood of young shoots; but I have never heard of her ever eating the very trunk of a tree to the very root.” First of all, we must refute our critic’s strange assumption that the Egyptians had entire trees growing in their houses: they had nothing like that and we don’t say anything like that in our book. We only say that the locusts “ate everything made of wood” (furniture, door frames, etc.). If our esteemed brother has not heard anything like this, then we can only be surprised that he is guided in science by such an unreliable and limited source as rumors. Meanwhile, if he had treated this subject with less carelessness, he would have learned that many researchers “heard” about this phenomenon, and not only heard it, but also wrote it down in their writings. Geikie, for example, heard about it and wrote about it in his famous work on Biblical history 8; the all-European famous researcher of the history of the ancient East, Rawlinson, heard about it again and wrote about it in his commentary on the book of Exodus 9; I heard about it and wrote down the only one, apparently known to our critic from all this literature, Vigouroux 10; it was finally written about in Savvaitsky’s recently published Russian dissertation 11 . Thus, it turns out that of all the serious researchers of Biblical history, only our respected Kazan brother has heard nothing about this interesting phenomenon. In view of this, we feel fully entitled to return to our critic the harsh word he threw at us: “obviously, Mr. Bogorodsky is not in his sphere here” (p. 181). Finally, this is not enough. In our colleague’s critical article, we noticed another aspect that we are decidedly perplexed by. Despite the fact that in the preface to our book we clearly indicated the works that we used in compiling it, and determined the very degree and nature of this use, our critic more than once pointedly points out the fact of our borrowings from foreign authors, and informs his readers that we borrowed everything from the work of Vigouroux, known to him, which he confirms by parallel comparison of the headings of the corresponding chapters in our book and in Vigouroux’s book. Only one thing seems strange and incomprehensible to him is why we modified the titles of Vigouroux, and here he sees on our part “arbitrariness, based on some secret motive” (p. 186), since instead of the title “Mount Sinai” adopted by Vigouroux we put “at Mount Sinai”, instead of “Egyptian art and Jewish art” we have “Israeli art in the time of Moses”, etc. Having read this place, we, in all honesty, we blushed for our esteemed brother. One thing: either he didn’t read Vigouroux’s book at all, or he didn’t read this section in our book, or, finally, he didn’t read either one or the other book, limiting himself to only a cursory comparison of their titles. The fact is that between these chapters of Vigouroux and the corresponding chapters of our book there is nothing in common except the title. Vigouroux's chapter on Mount Sinai consists of 11 pages (II, 526–538) and is entirely devoted to solving the question of what the biblical “Mount Sinai” is, as a result of which he naturally named his chapter that way. Our corresponding chapter consists of 14 large pages (I, 631–644) and of these only 1½ pages are devoted to the question of what Mount Sinai is, and then the entire chapter is devoted to the narration of what happened “at Mount Sinai” (about which Vigouroux does not say a word), as a result of which we called our chapter “at Mount Sinai.” The same is true with the chapter on art, compiled for a different purpose and from different sources than the chapter in Vigouroux. In the face of such a critical reception, we repeat, we are decidedly perplexed, and all we can do is, in the picturesque expression of the prophet, “whistle and wave our arms”... 13. But enough. We have neither the time nor the desire to argue with our Kazan critic. His entire critical article, in our opinion, is a strange misunderstanding. We think so not because this article is harsh towards our book (although this harshness, apparently, was ultimately recognized by the author himself, who deigned to console us at the end of the article with his remark that he “does not deny the significance of our work for bibliology in general, and even welcomes it as an extensive collection of scientific material, in many cases not only useful, but also precious for the biblical historian,” p. 197). This is what we think based on the views and techniques put forward in it, which, unfortunately, are partly reflected by the general character of our literary-critical morals. We ourselves not only do not consider our book to be perfect, but on the contrary, we are aware of its many shortcomings, probably more than even our esteemed brother, and would be ready to gladly accept all serious and thorough instructions from knowledgeable and authoritative persons. Unfortunately, we did not find such instructions in the article of the Kazan professor and we remain dissatisfied in this regard. In conclusion, one last word. When compiling our book, we, by the way, had in mind not a narrow circle of specially theologically educated individuals, but a broader circle of generally educated secular society, for which in our literature there is absolutely nothing in this regard, as a result of which biblical-historical knowledge in it does not go beyond the circle of school “fruits of the priesthood.” history." This partly explains why we devoted so much space in our book to extra-biblical, civil data, believing that these data could serve as a kind of bait for a secular educated society to get acquainted through them with more serious biblical-historical content. And as far as we know (in individual cases), this goal has been partially achieved, since our book is read by educated secular people, not without eagerness, or at least not without curiosity. With the current weak development or, rather, complete absence of biblical-historical interest in this society, no other system of biblical history can hope to penetrate into its midst, even if it immeasurably surpasses our book in its merits in the theological sense. When interest in higher biblical and historical knowledge awakens in him (and it must someday awaken in any society that calls itself a Christian society), then there will be a need for systems of a higher order, even of the type that Prof. Bogorodsky considers it exclusively true. As for us personally, even now, fully aware of the deep need for a comprehensive study and study of Biblical history in our fatherland, we would happily welcome a work in which our venerable brother would practically implement his view of Biblical history put forward and so persistently pursued by him, although we would continue to remain in our opinion that this concept is by no means the only true one and that other concepts in this could rightfully exist next to it. respect. See Historical Bulletin, Aug. 1890 pp. 463–466. See his brochure on Sloga and writing, in Russian. translation 1893 pp. 22 et seq. Prof.'s article Bogorodsky published in Pravosl. Interlocutor”, May-June 1890. For our part, we then gave an answer to him in the “Church Bulletin” Nos. 39 and 40 for 1890. Since prof. Bogorodsky, not limiting himself to the circle of readers of the magazine, found it necessary to give his article wider publicity, publishing it separately and putting it into circulation on a wide book market, and by doing so he put us in the need to resort to a similar measure of self-defense and, taking his answer outside the magazine, give it a place at the end of the most protected book. The answer is reproduced here with only some minor changes. Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, von Hathe, Herzberg, Justi, Pflugk-Hartung, Philippson, with cultural and historical photographs, portraits, applications and maps. The 1st volume was published in 1884. The publication is now complete. In order not to go far for examples, let us point out in our literature the Russian history of Kostomarov (“in essays and biographies”), in church history - Böhringer, Kirchengeschichte in Biographien and, most recently, a new work by the famous English writer Farrar, Sketches of Church History in Biography (Lives of the Fathers) 1889; in biblical history, the famous work of Stanley and others. Finally, Mr. Bogorodsky’s own essays from the life of the “Jewish kings” belong to the same type. Our critic, let us note, although under the line, considering our “Biblical history” impossible, incidentally points to the fact that we noted in the preface that Western European scientists do not give such a coherent course of Biblical history as we have undertaken, and notes that they “did not feel the courage to give such a course out of scientific caution,” since, “this is an impossible matter if we understand Biblical history correctly” (that is, of course, as understands Mr. Bogorodsky). We dare to assure our Kazan critic that he was mistaken in this regard as well. We can tell our fellow critic that Vigouroux, known to him, “felt courageous” in this regard and began to write a Biblical history with the same photographs and drawings as ours. We are not yet familiar with the nature of this work, but we can say in advance that this Biblical history will be much more suitable for our book than for the type that our Kazan colleague puts forward and considers exclusively correct (in parentheses we can note that, unfortunately, Abbot Vigouroux, as he informed us by letter, postponed the publication of this work of his for an indefinite time, since he devoted himself entirely to the work of editing the huge Biblical Dictionary, which completely absorbed his time for several years). “And God said: I will be with you, and here is a sign for you” - τὸ σημεῖον, הָאוֹת, signum, and not a command at all. See: Hours with the Bible, American edition 1892, vol. II, p. 149. Exodus, with comm. by G. Rawlinson, ed. Bishop Ellicott, to Exodus 10:6. Vigouroux, Bible etc. vol. II, 357. M. Savvaitsky, Exodus. from Egypt, St. Petersburg. 1889, p. 153. With the exception of the chapter on religion.