The largest specialist in biblical studies, Doctor of Science Andrey Desnitsky told the readers of KP about the secrets and riddles of the Bible.
For thousands of years, the Bible has been the most popular book of all time. However, the main work of humanity is still the most mysterious text. How to determine where on its pages the real story ends and legends begin? On this topic, we talked with one of the best Russian specialists in biblical archeology, Doctor of Sciences Andrei Desnitsky, a leading researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
INSTEAD OF EXODUS - SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
As you know, Schliemann dug up Troy, guided by the descriptions of the Iliad. Can the Bible be used as such a guide to ancient history?
- Schliemann was just very lucky. Archeology is now very different from what it was in his time. Since then, many different events have taken place in those territories where the biblical story unfolded. The modern archaeologist, unlike Schliemann, does not seek to find something specific (for example, the helmet of Achilles), he studies everything he finds. In this sense, the Bible was and remains an incentive, not a map.
A number of scholars argue that the famous legends of the Old Testament - for example, the exodus from Egypt, a 40-year journey through the desert, is just an exaggerated reflection of the history of several families. And the global flood is a local event. How do you feel about this point of view?
- There are many such explanations. Since you mentioned the exodus, let's remember what the Bible says about it. The descendants of Jacob-Israel (this is his middle name) for a long time lived in Egypt in the position of slaves. At some point, the Lord decided to take them out of there, and under the leadership of Moses he did it. What could archaeologists find here? Imagine that a large group of people migrated from the Nile Delta to Canaan, passing through Sinai. At the same time, they did not build or destroy anything, all that they lost on the way was some kind of shards, scraps and debris. Partly these items were picked up by those who followed this path, partly destroyed. In fact, we only have the historical memory of the exodus. And today scientists are beginning to compare what was written in the Bible with their own ideas about what could and what could not. It turns outfor example, that the number of Israelites who left Egypt according to the biblical texts is unreasonably large. And they think: perhaps it was not quite so. And then a variety of theoretical constructions begin, there are many of them. But each of these theories says much more about its author than about what happened in the mists of time. For example, the American Marxist Norman Gottwald put forward the theory of social revolution: it says that in reality there was no outcome, but simply that the rural lower classes rebelled against the city leaders and overthrew them. And in order to raise the revolution (since there was no Marx then) it was necessary to come up with an ideology that would unite everyone. This ideology was the belief in one god of the shepherds - Yahweh.it was not quite like that. And then a variety of theoretical constructions begin, there are many of them. But each of these theories says much more about its author than about what happened in the mists of time. For example, the American Marxist Norman Gottwald put forward the theory of social revolution: it says that in reality there was no outcome, but simply that the rural lower classes rose up against the city leaders and overthrew them. And in order to raise the revolution (since there was no Marx then) it was necessary to come up with an ideology that would unite everyone. This ideology was the belief in one god of the shepherds - Yahweh.it was not quite like that. And then a variety of theoretical constructions begin, there are many of them. But each of these theories says much more about its author than about what happened in the mists of time. For example, the American Marxist Norman Gottwald put forward the theory of social revolution: it says that in reality there was no outcome, but simply that the rural lower classes rose up against the city leaders and overthrew them. And in order to raise the revolution (since there was no Marx then) it was necessary to come up with an ideology that would unite everyone. This ideology was the belief in one god of the shepherds - Yahweh. American Marxist Norman Gottwald put forward the theory of social revolution: it says that in fact there was no outcome, but just the village lower classes rebelled against the city leaders and overthrew them. And in order to raise the revolution (since there was no Marx then) it was necessary to come up with an ideology that would unite everyone. This ideology was the belief in one god of the shepherds - Yahweh. American Marxist Norman Gottwald put forward the theory of social revolution: it says that in fact there was no outcome, but just the village lower classes rebelled against the city leaders and overthrew them. And in order to raise the revolution (since there was no Marx then) it was necessary to come up with an ideology that would unite everyone. This ideology was the belief in one god of the shepherds - Yahweh.
Promotional video:
Schliemann was just very lucky. Archeology is now very different from what it was in his time.
Photo: EAST NEWS
But the biblical text says nothing about this
- Why? If you look closely, we find something similar there. If you remember, the Israelites first go to Jericho. And there was the harlot Rahab, who received the Israeli spies into her home, and then helped them get out of the city unnoticed. Here is a story for you on the theme "the urban lower classes rise up against the top" - the harlot Rahab participates in the protest movement! And the German historian Martin Noth offers another hypothesis: there was no outcome, no social revolution, but there was a sacred union of tribes around a single sanctuary, which, in order to justify their union, invented a story for themselves: we are not here, we came here from Egypt.
And what actually happened?
- Probably there was not one story. This can be understood from the example of how we describe contemporary events today. Take, for example, Soviet power. After all, there was no such thing that she came out of nowhere, and then disappeared without a trace and was always the same. She was different, difficult and long to install, and gradually disappeared as a result of a number of reasons. Most likely, there were several processes here too: the resettlement of a certain number of people from Egypt to Canaan, and the conclusion of alliances with local tribes (such a story is also told about the tribe of the Gibeonites), and some social unrest, when disadvantaged people joined the aliens and decided jointly deal with the city nobility. All this happened, but in what proportions we do not know. But for the collective memory of the people of Israel, the story of how they were slaves was very important,and became a free independent people and conquered this land, because the Lord helped them. This remained in the memory of the people as the history of its origin.
The Lord decided to lead the Jews out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses
HOW TO CROSS THE SEA DRY
In some cases, scientists try to explain biblical miracles in terms of scientific knowledge. For example, the history of Egyptian executions and the miraculous escape from the pharaoh's army, when the sea waters parted for the fugitives, are explained by the eruption of the Santorini volcano. How sane is this idea?
- Science seeks to find an explanation for everything. On the one hand, the concept of a miracle, in principle, falls out of the field of scientific analysis, because a miracle by definition is a violation of the laws of nature. On the other hand, knowing the laws of nature, science has transferred many phenomena from the category of "miracle" to the category of rational knowledge. Previously, people thought that lightning bolts were arrows of fire that angry gods hurled into the earth from heaven. Today we know that it is a discharge of electricity. But science is far from being able to answer all the questions today. Now let's get back to the history of crossing the sea. There are many explanations, including natural science. Well, for example, there was a big earthquake and tsunami. What is a Tsunami? The water temporarily moves away from the coast - the Israelites crossed, then the water returned and covered the Egyptians. But this is a bit of a fantastic hypothesis,because the tsunami won't give that much time. Another explanation is that the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea. In the original, Yam Suf is mentioned - this is a reed sea, perhaps they crossed the swamps in the area of today's Suez Canal. In principle, they are impassable, but with a very strong wind, the water from the swamps drives away into the distance and you can pass. And when the wind died down, the water returned and the Egyptians got bogged down in this swamp.
This is more like the truth …
- Nevertheless, we do not yet have the opportunity to confirm or refute any of these hypotheses. And I don't know how this can be done in the future, unless a time machine is invented, against which science, again, is still opposed.
- You share faith and knowledge. However, believers look in the Bible for proof of their innocence. Which Bible stories can be used as such a trump card?
- I would not put the question like that, faith does not need proof. As soon as it is reliably proven, then knowledge is transformed, which can be verified at any time. For example, we know that the Earth is round and can always be convinced of this. Do we know that there is God? No! We can either believe it or not. Where does faith come from is another matter? As a rule, from texts. For me, perhaps the most convincing text is the Gospel.
Why?
- Firstly, there is nothing there that would contradict the information we know about Palestine in the 1st century AD. Second, it is not at all like the traditional success stories that tend to underlie any new religion and any ideology. Take the American struggle for independence or the 1917 revolution. Everything is very clear here: here we were enslaved, everything was bad, but we came up with something and won. We observe the same in Islam: the life of Muhammad is a history of military success, when by force of persuasion, and sometimes with the help of weapons, he subdued the neighboring tribes. Such plots often take place in the real world. The story of Jesus is the exact opposite. He did not succeed - the people did not understand him, he was killed himself, the disciples fled. And the Resurrection actually convinced a very small number of people. This is not the story at allwhich I want to tell to justify something great and mighty. And yet it worked. When the Gospels were written, Christians were an insignificant, persecuted, and miserable minority. But rather quickly, they not only spread throughout the Roman Empire, but also convinced everyone else that their faith was better than any other. Defeat in an incomprehensible way turns into the greatest victory! This fact alone says an incredible amount about Christianity. This fact alone says an incredible amount about Christianity. This fact alone says incredibly much about Christianity.
SOCRATES, CHRIST AND BUDDHA …
The historicity of Jesus is controversial. Historians contemporary to Christ have not written anything about him. Is it possible today to find evidence of its existence?
- We generally have a problem with proving the historicity of someone. More examples: Buddha and Socrates. Also two people who left a very large mark in the history of mankind, only in other parts of the world. Not a single written word, written in their hand, came from either Buddha or Socrates. All we know about them is the stories of the disciples - a complete parallel with Jesus. However, no one doubts that Shakyamuni, whom we call Buddha, and Socrates are historical figures. The story is the same with Jesus of Nazareth. People may argue: was he a son of God or an ordinary person? But no one doubts that he existed.
So we can trust the testimonies of the students?
- Of course, it would be nice to have independent authoritative sources. But where could they come from? We have different sources about kings, about great commanders. For example, we have a lot of reliable information about Alexander the Great. But if a person did not build cities, did not conquer kingdoms, then we know nothing about him except the memories of his own friends and followers. However, if we start to throw out of history what is not confirmed by many different cross-sources, we will only have yesterday's newspaper from history. Because everything that is older than a certain milestone is not confirmed in this way. But it is one thing to admit that Christ is a historical figure. And it is quite another matter to understand how limited our knowledge about him is.
But what about the Gospel?
- It describes in some detail the last week of Christ's life. More or less illuminates the last couple of years of his ministry, when he began to preach. And that's it! How he lived about 30 years before that, we do not know a single word. Well, except for the story of his birth and one little story of the Apostle Luke from the childhood of Christ, when little Jesus was lost in Jerusalem, and then found in the temple.
JESUS WAS MARRIED?
More recently, there was a sensational study by the historian Karen King of Harvard University, which sheds light on the details of the life of Jesus. King discovered a certain papyrus from the text, which implies that Christ was married …
“I don’t deal with papyri, but according to my colleagues who specialize in Coptic manuscripts, this is a fake. The papyrus may be genuine, but the text was written by a modern man. But let's say the text would be authentic. We found a piece of papyrus where Jesus said "my wife." So what? This does not mean anything. At some point in the Gospel, Jesus says: whoever hears the law of God and obeys it is my brother, sister and mother. But we know that there are many alternative versions of the Gospel - these are the apocrypha. Let's say in one of the options it would be said "and my wife." This does not mean that the words "my wife" refer to a real existing wife.
The resurrection actually convinced very few people. This is not at all the story that you want to tell to justify something great and powerful.
A 33-year-old mature man without a wife - is this a typical situation for Jesus' contemporaries?
- No, absolutely not typical. But there are so many other atypical things in the Gospel that we know are real. For example, the high priest should always be alone. This is a lifelong post, like a pope or patriarch. And we read in the Gospel that there are two high priests who made the decision to execute Christ - Anna and Caiaphas. But we know from historical Roman sources that this was the case. The Romans removed one high priest and installed another, but the first remained alone. As now there are two popes: one at rest, the other acting. So atypical things often happen.
Is it possible from this circumstance to make an assumption, what was the relationship of Jesus to women? Maybe he was a misogynist? This somehow explains this idle status
- No, this in no way follows from the text of the Gospel. We have no other sources either. But we can imagine purely speculatively that a married man is a completely different story. A person who builds his family cannot be a wandering preacher, this is a completely different path, a different way of life. Actually from here in Christianity comes this idea of conscious celibacy, as one of the possible and honorable paths of life. In ancient Israel, this was not the case; a man had to be married.
There are many artifacts related to the Bible. Are there any among them, the authenticity of which can be said: rather yes than no?
- I believe that this is the Shroud of Turin, although there are a lot of disputes there. From a scientific point of view, there are two explanations: either this is a medieval fake, or it is a shroud in which the body of a person who died on the cross was actually wrapped. Then some unknown events happened to the body and as a result it left a mark on this tissue. I think the explanation with authenticity is more convincing. If we say that this is a medieval forgery, we have to admit that there was some genius medieval artist who was so far-sighted that he made the image negative. Now we almost never use photographic film, but we know that the light on the film is black, and the dark places, on the contrary, are light, because the light illuminates it. The Shroud of Turin has it all. But in the Middle Ages there were no negatives. And this is definitely not an artist's fantasy,who decided to do an original trick, in the expectation that it will be appreciated after a millennium. But let's say we prove that the Turin Shroud was made in the Middle Ages. Does that mean she's a fake? No! After all, it can easily be a copy of that shroud, which, for example, has simply decayed from use. The fabric does not live for thousands of years. Therefore, I think that in one form or another this is the same shroud, in which the body of Christ was wrapped, or its copy.that in one form or another this is the same shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped, or its copy.that in one form or another this is the same shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped, or its copy.
Yaroslav KOROBATOV