[Rec. on:] Rozhdestvensky D.V., priest, prof. Study Guide for the Holy Scriptures

Many of the seminar textbooks have a very significant drawback: they do not take science into account and are often in hostile relations with it. To avoid a similar deficiency, even the most elementary textbooks, written by specialist professors of higher educational institutions, have recently begun to appear in secular educational institutions. There are very few such textbooks in theological schools. In particular, the study guides on the Holy Scriptures are outdated and have never been of great merit. This is why Professor Fr. Rozhdestvensky, as written by a specialist. However, this is not a seminar textbook. Study Guide Fr. Rozhdestvensky is intended for church teachers' schools and for an additional two-year course at second-grade schools. Therefore, the manual is written according to a very brief program. The extensive first part (496 pages) contains an explanation of selected sections from the Old Testament and the first three Gospels. The second part, obviously, will contain an explanation of the remaining books of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures. The division into parts, it must be said, is rather strange, but it is entirely due to the program and does not depend on the good will of the author. In accordance with the program of the church-teacher school in the educational manual of prof. O. Rozhdestvensky explains only the most important sections of the sacred books, but these sections, after all, are the most important not only for students of church teaching schools - they are also the most important for seminary students and for all readers of the Word of God. Study guide by prof. O. Rozhdestvensky may therefore be useful for a wider circle than the one for which it was specifically written. The major positive advantages of the reviewed educational manual allow and even make one wish for its widest dissemination. We can note several such major advantages. The manual contains very informative so-called “preliminary information” of an isagogical nature. It is evident that it is a specialist who selects the best from the mass of information available to him personally. Here we regret the brevity, as we do after reading any good meaningful book. Before interpreting any necessary section from the Old Testament, the author makes “an explanation of some words and expressions of the Slavic text.” This feature of the educational manual of Prof. O. Rozhdestvensky satisfies the most direct and pressing need of teaching - to teach, first of all, to understand the text itself, and then to interpret it. The sections explaining the expressions of the text are informative and good: not embarrassed by the fact that the manual is intended for persons without any philological training, the author constantly refers to readings of Greek and Hebrew texts. These sections will also be very useful for seminary teachers. The third - and most important - advantage of the leadership of Prof. O. Rozhdestvensky is that it is completely imbued with and everywhere filled with patristic and ancient church interpretations. The author constantly cites authentic expressions of St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Blessed. Jerome, blessed Theodorit, blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabena and others. We personally this feature of the leadership of prof. O. We consider Rozhdestvensky to be his most important asset. The presence of all these and other advantages in the manual under consideration makes us wish it the widest possible distribution. Let us make some comments. In some places it would not hurt to simplify the style of the manual and remove some special terms from there. There are quite a few such places. I'll list a few as examples. “Russians are related by tribe to the Slavs, and the Russian language belongs to the same group as the languages ​​of these tribes” (p. 11). “In it (the Russian Bible) we find, in footnotes, readings of the LXX that deviate from the original text” (p. 12). “Only persons of this last category” (p. 438). On pp. 338–340, the author repeatedly uses the terms “synoptic,” even “weather forecasters.” During the entrance exams at the Academy, we became convinced that these terms are not understood, and sometimes not even known, by the best seminary students. I doubt that these terms will become clear to students even after reading the following lines in Fr. Rozhdestvensky: “they are called synoptic, that is, they are recognized as the fruit of a seemingly joint and in everything consistent review of the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 338). Some interpretations of New Testament texts (we do not consider ourselves knowledgeable in the Old Testament), in our opinion, should be more definite, and sometimes it is desirable that they be more correct. On page 331 we read: “The expression: “Gospel of Matthew,” etc. means: a narrative about the life and presentation of the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the record compiled by Matthew, or in short: according to Matthew, according to Mark, etc. “But the Russian “from Matthew” has no meaning and should be declared nonsense. The Slavic “from” is a translation of the Greek ἐκ (i.e. reading from, from the Gospel of Matthew). In Greek inscriptions there is a preposition κατα, which really means “by” (Latin: secundum), but the Russian and Slavic “from” has nothing in common with this preposition. Why not say on page 339 that the gospel of John is called spiritual (πνευματικὸν εὐαγγέλιον - Clement of Alexandria - in Eusebius, N. E. VI 14:3)? Explaining Matthew 5:17, the author for some reason omitted the most important word: fulfill (p. 352). Without exaggerating, we can say that the correct interpretation of the entire fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew depends on the correct understanding of this word, because in this chapter, individual examples show how the New Testament ideals fulfill the Old Testament law. Is it not in connection with this that the author has the fact that some passages of the conversation on the Mount are interpreted vaguely? Exactly. Christ's words about divorce are interpreted as follows: “The Lord pronounces a new decree, according to which the reasons for divorce are limited only to the case of the wife, etc.” But how can such an understanding be reconciled with Matthew 19:8, where there is a general judgment, and with Mark. but, 5–6, where is the exception of the text of Matthew μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείἀ omitted? Is it possible that in this case the truth of Christ was superior to the truth of the scribes and Pharisees only in that in the truth of Christ the reasons for divorce are limited and minimized? And the general rule: ὅ ὁ θεὸς συνέξευγεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριςέτω - WHAT does it mean? And the author himself on page 435 speaks in a slightly different spirit than on page 357. On page 435 there are also the wonderful words of John Chrysostom about the moral nature, so to speak, about the moral dignity of divorce. The interpretation of Christ's words about the oath (pp. 358–359) is uncertain. “Any addition to the expressions: yes, no, which has the character of an oath, is already from the evil one, that is, it stems from an unclean source and is therefore impermissible (p. 358). But then the author says that from the combination of the Lord’s instructions with other sayings of the Old and New Testaments (which ones? I don’t know which ones!) it is clear that this place refers to oaths given with the intention of not fulfilling them (what kind of oath is this?), or oaths pronounced without an important reason, in matters of petty, insignificant. “In important matters, for example, to confirm testimony in court, an oath is not only permissible, but also obligatory in the conditions of our current existence” (p. 359). But which matters are important and which are petty? Who will determine this? Are court cases always important? But Christ directly says that everything beyond “yes” and “no” is from the evil one. After all, there is obviously a general moral judgment about the oath. We see the same thing with the ap. James (5:12). There is no doubt that “in the conditions of our present existence” an oath is permissible and even possible. obligatory, but, I think, the Gospel does not care about this; this is our sin, our shortcoming. By taking an oath, we are only choosing the lesser of two evils. The Gospel tells us about ideals, about perfection in the image of the Heavenly Father. Ideals cannot be laws. The law is the minimum of good. Christ teaches us not to be content with this minimum, but to stretch into infinity. The uncertainty in the explanation of Matthew 5:33–37 and the lack of fundamental illumination here are especially noticeable because the question of an oath, an oath, is a subject of controversy. Even in a village where a student of a church-teacher's school will have to work, there will be some sectarian or generally frivolous and eo ipso free-thinking person who will demand the teacher to answer. A student of a church teacher's school, of course, should not be an ignorant village liberal, like zemstvo school teachers from ministerial teachers' seminaries are. Note another vague interpretation on pp. 453–454. In seminary textbooks on St. We sometimes read in Scripture: “there are so many interpretations for this verse (as if this number could be determined and as if it does not change!) interpretations: some interpret it this way, others interpret it this way.” The result is that the seminarian knows a fictitious number of interpretations, but cannot in any way interpret the text itself. We see something similar in Prof. O. Rozhdestvensky when interpreting Matthew 24:28: Wherever there is a corpse, there the eagles will gather. “The understanding of this figurative expression is not the same for all interpreters.” The following are interpretations of the blessed. Theophylact, Bishop Michael and S.V. Kochomsky, but it is not said how to interpret. The given interpretations, in our opinion, do not explain anything. Verse 28 should be understood in inextricable connection with Art. 26 and 27; these three verses are inextricably linked with each other. Verse 26 says, “If they say to you, Behold, in the wilderness, do not go out; behold, in the hidden rooms - don’t believe it.” Why don't you come out? Why don't you believe it? The answer is given in verses 27 and 28. The answer is given in two ways. Art. 27: “For as lightning comes from the east and is visible even to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man”; Art. 28: “For 1 where the carcass is, there the eagles will gather.” It is clear that the idea in both verses is completely the same. The thought of verse 27 in Fr. Rozhdestvensky is indicated absolutely correctly: “the appearance of the Lord at the end of the world will not be such that there would be a need to indicate his location.” The beautiful words of St. John Chrysostom: “And how does lightning shine? It does not require a messenger,” etc. This same thought should be read in verse 28. How do eagles flock to a corpse? Nobody tells them about this, but they themselves feel where the corpse is. Likewise, people will not need to be told about the coming of the Son of Man: they themselves will immediately and directly know about it. The coming of the Son of Man will be as obvious as the flash of lightning or the appearance of a corpse somewhere for eagles. Here, it seems, is the only natural and simple interpretation of verse 28, and it is completely in vain that interpreters and exegetes pile up a bunch of artificial and complex interpretations around this verse, in addition to the simple and natural one (see, for example, S. Savinsky. Eschatological conversation of Christ the Savior. Kyiv 1906, pp. 275–278). That's all we could notice when reading Prof.'s study guide. O. Rozhdestvensky as requiring correction. We understand perfectly well that expressing wishes is incomparably easier than fulfilling them. Deep theological and moral concepts are especially difficult, e.g. make the conversation on the Mount accessible and understandable to students of church-teacher schools. The ideological and theological interpretation, for example, of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew usually finds it difficult to comprehend even among students of the Theological Academy. Tischendorf in 8th ed. omits here γάρ with ℵ BDL 1. 33. 102. it vg sah cop aeth, but in the 7th ed. γάρ, as in the textus receptus, was based on XГΔII unc⁹ with ff² q syr p arm Chr Or inf. Soden accepted the reading with γάρ. Reading without γάρ is taken under suspicion due to its connection with the harmonistic tendencies of the Diatessaron (Luke 17:37).