Профессор Н. Н. Глубоковский как экзегет Священного писания 3

Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky was born on December 4 6 (19 according to the new style), 1863 in the village of Kichmengsky town, Nikolsky district, Vologda province, in the family of a poor rural priest Nikanor Petrovich Glubokovsky. The surname Glubokovsky came from the name of Lake Glubokoe, on the shore of which stood the Glubokovskaya Church of the Transfiguration, in which Nikolai Nikanorovich’s grandfather and great-grandfather served as sextons for more than 70 years. In a large family of five brothers and two sisters, he was the seventh and youngest child. When he was only two years old, his father died and the family found itself in a difficult situation: his older brother Peter was still in his 5th year of seminary, and his sisters were not assigned. Soon the older sister Anna got married; the new son-in-law, priest Vasily Mikhailovich Popov, showed compassion, and the whole family moved in with him. Nikolai Nikanorovich’s mother understood that studying was the only way for her son to find his path in life, and she contributed a lot to this. He received his initial education under the guidance of his sister and brother-in-law, attending classes at the local parochial school. However, his preparation was rather weak and in 1873, upon entering the Nikolskoe Theological School, he was assigned to the preparatory class. “I learned well that “without science” I would completely perish or be a burden to myself and others,” recalled N.N. Glubokovsky. “Now I myself tried to make up for what I had lost and was so zealous that I did not stop studying even in the summer, sitting hopelessly on the “mezzanine” reading books” 5 . He graduated from the Nikolskoe Theological School in 1878 as the first student, and then in 1884 with honors from the Vologda Theological Seminary, and was sent at public expense to the Moscow Theological Academy. He studied at the academy for five years, because in the fourth year, in his words, “a completely insignificant incident of a trivial nature happened” 6 and he was one of three students who was fired, but was reinstated the following year. In June 1889 Η. N. Glubokovsky graduated from the MDA first in his class, with excellent grades in all subjects, with the title of candidate of theology. Nikolai Nikanorovich was retained as a scholarship holder to prepare for a professorship at the department of church history. From August 16, 1889 to August 15, 1890, under the guidance of the famous church historian Professor Alexei Petrovich Lebedev (1845–1908), the young scientist worked on an essay about Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Kirre, which was later defended as a master's thesis. It was this dissertation 7, defended on July 10, 1890, that brought the author not only a master’s degree (awarded on May 5, 1891 at the Moscow Theological Academy), but also wide fame, although it was not published. N. Glubokovsky began as a seminary student. The work evoked a wide response and high praise from Russian and foreign patrolologists and Church historians. His scientific supervisor, prof. A.P. Lebedev, in an official review, emphasized that the work deserves not only a master’s degree, but even a doctorate 8. One of the most significant historians of the Church of that time, the German Protestant professor at the University of Berlin Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), specially studied the Russian language in order to familiarize himself with his master's work. N. Glubokovsky in the original, and called it “the most important scientific phenomenon in the field of modern patristics” 9. In the fall of 1889, in the fate of N. N. Glubokovsky experienced an unpleasant turn: due to an incident that happened during his fourth year of studying at the MTA, he was not awarded a professorship and was sent, in accordance with the generally accepted practice of that time, as a teacher at the provincial Voronezh Theological Seminary. This was not an easy test for the young scientist. Having experienced first-hand the tragedy of a temporary separation from the academic environment, Nikolai Nikanorovich subsequently spent a lot of effort trying to eliminate the situation when young scientists who graduated from the academy and wholly built their lives in the form of further scientific research suddenly found themselves thrown overboard from theological academies simply because of the lack of free teaching positions. He devoted an entire section to this issue in a special note “On the issue of the needs of spiritual and academic education” 10. Η. N. Glubokovsky proposed introducing special additional hours into the schedule of academies in order to give promising young personnel within academic structures the opportunity to gain teaching experience by reading special courses. Nikolai Nikanorovich spent a whole year (from October 18, 1890 to October 21, 1891) at the Voronezh Theological Seminary as a teacher of the Holy Scriptures. He was noticed by the ruling Voronezh Bishop Anastasy (Dobradin, †1913), “extremely dry and terribly formal in appearance,” who attended his classes at the seminary, and in the summer of 1891 recommended the young scientist to the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Anthony (Vadkovsky) of Vyborg, the future outstanding Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. As a result, in the fall of the same year, Nikolai Nikanorovich was invited to the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament at St. Petersburg, where he worked first as an assistant professor, then from 1894 to 1898 as an extraordinary professor, and then as an ordinary professor until 1919, when he had to move to the Petrograd Theological Institute due to the closure of the academy. The moment he occupied the department of New Testament at St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1891 was also not without drama: as a candidate for this department, the influential professor Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov recommended Alexander Petrovich Rozhdestvensky (1854–1930), who was elected by a majority vote of the Academic Council (9 against 4). But at the same meeting, the rector, Bishop Anthony (Vadkovsky), proposed the candidacy of N.N. Glubokovsky, and 10 days later, Metropolitan of Novgorod, St. Petersburg and Finland Isidor (Nikolsky, 1799–1892) approved this with his resolution. Professor V.V. Bolotov expressed in relation to Η. N. Glubokovsky has some concerns, considering him more of a historian than an exegete of the Holy Scriptures, a too impetuous person who “does not listen to the tone of the fact,” understands it “in a different register and a different color,” interprets “his own thought” into the texts, hears “overtones” and “subtle hints” that are not in them 11 . And even if some modern researchers are right that the difficult “entry into the academic corporation complicated Glubokovsky’s position in the academy for a long time, introduced additional tension and coloration into scientific activity (in particular, into clashes with A.P. Rozhdestvensky, who soon occupied the chair of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament),” then one cannot agree with the fact that he became “a foreign body for the academy and developed, asserting himself and meeting the resistance of an environment alien to him” 12. Concerns V.V. Bolotov were not confirmed: in his further activities, Nikolai Nikanorovich showed himself primarily as a brilliant, unsurpassed exeget, who fit perfectly into the scientific environment of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, which at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. was famous for its biblical and exegetical research. Possible roughness of the initial entry of H. N. Glubokovsky's appointment to the SPbDA teaching corporation were soon erased by the brilliant activity of the scientist in the field of biblical studies. This is confirmed by how much Nikolai Nikanorovich valued his position as a professor at St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, not allowing any job combinations and refusing multiple invitations to professorships at St. Petersburg and Moscow Universities 13 . Precisely as an excellent exegete and a wonderful biblical scholar, N. N. Glubokovsky left a bright mark on Russian theological scholarship, and the St. Petersburg period is the most significant in his work. His method of exegesis and basic theological ideas are briefly described in the second part of our essay. The St. Petersburg period includes not only intensive scientific activity, but also the subsequent recognition of Nikolai Nikanorovich as a scientist. In 1897, the Moscow Theological Academy awarded Nikolai Nikanorovich the degree of Doctor of Theology for his essay “The Good News of St. Apostle Paul according to his origin and essence,” which was awarded St. Synod of the full Makariev Prize. In 1909, he was elected a corresponding member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian language and literature. He also became an honorary member of the Kyiv, Kazan and Moscow Theological Academies, the Moscow and Petrograd Archaeological Institutes, a full member of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and a number of other scientific societies and brotherhoods. In 1904, he (after the death of SPbDA professor A.P. Lopukhin) was entrusted with the leadership of the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. Nikolai Nikanorovich was constantly attracted by the highest church authorities to work in various commissions created under the Priest. Synod. He prepared materials on the issues of reasons for divorce (1895), the right of Jews to be called by Christian names (1911), corrections of the Slavic translation of liturgical books, the structure of the Russian Theological Institute in Paris, and others. He took an active part in the Pre-Conciliar Presence of 1906, where various issues of transforming church life were discussed. By decree of January 20, 1918, the Bolsheviks ordered the closure of all theological schools, including the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Nikolai Nikanorovich was one of those who tried to save the academy by merging it with the university, but, despite the positive decision of the University Council, due to the opposition of the Bolshevik regime this was not destined to come true 14. “It became physically impossible to live,” recalled Η. N. Glubokovsky, “there was simply nothing to eat and nowhere to get it” 15. In September-December 1918, he was invited to give lectures on the problems of church unification in Uppsala (Sweden) 16 . After returning from Sweden, Nikolai Nikanorovich taught at the Oriental Faculty of Petrograd University and at the Petrograd Theological Institute, and also served as an archivist in the Fourth Section of the Second Branch of the Unified State Archival Fund (formerly the Archive and Library of the Holy Synod). At this time, his brother was killed and his nephew went missing. His misfortunes continued: “From daily physical exhaustion, the last of my strength began to leave me, but my wife no longer had it at all and she looked like a dying blade of grass. Terror was raging all around and every sound of a car could foretell the end” 17 . Under these conditions, August 16 (29), 1921 Η. N. Glubokovsky, together with his wife, was forced to emigrate to Finland, from there to Germany, then for some time he occupied the chair of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament in Prague. In 1922–1923 he lectured at the University of Belgrade. In May 1923, he accepted an offer to occupy the chair of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the position of full professor at the Faculty of Theology at Sofia University. Nikolai Nikanorovich arrived in the capital of the Bulgarian Kingdom on July 11 of the same year and remained there until his death, having the opportunity to continue his scientific work. Many of his former students worked with him in Sofia. In 1929 he became an additional member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 18. He also lectured at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, and was the curator of the Russian Christian student movement in Bulgaria. In just his life Η . N. Glubokovsky wrote about forty major works and many articles 19. He died suddenly on March 18, 1937 from kidney disease. Metropolitan Stefan of Sofia, who buried him in the St. Sophia Cathedral, called him Η in his farewell speech. N. Glubokovsky the greatest exeget, “a loving and faithful son of the Church, a mighty pillar of Orthodoxy” 20. What is the greatness of Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky as a biblical scholar and what is the significance of his works for modern biblical scholarship? By the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Russian biblical studies reached its highest development. The study of the Holy Scriptures was aimed at an organic combination of patristic methodology in the study of the biblical text, on the one hand, and bringing in line with this methodology the latest Western factual developments, on the other. But during the same period, an acute problem arose in Russian theology: how to relate to those Western works on the study of the Bible that follow the line of negative biblical criticism? Negative criticism was understood as a direction that proceeded from a number of non-church premises, the first of which was the denial of the inspiration of the biblical text and an attempt to study it as an ordinary human literary work. The mass of factual material accumulated by Western scientists was very impressive and attractive, but their conclusions were so contrary to the traditional interpretation of Scripture that they brought confusion into the minds of Russian Orthodox thinkers. The problem for Russian theological science was that, in arguing their position, negative biblical critics not only put forward bold hypotheses and assumptions (albeit often obviously ridiculous), but also attempted a thorough examination of the biblical text in historical, philological, archaeological and other contexts, which made their research attractive scientifically. It was necessary to develop an adequate attitude towards this general line of study of Scripture in the West. This negative-critical approach was observed in the study of the Holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. In general, in Western science by the end of the 19th century. Several basic approaches have been proposed for rational Bible study 21 . The first approach is known as an attempt at a naturalistic explanation of the biblical text and goes back to I. G. Eichhorn (1752–1827): not only the inspiration of Scripture is rejected, but also the possibility of supernatural phenomena described in the Bible. All miracles were just misunderstood natural phenomena: the voice of God, which Adam heard in paradise, was just peals of thunder, etc. The second approach was proposed by G. E. G. Paulus (1761–1851): the theory of illusionism, which assumes that eyewitnesses of biblical miracles were simply in a state of illusory self-deception: it seemed to Christ’s disciples that He had healed the sick, who should have already recovered, the Transfiguration was reflection of the sun's rays, etc. The mythological approach was generally formulated by V.M.L. de Wette (1780–1849), who proposed to equate ancient myths and biblical narratives and thereby remove the charge from sacred authors that they mislead readers with descriptions of miracles, for they learned biblical history already in the form of “myths” from their ancestors. Thus, it is not the sacred authors who are “to blame,” but the material they used. The stories of the evangelists about the miracles of Christ are just symbols of the ideas of early Christianity; the resurrection and appearance of Christ occurred “more in the thoughts of the sacred authors than in reality”... These approaches were then modified and brought together in the second half of the 19th century. in German biblical studies under the influence of Hegel’s philosophy, official in Germany at that time, suggesting the evolution of spiritual life according to the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” scheme. In the field of the Old Testament, the Graf-Wellhausen theory, which is still so popular in its modifications, has appeared, which suggests that the “true” history of the Israeli people was not reflected in the Old Testament, where it was distorted, but can be restored according to Hegel and in fact was an evolution from paganism in Israel, like other peoples (“thesis”), to the appearance of prophets who taught about the Lord (Yahweh) as the One God (“antithesis”), until the appearance of priests during the Babylonian captivity who proposed the monotheistic cult of Yahweh (“synthesis”). It must be admitted that in the field of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament there was no such Orthodox Russian scientist who alone could comprehensively, reasonably and reasonably reject the approach of Western negative criticism. In general, the Orthodox position was formed and convincingly argued, but this work was carried out in parallel by several researchers: in a remarkable series of articles by Dmitry Sergeevich Leonardov (1871–1915), devoted to the doctrine of inspiration in the ancient Church and in the West, where he showed that the methodology of negative criticism is completely based on their rejection of the dogma of the inspiration of Holy Scripture 22; in the works of the MDA professor Archpriest Nikolai of Eleonsky (1843–1910) 23 ; in a series of articles by professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Vladimir Petrovich Rybinsky (1867–1944), which examined both the history of the development of the Western approach 24 and the far-fetchedness of the archaeological argumentation of the pan-Babylonists 25 ; in the works of another KDA professor Pavel Aleksandrovich Yungerov (1856–1921) 26 and other researchers. At present, Russian biblical studies still faces the task of synthesizing these developments in order to give a holistic picture of the Orthodox attitude to negative biblical criticism of the Old Testament. In the field of the New Testament, negative critical theories built on Hegel's scheme were proposed by the New Tübingen (or Baur) theological school represented by F. X. Baur (1792–1860), D. F. Strauss (1808–1874), A. Ritschl (1822–1889) and A. von Harnack (1851–1930). According to F. X. Baur, in the early period of its existence the Church did not go beyond the Judaism of that time, with the exception of the belief in the messianism of Jesus and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. This was the period associated with ap. Peter, - "Petrinism" ("thesis"). Then began the activity of Apostle Paul ("Paulinism"), who allegedly denied the Old Testament and significantly distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ, seeing God in Him, which Jesus Himself did not teach ("antithesis"). The confrontation between "Petrinism" and "Paulinism" ended with a "synthesis" in the form of the works and theology of St. Apostle John the Theologian 27. In this scheme Apostle Paul presented himself not as a faithful disciple of Christ, but as a distorter of His teaching, who drew extreme conclusions from His preaching. The starting point for the formation of “his” teaching was an appearance on the way to Damascus, when he, sick, experiencing a religious crisis, “objectified” his torment and the cry of his conscience in an external vision. This vision of a subjective nature became the beginning of his new calling as an apostle. The appearances of the risen Christ to the Apostle Peter and other persons of the early Christian community had the same dreamy character (see 1 Cor. 15: 4–8). The conclusion of these constructions of the Baur school was that “Christianity is a myth that owes its origin to Saul of Tarsus, a physically ill and mentally unstable man” 28, and the teaching of the Apostle Paul is a synthesis of various religious philosophical ideas of Judaism, Talmudism, Hellenism, Stoicism, etc. And it was precisely in the field of the New Testament in the person of Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky that Russian theology acquired a titan of thought, who was able not only to show the falsity of the premises and methodological approaches of negative biblical critics, but also to carefully analyze their many developments from the point of view of formal logic, as well as to clearly and convincingly reveal the Orthodox exegesis of Scripture. Exegetical method Η. N. Glubokovsky can be characterized as an amazing and convincing synthesis of logical reasoning and rootedness in the Orthodox Tradition. Using the text of Holy Scripture as a starting point, wading through the thorny thickets of critical teachings, and sometimes crossing the wild desert of various contemporary rationalistic hypotheses, the scientist comes to that oasis of fruitful and correct understanding of Scripture, which, as it suddenly turns out, has long been fertilized and watered by the patristic works and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. But Η makes his way. N. Glubokovsky, using a compass of strict logic and consistency in reasoning, thereby bringing his research into perfect compliance with scientific requirements. “It was precisely the superficial use of formal logic that gave birth in the 19th century. a destructive tornado of negative criticism in biblical studies. And it was logic that now had to restore the destroyed biblical values ​​in its dignity, wrote Associate Professor of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences Archimandrite Iannuariy (Ivliev). -Glubokovsky discovered a strict systematic-logical approach not only in isagogy; proving the logical consistency of the biblical text was his cherished goal in exegesis as well. The exorbitant difficulty of this task, aggravated by the fact that a consistent unity was supposed to unite Scripture with Tradition, did not bother or stop the exegete” 29. Considerable merit goes to N. N. Glubokovsky is that he not only conducted an apologetic analysis of the works of Western biblical scholars, but at the same time revealed the positive content of the biblical text. As Archimandrite precisely noted. Iannuarius, “the main goal of the scientist’s scientific works and teaching activities was the creation of systematic biblical theology. He was guided by the desire to make sure that “Scripture was both the productive source and the unifying center for all theological sciences”” 30. This problem was brilliantly solved by N. N. Glubokovsky in those areas in which he was involved. But one person, even a genius, cannot create a complete system of biblical theology - this can only be accomplished within the framework of a theological school. This task is today, in our days, among the priorities for Russian biblical studies. In the light of the scheme of the New Tübingen school described above, which was very popular at the beginning of the 20th century, it is understandable why at the beginning of his biblical studies N. N. Glubokovsky chose as his main direction the study of the works of St. ap. Paul: there was an urgent need to evaluate the organic nature of the teachings of St. Paul for the early Church. In 1897 N. N. Glubokovsky defended his doctoral dissertation “The Good News of the Holy Apostle Paul according to its Origin and Essence” (St. Petersburg, 1897), which became the core of a huge study of the same name in three books 31 . Numerous reviews of this work clearly indicated that it had become “an extraordinary phenomenon in Russian theological literature” (Prof. M. E. Posnov) 32. Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy M.D. Muretov (1850–1917) wrote that even that seventh part of the work Η. N. Glubokovsky (299 pages), which was submitted for a doctorate, “in terms of the subjects it contains, it represents such a complete encyclopedia of the latest literature, which none of the Western European literatures has so far” 33 . In this capital work Η. N. Glubokovsky, polemicizing with Baur's school, shows that the teachings of the ap. Paul, which has been split by negative critics into many supposedly different ideas, actually represents a complete system and has its source in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. On each controversial point, the Russian scientist sets out the point of view of negative criticism and demonstrates that in order to explain the teachings of the Apostle Paul as purely human, criticism has to either exaggerate the meaning and significance of those texts and expressions from Judaism or Hellenism that are cited as the basis of Paul’s writings, or downplay the dignity and content of the apostle’s letters. Through comprehensive exegesis Η. N. Glubokovsky proves that in most cases the texts cited as “source” are misunderstood in the sources and have a different meaning. Having systematized the teachings of the Apostle Paul, he shows that there is a deep gulf between the apostle’s theology and his supposed “sources”. The idea of ​​contrasting “Paulinism” with the teachings of Christ and the ancient Church is still found in the works of Western theologians. Therefore, Nikolai Nikanorovich’s doctoral work has not yet lost its relevance. In subsequent years, N. N. Glubokovsky continued the line coming from his work on the Epistle to the Galatians: he began to think of it as the first part of a Christian trilogy, composed of the following sections: “The Gospel of Christian freedom in the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Galatians" 34, "The Gospel of Christian Holiness in the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Hebrews" 35 and "The Gospel of Christian Glory in the Apocalypse" 36. In addition to the said trilogy Η. N. Glubokovsky also studied the Gospels and the book of Acts. In addition to lectures on the New Testament in St. Petersburg DA (which will be discussed below), he authored two works written in exile: “The Gospels and their gospel about Christ the Savior and His redemptive work” (Sofia, 1932), where he solves the synoptic problem in the same way as in the St. Petersburg lectures, and “Saint Luke, Evangelist and Writer” (Sofia, 1933), in which he sees in the companion of the Apostle Paul, Luke, the author of the Gospel and the book of Acts. Another area of ​​activity of the scientist was the compilation of a detailed textual commentary on the Church Slavonic and Russian translations of the Gospels. The reason for this was the appeal in 1892 by the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev, to the rectors of theological academies with a request to provide an analysis of the inaccuracies of the Slavic and Russian translations of the New Testament. The rector of St. Petersburg Academy, Bishop of Vyborg Anthony (Vadkovsky), entrusted this task to N.N. Glubokovsky, which he coped with brilliantly. From 1892 to 1897 he submitted comments and corrections to the texts of all four Gospels. The handwritten volume of work amounted to more than a thousand pages, and in a special copy of the New Testament with wide margins, amendments were made to almost every verse of the Gospels! 37 (Subsequently, this manuscript was used by K. P. Pobedonostsev when compiling his own translation of the New Testament.) In this work Η. N. Glubokovsky writes that he was “not inclined to follow the example of the newest critics, who cross out entire sections” from the New Testament text and more readily imitated “St. Philaret of Moscow, who said that it was better to have a more complete text.” The scientist believed that clarity of the text should be achieved not by interpretative translation or artistic paraphrase, but by composing a commentary on obscure passages. He considered the revision of the translation into the Slavic language to be difficult because the original Cyril and Methodius text, which he proposed to try to restore, had not been preserved 38 . Respectful attitude Η. N. Glubokovsky's approach to the Slavic Bible is briefly but very succinctly expressed in his short article of the same name, written in 1932 in exile in Sofia 39 . “Our Slavic Bible,” he writes, “gives an organic unification of the Old and New Testaments, where the first testifies to the historical preparation of the second, which describes the complete, divine completion of the universal process. Therefore, the entire Slavic Bible, in its ideological character, turns out to be a Christian book, although it varies in the strength of expression of this element according to the course of universal history.” Glubokovsky shows that such “Christianization” is legitimate and that there is no “biased transfer of the later to the earlier, which is naturally depicted as a preparatory and justifying moment.” The author explains this paradoxical, at first glance, statement by the fundamental connection of the Slavic Bible with the Greek translation of the Seventy (LXX), made in the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC The latter, in his opinion, is valuable because it popularized “throughout the world of that time personalistic universal messianism,” which found its revelation two centuries later in the Christian Church, and because it was deprived of the textual limitations inherent in the later Masoretic text, in which “the Hebrew Bible became nationalistic-messianic.” The main difference between the LXX translation, according to N. N. Glubokovsky, “in the personalistic-messianic nature of the prophecies, which later quite logically and normally received Christian application in relation to the personality of the Lord the Redeemer.” The scientist emphasizes that there is no “chronologically determined bias” in this, since “during the period of this translation (in Alexandria during the time from Ptolemy Philadelphus to Ptolemy III Euergetes between 285 and 221 BC), of course, there was no Christianity even in a more or less clear foreknowledge and there were no special messianic tensions in the supposed producing circles,” in favor of which he makes a number of arguments. The researcher's conclusion is: "The comparison of the Hebrew Masoretic Bible and the Greek translation of the LXX in objective historical light and impartial interpretation scientifically forces me to formulate in the end that the Greek interpretation reproduces a Jewish textual type independent of the Masoretic." 40 This is the scientist's assumption that the differences between the Masoretic text and the Greek translation of the Seventy are due to their origin in different editions of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, which existed in the 3rd-1st centuries BC, was brilliantly confirmed during the analysis of the biblical manuscripts of the Dead Sea, found in the Qumran area in 1947-1952. From this bold, but brilliantly ahead of its time, statement N. N. Glubokovsky makes a fair conclusion that in this case, the translation of the Seventy is of considerable value for biblical studies along with the Slavic Bible: “due to its correspondence to the LXX, the Slavic translation receives high and wide interest” and “acquires special religious and scientific importance as a monument to the ancient biblical tradition and as a venerable witness to the Byzantine-Greek original for the sacred Cyril and Methodius' work." According to the scientist, the importance of the Slavic text of the Bible in the liturgical structure of the Slavic Orthodox Churches has not only theological, but also pan-Slavic significance, for this reason “one cannot sympathize, but must resist the displacement from our Orthodox worship of this ancestor and our Guardian Angel by various nationalist surrogates, most often vulgarly rude, belittling the divine pomp to the point of common folk ordinariness, mutually dividing the Slavic peoples even in public prayer, and thereby weakening all Slavic brothers and leading to external and spiritual subjugation” 42. The question of the Slavic Bible as one of the main issues of Russian biblical studies of the 19th - early 20th centuries. N. Glubokovsky characterized in his original work, dedicated to an attempt to analyze the state of Russian theological science in the 19th – early 20th centuries, “Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state.” Titanic in its conception and brilliant in its implementation, this work is still an excellent guide to the winding paths of Russian academic theological science of the 19th – early 20th centuries 43 . A special area of ​​activity of the scientist was concern for improvements in the field of spiritual education. For several years in the early 1890s, he pointed out in his reports the low level of examinees, which he saw as the cause of defects in the process of seminary education. The authorities accepted the reports “unfavorably” and Η. N. Glubokovsky was ordered to present his program on the Scriptures of the New Testament for seminaries, which he did in 1895. At the same time, he sent a special note to the Study Committee, which “brought displeasure to the author,” but subsequently had an effect and became the basis for the Study Committee to revise the seminary program on the Holy Scriptures 44 . One of the most important thoughts of this note still retains its significance for theology and the humanities in general: “The lecturer must give a complete, rounded and scientifically substantiated concept of the subject, which is why it is necessary to talk not so much about the facts in all their details (assuming them to be primarily known to his listeners), but rather to extract thoughts from the facts. Along with providing students with accurate information, it would be necessary to instill in them a solid skill for independent scientific work in the field of New Testament exegesis, so that after that they would only have to apply themselves to the most particular issues and be enriched by factual material, but not hesitate about the fundamental, scientific-Orthodox point of view” 45. In May 1896 Η. N. Glubokovsky was invited as a member of the Commission formed at SPbDA “to discuss desirable changes in the current Academic Charter.” Here the professor submits a note, published later under the title “On the issue of the needs of spiritual and academic education 46. In it, he identifies problems that still make themselves felt in the system of spiritual education. First of all, there is a huge number of diverse subjects and a lack of specialization, as a result of which the creative powers of students perish, overloaded with a flow of information that is difficult to perceive and comprehend. However, as Nikolai Nikanorovich reasonably notes, all theological disciplines are so interconnected that if we follow the path of introducing specialization in theological schools in the usual sense for secular educational institutions, then such education in the theological sphere will be clearly flawed. Therefore, “it is necessary to take into account individual characteristics, why each person feels an inclination and has an ability only for certain subjects. All the above observations and considerations convince me that greater “concentration” would be desirable for student studies. I place special emphasis on this term to distinguish it from specialization, which I do not advocate or imply at all. I believe that, in a strict sense, the latter is least permissible. By the very essence of theological knowledge, everything in it is so inextricably connected that it would be extremely dangerous to isolate ourselves in too close a circle, since this would contribute to the formation of narrow one-sidedness, and in scientific terms it would lead to limited myopia and petty scrupulousness, which is very disastrous for scientific knowledge. But concentration is a completely different matter. It in no way interferes with solid knowledge, but only unites it and therefore builds on it. She only cares that each student can reduce his scientific studies to one denominator and arrange them in a systematic manner that is meaningful and understandable to him” 47. Such concentration can be achieved by students independently writing special works, primarily candidate dissertations. It will also be useful, from Glubokovsky’s point of view, for the student to be able to choose subjects that interest him from a number of alternative ones. For this purpose, the professor proposed a scheme for transforming the educational process that he had carefully developed 48 . The lectures currently offered to Russian audiences are Η. N. Glubokovsky on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, read at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, not only fit perfectly into the scientific activity of the professor as a biblical scholar, but also well demonstrate his methodology as an exegete. The introductory part of the lectures is remarkable, the significance of which cannot be understood if one does not take into account the general character of the negative-biblical approach. Η. N. Glubokovsky rejects the possibility of studying the New Testament Scriptures as a product of the human mind, as an ordinary literary source. “Although written monuments are also subject to our consideration, they are sacred; this is literature, but no longer profana, but sacra. Therefore, it goes beyond the limits of our judgment and above human criticism, for it is the subject of reverent worship of people striving for the most correct understanding of it and the possible complete and comprehensive assimilation" 49. Thus, Nikolai Nikanorovich expressed the basic principle of the Orthodox study of the Holy Scripture as a collection of inspired books: “The Holy Scripture is the Word of God and, as such, can only be understood by one who is born of God,” since this requires the eyes of faith 50. “Hence, the basic rule of interpretation of the sacred books in general and the New Testament in particular should be the recognition that what is communicated from God can only be revealed by God; the exegete comprehends only to the extent and strength that the Lord gives him, so that knowledge of Scripture is actually a gift of the Trinity” 51. Like many other Russian researchers, N.N. Glubokovsky drew attention to the fact that “Protestant exegesis proceeds from a false and one-sided beginning, why its method and conclusions cannot be obligatory for us in the slightest degree” 52. In what cases can the study of negative biblical critics be useful for the Orthodox exegete? – Based on the main task of the Orthodox study of Scripture “to comprehend as much as possible the thought of the sacred writer, to approach it and grasp it in its original purity” 53, Protestant commentators can be useful “primarily and sometimes exclusively in philological and literary terms and in the study of the original text when, in the latter case, they do not break a single step from historical facts and do not break or reinterpret them for the sake of their favorite trends” 54. In conclusion of these considerations, N. N. Glubokovsky expresses the most important principle, which is sometimes neglected by modern researchers of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, who are faced with theories based on obviously non-Christian principles (for example, modern varieties of the above-mentioned documentary theory of Graf-Wellhausen), and due to the wide distribution of these theories in Western science, trying to somehow reconcile them with the Orthodox approach, and otherwise demanding to provide a detailed refutation of these constructions. But the Orthodox researcher is not at all obliged to rush to refute this or that detail of the negative-critical theory on every point, for, says N. N. Glubokovsky, “by rejecting Protestant exegetical principles, we will also avoid systematic polemics” 55. The task of the Orthodox exegete is a positive disclosure of biblical teaching, and not fruitless disputes 56. Next, Nikolai Nikanorovich provides a general introduction to the New Testament books, making a number of valuable comments regarding the formation of the New Testament canon. It finally took shape only by the 6th century. according to R. X., however, this in no way discredits the New Testament books, since “the apostolic writings began to be united at their very appearance, and therefore they could not get lost; this work was carried out during the lifetime of the sacred writers and in front of the other apostles, therefore something fraudulent could not be accepted; When compiling the corpus of sacred monuments of New Testament writing, strict caution was observed and a careful separation of the authentic from the counterfeit was made, so that no base falsification could slip into the canon” 57 . These conclusions are Η. N. Glubokovsky builds on consistent logical reasoning, starting both from the text of Scripture and from the history of the early Church. Approaching the study of the Gospel texts themselves, N. N. Glubokovsky gives in detail a methodologically important definition of the written Gospels as texts pursuing the same goal that the Lord Jesus Christ pursued in his activity: their task is to convey to people the good news of their redemption from sin through Christ 58 . This means, the scientist rightly concludes, “The Gospel is not a purely historical and biographical work, giving a detailed and comprehensive depiction of the personality of the Lord” 59 . Detailed completeness is not even necessary with a correct view of the Personality of the Savior, since every moment of His earthly life was an act of fulfilling a special mission. “Hence the conclusion: the Gospel is not a weather record or a biography, but a holistic image of the work of Christ. Therefore, all researchers who apply exclusively a historical and life-descriptive template and try on and forcibly adjust our Gospel records to it are cruelly sinning” 60. Considering the synoptic problem, Nikolai Nikanorovich not only cites the main hypotheses of antiquity and contemporary science, but offers his own solution, based on the above understanding of the essence of the Gospels: the similarities and differences in the text of the synoptics are due to the unity of Church Tradition, which is presented differently by the evangelists depending on their specific tasks and the needs of the recipient churches. At the same time, the Evangelist Mark “knew the work” of the Evangelist Matthew, “but did not copy it slavishly and felt the right to allow changes and deviations, considering himself an equally reliable witness of the life and deeds of the Lord according to the authority of their eyewitness - St. Peter" 61 and "Luke edited the pre-existing synoptic text of Matthew and Mark, as the latter had done with the former" 62 . These statements are N. N. Glubokovsky justifies in detail on the basis that each of the Synoptic Gospels is the result of the interaction of the Divine Spirit and human thought with the goal of expressing the speeches and deeds of the Lord in accordance with human needs. All the Synoptic evangelists “were equally knowledgeable in their subject and, using one another, did not in the least oblige themselves through this with all their knowledge. This does not exclude the dependence of the weather forecasters and is easily reconciled with the paternal idea of ​​the equality of each of them in witnessing to Christ” 63. As a result, Η. N. Glubokovsky shows that due to the uniqueness of each of the Gospel narratives, “the quartet of our Gospels exhausts all possible paths and does not leave without a related gospel a single period of life, not a single request of human nature throughout world history and with all the diversity of races and individuals” 64 . Further, during his lectures, N. N. Glubokovsky, based on the material of each Gospel, examines in detail the issues of authorship, content, language, time and place of writing and publication, addressee and reason for writing, as well as the purpose of writing each of the gospels. For each Gospel Η. N. Glubokovsky conducts a theological analysis of the content, simultaneously raising and solving many theological problems that are less significant in scale, but not in importance. It is safe to say that this edition of Professor N.'s lectures. N. Glubokovsky is not only a remarkable monument to Russian theological thought at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, but will also serve as an excellent guide to biblical studies for modern researchers, since this work, being partly outdated in relation to the factual material, is an excellent example of the Orthodox methodology-approach to the study of the Holy Scriptures, armed with clarity of thought and rooted in the Tradition of the Church. Priest Dimitry Yurevich, candidate of theology, teacher of the department of biblical studies of the Moscow Theological Academy The essay is based on a revised and significantly expanded article “Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky: a biblical scholar ahead of his time,” published by the author in the Church Bulletin (No. 12, 2003 and No. 1–2, 2004). Unless otherwise stated, biographical information is taken from the following materials: K. N. Glubokovsky. Autobiographical Memoirs (MDA. Sofia Archive of N. N. Glubokovsky) (http://www.bogoslov.ru/bogoslov/publication/glubokovskiy.html); Kazanski N. Patriarch of Orthodox theology in Bulgaria // Russian newspaper. 2004. October 14. No. 42 (61) (http://russkayagazeta.com/rg/gazeta/fullstory/patriarh/); Melikhov V. A. Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky, professor of the Imperial St. Petersburg Theological Academy (on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his academic activity). Kharkov. 1914; Russian biographical dictionary. Internet version prepared based on a selection of articles from the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (1890–1907) and the New Encyclopedic Dictionary (1911–1916) (http://www.rulex.ru/01040185.htm). Glubokovsky N. N. Autobiographical memories. Glubokovsky N. N. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity. M., 1890. T. 1–2. Posnov M.E. Bibliography: Η. N. Glubokovsky, ordinary professor of the Imperial St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The Gospel of the Holy Apostle Paul according to its origin and essence. [Kyiv, 1914]. S. 1. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1890. No. 20. Vafinsky N. [Glubokovsky N.N.] On the issue of the needs of spiritual and academic education. St. Petersburg, 1897. Quote by: Bogdanova T. A. Η. N. Glubokovsky and V.V. Bolotov: on the history of the relationship between the authors of “Theodorit” and “Theodoretian” (http://www.mitropolia-spb.ru/rus/conf/bolotov2000/dokladi/bogdanova.shtml) Melikhov V. A. Quote. Op. P. 7. For more details, see: Bogdanova T. A., Klementyev A. K. Η. N. Glubokovsky and the failed attempt to unite the Petrograd Theological Academy and Petrograd University in 1918 // St. Petersburg University. 2004. No. 7 (3663) (http://journal.spbu.ru/ 2004/07/22.shtml). Den ortodoxa kyrkan och frogan on sammanslutning mellan den Kristna kyrkorna // Den ortodoxa kristenheten och kyrkans enhet. Stockholm-Uppsala, 1921. Bl. 7–98. Glubokovsky N. N. Autobiographical memories. That is, a corresponding member. -Ed. Bibliography of works N. N. Glubokovsky can be found in the book: Russian writers-theologians. Bibliographic index. 2nd ed. M., 2001. pp. 274–285. Quote from: Russian writers-theologians. P. 274. For an excellent analysis and systematization of Western negative biblical studies, see: Leonardov D. S. Theories of inspiration and the origin of Holy Scripture in the West in the 18th and 19th centuries // Faith and Reason. 1903. T. 1. Part 1. pp. 173–194, 301–323, 451–456, 508–540, 799–822; T. 1. Part 2. pp. 108–118, 190–206, 248–267, 328–368, 615–650, 689–702. For the bibliography, see the electronic version of the work: Leonardov D. S. Verbal theories of the inspiration of Holy Scripture among Western theologians in the 17th century. // Faith and reason. 1900. T. 1. Part 2. pp. 135–157, 219–242. Email version: St. Petersburg, 2005. http://www.axion.org.ru/e-books/isag-01/insp-09-west-17-century.pdf. Eleonsky N., prot. Modern criticism of the sacred Old Testament writings and its weaknesses // Faith and Church. 1904. El. version: St. Petersburg, 2005. http://www.axion.org.ru/e-books/isag-01/eleonsky.pdf. Rybinsky V.P. Biblical Old Testament criticism // Proceedings of the KDA. 1908. pp. 575–613. Email version: St. Petersburg, 2005. http://www.axion.org.ru/e-books/isag-01/rybinsky-ot-critics.pdf. Rybinsky V.P. Babylon and the Bible // Proceedings of the KDA. 1903. T. 2. pp. 113–144. Dept. edition: Kazan, 1903. El. version: St. Petersburg, 2005. http:// www.axion.org.ru/e-books/bibl-arch-01/rybmsky-babylon-bible.pdf. Yungerov P. A. Introduction to the Old Testament. Book 1–2. M., 2003. El. option: http://www.sbible.boom.ru/books/jung.htm. Posnov M.E. Quote. Op. pp. 3–4; Prot. A. Men. Bibliological dictionary. T. 1. M., 2002. P. 115–116 (on Baur’s word). Posnov M.E. Quote. Op. S. 4. Iannuariy (Ivliev), archimandrite. Contribution of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy to Russian biblical studies // Theological works. Anniversary collection dedicated to the 175th anniversary of the Leningrad Theological Academy. M., 1986. pp. 192–198 (http://www.sinai.spb.ru/ot/ian_contrib.html). In the same place (emphasis added. – D. Yu.). (Quote in the text from: Glubokovsky N. N. Sacred Scripture in Theological Academies at the turn of two centuries // Church Bulletin. 1909. No. 50–51. P. 1583.) Glubokovsky N. N. The Gospel of the Holy Apostle Paul according to its origin and essence. Book 1–3. St. Petersburg, 1905–1912. Book 1. 1905. LXX, 890 p. Book 2. 1910. 1307 p. Book 3. 1912. 80 p. Posnov M.E. Quote. Op. P. 2 (ed. course). Glubokovsky N. N. The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians. Sofia, 1935. 216 pp.; repr.: M., 1999. Glubokovsky N. N. The Gospel of Christian Holiness in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Hebrews. Manuscript, ca. 3000 pages, completely unpublished; fragments were published in the Yearbook of the Sofia Theological Faculty in 1927–37. Glubokovsky N. N. The Good News of Christian Glory in the Apocalypse of St. Apostle John the Theologian. Jordanville, 1966; St. Petersburg, 2002. 288 p. Savich D., priest. Ordinary Professor N. N. Glubokovsky and his “Notes on the Slavic-Russian text of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” (history of the manuscript). http://www.Vitebsk.orthodoxy.ru/publicat/030316publicat.shtml. Quote by: Savich D., priest. Right there. Glubokovsky N. N. Slavic Bible. Sofia, 1933 (http://www.sbible.boom.ru/qb004.htm). In the same place (emphasis added. – D. Yu.). For more details, see: Yurevich D., priest. Greek translation of the Old Testament of the Seventy Interpreters in the light of the biblical manuscripts of the Dead Sea // Yurevich D., priest. Prophecies about Christ in the Dead Sea Scrolls. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 228–234 (http://www.sinai.spb.ru/qum/lxx-and-dss/lxx-and-dss.html). Glubokovsky N. N. Slavic Bible. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928. 116 p. The book has been republished twice recently by the publishing house of the St. Vladimir Brotherhood, in 1992 and 2002. The latest edition is included in the present series “Orthodox Theological Library” (issue 4). Melikhov V. A. Quote. Op. S. 8. Vafinsky N. [Glubokovsky N. N.] On the issue of the needs of spiritual and academic education. St. Petersburg, 1897. 24 p. Right there. P. 5–6 (emphasis added. -D. Yu.). See p. 46 of this edition (emphasis added by the author). See p. 48 of this edition. P. 49 of this edition (emphasis added by me. -D. Yu.). pp. 46–47 of this edition (emphasis added by me. - D. Yu.). P. 46 of this edition. P. 47 of this edition (emphasis added - D. Yu.). P. 48 of this edition. See p. 47–48 of this edition. P. 95 of this edition (the author’s entire quotation is highlighted). See p. 125 of this edition. P. 127 of this edition. P. 201 of this edition. P. 206 of this edition. P. 212 of this edition. P. 223 of this edition. You might be interested in: