One of the resolute supporters of the "modern" approaches was Professor A. V. Kartashev. Therefore, excerpts from his speech on Old Testament biblical criticism will be given here. He tries to give it a dogmatic foundation: "That is why the patristic thought [here there is a reference to the Interpretation of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, St. Basil the Great, which on the whole contains the ideas directly opposite to those expressed by Kartashev] affirmed the thesis of the fullness of the action of the natural human psyche and its reflection in the writings of the sacred authors themselves, to the extent that those methodological operations on the text and content of the Bible that are required by scientific knowledge are dogmatically justified and legitimized. Critical work is appropriate here because it is applied to the human element subject to its competence: it is fully given here. Given, for the Bible is not only the word of God, but also the word of man in their harmonious combination, more precisely: the word of the divine-man. Our usual expression "the word of God" is dogmatically indisputable, but incomplete, just as the expression "Jesus Christ is God" is true, but incomplete; more precisely: the God-man. Therefore, the formula "God is the author of the sacred books" should sound like a Monophysite deviation away from the real Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The same deviation would be to exclusively hold on to the expression "the word of God." With the slogan "the word of the divine-man" we establish ourselves on the unshakable rock of the Chalcedonian dogma. It is a miraculous key that opens the way to the most central salvific mysteries of our faith, and at the same time it is a blessing for the sinless construction of critical biblical knowledge in Orthodoxy. Of course, we do not reason here by identity, but only by analogy with the Christological dogma, for here there is no incarnation, only the coexistence of the human principle with the divine. Here, without heresy, the formulas of Antiochian theology are appropriate: the dwelling of the Spirit of God in the human shell of the Biblical word, as in a temple, without an unmerged and indivisible hypostasis" [37, pp. 72-73].

Up to this point, it would seem difficult to disagree. But it turns out that the results of rejecting the application, even if conditional, of this dogma are still quite heretical. It is stated that in order to understand the Word of God, it is necessary to carefully study its "human shell", but when studying the latter, the former is completely forgotten. And there is a complete separation of the word of man from the Word of God. By the way, it can be noted that in his book "Ecumenical Councils" Kartashev in every possible way defends Nestorius, so that he becomes not a heretic, but simply a victim of misunderstanding on the part of St. Cyril and other defenders of Orthodoxy.

1]. Do any of you see any logical defect here? If we attribute the authorship of the Bible to God, if we say that the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets, then to say that the author of this Scripture is no longer available to us is to declare that we have nothing to do with the Church. In the mouth of some Protestant, this sounds natural, but not from the lips of a professor of an Orthodox seminary.

This or that passage of Holy Scripture is now considered fully interpreted and explained if somewhere in the depths of history some historical person was found to whom it was profitable to write it. For example, we found Psalm 50, it turned out that it could have been edited during the Babylonian captivity by a person who really wanted Jerusalem to be rebuilt as soon as possible – that's it, that's it, the explanation is finished. The story of the patriarch Judah is added to the Book of Genesis at the request of David to increase the prestige of the dynasty. The Book of Daniel was written in the second century B.C. to strengthen the Jews to fight the Syrians. And so on.

Is this what the Apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17)?

But that's not all. It turns out that the prophets did not know the future. They only guessed about the coming events. Therefore, if something is predicted accurately, for example, a name, then this is not a prediction, but a late, contemporary insertion of the editor. And if it was a prediction, then the prophet, of course, did not understand its meaning. For example, in the same Kartashev: "Did Isaiah, glorifying the sufferer for Israel close to him, know that his writing reed, depicting the prototype, was already drawing pictures of Golgotha, chasing ready-made sayings for future evangelists; just as the Psalmist, the author of Psalm 21 (note that he does not say David), did he know that his literary image, "Thou hast divided My garments unto Thyself, and cast lots for My garments" (Psalm 21:19) – is already a prototype of the events of Golgotha – only this has been revealed to us and struck us once and for all by its coincidence. Of course, the real historical Isaiah, when, as we read in the 7th chapter of this book, he pointed to the impending birth of a son named Immanuel by a young woman as a sign of Yahweh's mercy, did not think that this birth and this symbolic name, although the prophet's heart was beating with messianic premonitions, that this whole little political incident would later go far beyond the boundaries of this backwater provincial history, and that all this was a type of the Annunciation and the Nativity Christ's events are more than universal" [37, pp. 33-34]. These statements are on the verge of blasphemy. And, of course, they are in glaring contradiction with what the Holy Fathers said about the prophets and prophecies. Although both Kartashev and others are constantly trying to refer to the Holy Fathers.

But not all passages in the Old Testament lend themselves to easy interpretation. After all, something is explained in the apostolic writings. What should I do? But here the critics have a wonderful way out, it is formulated as follows: "We have to distinguish between the Evangelists and the Apostles – this is already said about the New Testament – as divinely inspired broadcasters revealed by Christ and entrusted by the Holy Spirit to the preservation of the entire Church of absolute truths, and the same Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and others as pupils of the limited and defective school rabbinic environment" [37, pp. 82-83]. That is, when we like something, we say it's an inspired author, and when we don't like it, we say it's a defective rabbinic school environment. Very convenient, very. It is not entirely clear, however, what to do with the words of Christ Himself about the Old Testament and the prophets preserved in the Gospels. But there is probably some trick to this, although usually they are simply ignored.

As a result, we can do whatever we want with the Holy Scriptures. But the result is catastrophic: the result of the study of the Holy Scriptures with the help of the methods of biblical criticism is similar to the result of surgeons' search for the soul in a person – something cut and already soulless. It is the same here: thus, with the help of various linguistic analyses, numerical methods, and so on, the mysteries of God are not revealed. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt. 5:8) – so it is said in the Scriptures.

"That is why there have been so many differences and errors among the interpreters themselves, that when they begin to interpret the Holy Scriptures. Do not care about the purification of the spirit: because of the impurity of the heart, they not only do not see the light of truth, but also invent many things contrary to the faith" [31, p. 69].

Thus, we are witnessing a break with the evangelical, apostolic and patristic traditions. But perhaps there is some benefit from Bible criticism? After all, how much work is put into it? The famous theologian of the 19th century, Bishop Michael (Gribanovsky), wrote that biblical criticism can be useful only if it is used for apologetic purposes. A great deal of effort has been expended in the world to study the Scriptures in the spirit described, but it has done little to strengthen faith and godliness. "The transformation of divinely inspired records, handed over to the believing spirit of the Church, into simple historical written monuments, subject to criticism by any person, even a completely unbeliever, is a direct sign of the Church's dying. This shows the break with the heavenly Church, from which the Scriptures come, with the Holy Scriptures. The Spirit who speaks in them and reproduces in our faith the living, once past events. It means to relate to the Church and its words completely – in the strict sense of the word – from the outside, that is, consequently, to be outside the Church, to leave it" [50, p. 63].

"But how? Is it not possible, is there not a need for historical criticism in the Church? Is it not obvious that the truth is not afraid of investigation and will triumph in the end?.. Yes, historical criticism is needed in the form of protection, just as guns are needed against the guns of enemies. But one must know that this is a method hostile to the Church, alien to her. It is needed when it is attacked, but not for the offensive and not for the inner uplift of life. It can only kill the enemy and repel him, and therefore must be applied only to enemies who attack us. Just as it is impossible to direct cannons, even if recaptured from the enemy, at one's own people, because they can only kill, wherever they are directed, so it is impossible to turn external criticism of the Scriptures inside the Church, to introduce it into its midst" [50, p. 65].

The last thing to add here is that, although modern biblical studies look very scientific, they are not quite scientific. What is the matter? The fact is that, as the priest Pavel Florensky rightly wrote in his work "The Pillar and Ground of Truth," "the scientific methods on which biblical criticism is based are probabilistic in nature" [88, pp. 544-551]. The fact is that the origin of certain features of the text of Holy Scripture can be explained by various reasons. And each of them could well take place. Thus, a serious researcher who claims scientific objectivity can and should, speaking about a particular phenomenon, list its possible causes, preferably with an indication of mathematical probability. And the existence of one, more probable, does not exclude the possibility of the existence of all the others. But that's not all. In addition to probability, which is a certain quantity lying in the interval between zero and one, there is also mathematical expectation. In our case, it may be called moral expectation. The probability of winning the lottery is low. But still winning is possible. And the desire to win makes you neglect the risk and prefer to bet on this small probability. This is where the question of faith arises. If one of the possibilities coincides with the Church's tradition, shall we not give preference to it? And will not the unbelieving scientist who wishes to justify his unbelief brush it aside for the sake of the one that is preferable to him? Hence the endless disputes between scientists, each of whom defends his point of view, refuting others. By the way, this is another argument not in favor of biblical criticism – using the same methods, scholars, relying on the same text, sometimes come to completely opposite conclusions.

Section I. THE PENTATEUCH OF MOSES