Michael Luzin
https://azbyka-ru.translate.goog/ot...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...pisi-biblii/&usg=AOvVaw397sWfne3oxuoVe0Svwbme
While we were analyzing the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript, we received an “Opinion on the Sinai manuscript containing the incomplete Old Testament and the entire New Testament with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Book of Hermas” - Fr. Archimandrite
Porfiry Uspensky. - Even before it was heard that Fr. the archimandrite, who first drew attention to this manuscript in 1815 when he was in Sinai, later changed his first opinion about this manuscript, set out in the description of his first trip to the Sinai monastery (ed. 1850, pp. 225 - 238), and began to count this precious, as he used to call it, a heretical and dangerous manuscript. It was curious to know the reasons for this change of opinion, and the grounds on which this really precious manuscript is suspected of heretical origin. In the "opinion" these reasons or grounds are categorically put forward. But after reading the pages of the “opinion”, which set out evidence of the heretical origin of the manuscript (the New Testament itself and especially the Gospels), one cannot help but marvel at how weak, even insignificant, these evidence, how unfounded the author’s judgments, and how harsh (to say the least) the tone of the review of the manuscript. Everything is based only on the fact that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to discuss them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to discuss them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them here in detail; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven:
1 . “The entire Catholic
Church has been reading Matthew 25 for centuries . 1st ch. So;
and not knowing her (Joseph),
until you give birth to your firstborn son . And in the Sinai manuscript it is read shorter; "
and ignorant of her until you give birth to a son ." Words:
your firstborn- are omitted, as if the publishers of this manuscript thought that Christ was not the fruit of Mary, that He did not take anything from Her most pure body, but passed through Her as through a channel, and therefore did not call Him Her son. Such a conclusion about Porfiry, of course, would not have deduced from the omission of two words if he had paid attention at least to the 2nd chapter of the Gospel of Luke, according to the Sinai manuscript, where in the 2nd column. 33 * sheet, (v. 7.) he would read the same words as are omitted here from the Evangelist Matthew, written by the hand of the first scribe (not to mention reading this place in other ancient manuscripts, translations and ancient writers). Omitting words in one place and leaving them in another is idle for a heretic, and it is unreasonable for a critic of a sacred text to suspect malicious intent in such an omission. How much can one judge of the grounds on which the heretics thought
Philip. 2, 7 .), that ος , και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος -Christ belittled Himself , we received the form of a servant ,being in the likeness of humanity and
being found in the image, like a man .
2 . “The whole Catholic
Church has been reading 1st v. Chapter 1 of the Gospel of Mark as follows:
the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And in the Sinai manuscript, the words - the Son of God - are omitted. And so Christ is not the Son of God!” Is it really possible to conclude from this omission that the publishers of the Sinai manuscript (more precisely, one scribe), having omitted the expression under consideration, do not (allegedly) recognize Christ as the Son of God? It's strange how o. Porfiry from this omission (soon supplemented) drew such an imprudent conclusion, when in the same Gospel in several places, this expression about Christ as the Son of God, is, when in other books of the New Testament one can count dozens of places where this same expression and similar ones in the Sinai manuscript are written correctly. In a similar way of reasoning, you can reach the strangest conclusions. For example, the Evangelist Matthew reads Peter's confession as follows:
You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.(16, 10), and the Evangelist Mark (8, 29) says:
You are the Christ , and there are no words:
Son of the living God . (So according to the generally accepted text, and in the Sinai manuscript in the Gospel of Mark, to the words:
You are the Christ added -
the Son of God ). According to the accepted Porfiry's method of reasoning, shouldn't it be concluded that the Evangelist Mark did not recognize Christ as the Son of God?! -
3 . “The entire Catholic
Church from time immemorial has been reading the last 12 verses of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, which, among other things, speak of the ascension of Christ into heaven. But in the Sinai manuscript they are not. And so Christ did not ascend to heaven!”
4 . “The entire Catholic
Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of Luke (ch. 24, v. 51.) that Christ blessed His disciples near Bethany, departed from them, and ascended into heaven. And in the Sinai manuscript, the words - ascended to heaven - are omitted. Again there is no gospel about the ascension of Christ. Becausebut only two evangelists Mark and Luke mentioned this event, while others were silent: by omitting it, the whole dogma of the Christian faith is tested. And this, no doubt, a very important omission in the Sinai manuscript would not have seemed suspicious and terrible to Fr. Porphyry, if he paid attention a) to the fact that in the book of Acts, by the hand of the same scribe, it is written three times about the ascension of Christ, the fourth time in the epistle to Timothy, the fifth time in the epistle to Ephesians and the sixth time in the 2nd epistle of St. . Peter. Is it possible after this from the mentioned omissions to conclude that, according to the manuscript, Christ did not ascend to heaven, that these omissions refute an entire dogma of the Christian faith?! This pass would not have seemed suspicious if Fr. Porfiry drew attention b) to the fact that these places were omitted in some ancient manuscripts and in some ancient writers, and that no one left evidence that these codes, translations, and writers were suspected of heresy. - True, he could not remain silent about the evidence of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, he could not keep silent about the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, he could not keep silent about the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark,τα ακριβη (correct), and says that what is omitted occurs only in some, and not in all lists - rarely? Why does he deliberately keep silent about similar testimonies of Bl. Jerome and other ancients? (See above when analyzing this option). Such reviews show that these teachers looked at the Gospels with the omission of the verses in question (erroneously, of course) not at all “as exceptions”, but as ordinary, even more correct ones. What about the reviews of other manuscripts and ancient writers? We do not defend lists with this omission, but we only say that there were enough such lists, that they were even considered correct, and no one said that they were heretical - we say that on the basis of these options it is unreasonable to recognize the Sinai manuscript as heretical, and we have every right say so.
5 . “The entire Catholic
Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of John (chapter 8, verses 9-12) a comforting story about the Lord's forgiveness of a wife taken at the place of adultery. And in the Sinai manuscript this legend is omitted. What? By this omission, should the Sinai manuscript be considered heretical? But in this case a) it is necessary to consider as heretical many ancient codices, starting with the Alexandrian, and the Vatican, and found in the works of St.
Ephraim the Syrian (C), and others, who also omit this narrative; but no one has yet suspected these codes of heresy, nor many others similar to them in this respect; b) it is necessary to consider as heretical many ancient translations, starting with the Syrian-Peshito, in which there is no such narration; c) must be suspected of heresy
Cyril of Alexandria , Chrysostom and Theophylact, who (in interpretation) do not have all this separation? - Of course, he will not dare to do this. Archimandrite Porfiry? He says that this separation was omitted (originally?) by the heretic Apollinaris (4th century) in his edition of the Gospel. But how did this omission appear in translations that were made long before this heretic, for example. in the Syrian-Peshito (II century) Coptic and Thebes (III century) and ancient Italic (before Jerome)? ... Then, pointing to the above evidence of Augustine and Nikon and two (also above) additions to the ancient codices , indicating that the branch in question was read in ancient manuscripts, Fr. Porfiry again imprudently (according to the above) concludes: “after such (!) evidence, it was impossible not to classify the Sinai manuscript as heretical”
6 . “The whole Catholic
Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of John (ch. 1 (>. Art. 14):
He will glorify Me (the Spirit of truth),
as if from Mine he will receive and proclaim to you ; (v. 15)
all, the Father has, Mine For this reason ,
he will receive from Mine and declare to you . But in the Sinai manuscript, this 15th verse is omitted, as if its publishers did not believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that He has everything that His Father has.
7 . “The whole Catholic
Church from time immemorial reads in the first epistle to the Corinthians (ch. 12, art. 28. 29):
God put in the church the third of the Apostles ... the gift of healings, intercession, government, various tongues ; and in the Sinai manuscript, the word - give birth is omitted, perhaps by mistake of the scribe; but it may also be that the publishers of her two words - the rule of tongues - read together and understood that God would give Christians the power to rule over tongues, i.e. peoples. That's the perverse meaning this manuscript gives
From the analysis of these places we have made above, it is quite clear that these speculations about. Porfiry are unfounded, and especially the last one is arbitrary.
That's all the reasons why Fr. Porfiry changed his mind about the Sinai manuscript, and at the same time the grounds on which he recognized it as heretical. After all this, it is strange to read his conclusion: “I do not recognize the dignity of such a text, which gives different concepts about Jesus Christ, that He is not the Son of Mary, not the Son of God, does not have what the Father has, did not forgive the harlot, did not ascend to heaven and, instead of the gift of speaking in tongues, gives power to govern the nations.” Terrible accusations, not at all deserved by the manuscript! The groundlessness of this opinion becomes deplorable, all the more so since Father Porfiry exposes it as the fruit of his "free biblical criticism."
Having set forth the above grounds on which the Sinai manuscript should (allegedly) be considered heretical, Fr. Porfiry then turns his attention to corrections in the text of the manuscript. “It turned out, he says, that there are a lot of corrections, that the scribe made many omissions, or had at hand a very bad list, in which there is a lack of sense here and there, and that the corrections were made according to such a text that does not agree with the text of the catholic churches". All this is true, but it does not yet testify to the heretical origin of the manuscript, and Fr. Porfiry, it seems, does not see heretical maliciousness in these corrections, but only that the lists according to which the text of the Sinai manuscript was corrected did not agree with the Catholic text in everything. From the consideration of examples of such corrections given by Fr. Porfiry, the truth of his words is visible, and it is visible It is as clear as possible that there is nothing heretical in these corrections. Corrections consist almost exclusively in the additions of words, expressions and entire verses omitted by the first scribe, and if these corrections are made according to the text not in all similar to the generally accepted text: then it is non-heretical; disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections. disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections. disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections.
All error about. Porfiry, in judging the merits of the text of the Sinai manuscript, seems to have originated from the indefiniteness and one-sidedness of the critical principle that he used in his judgment. In relation to the New Testament text, which he actually considers heretical (that the text of the Old Testament of this manuscript is also heretical, he does not expose a single proof and does not express any suspicions of this at all, and therefore we will not talk about it), he uses the following critical beginning: “if the handwritten New Testament is in complete agreement with the gospels and other apostolic books generally accepted in the Catholic Church, then its dignity is the highest. Otherwise, it belongs to the category of dubious texts. This is the basis for judging the worth of handwritten and printed bibles. It is firm and unshakable." - Is it true; but it is necessary to determine what are the Gospels and other apostolic books generally accepted in the Catholic Church? “Here I mean,” Fr. Porfiry, not the text that was published by pundits, or booksellers, or painters who put it on sale, but the one that was copied at episcopal chairs, was read in churches in the hearing of all Christians, and therefore was called sovereign (κειμενον αυθεντικον ), promulgated ( δημοσιευμενον ), confessed ( ομολογ ᴕ μενον). This sovereign, promulgated, confessed text is a test for evaluating all handwritten and printed editions of the New Testament. - So; but where can one find this sovereign, promulgated, confessed text? Now several hundred ancient manuscripts are known, both complete and incomplete, intended for church and home use, written in statutory letters and cursive from all centuries, starting from the 4th (there are no more ancient ones); manuscripts of the most ancient translations are known, and in each of these manuscripts there are necessarily more or less important, in greater or lesser numbers, variants, as their comparisons made by learned theologians show. In which of them is exclusively the text of the rulers and which are heretical? According to the accepted Porfiry's way of evaluating manuscripts, they can all be suspected of heresy, starting with the ancient Vatican (B), in which Mat. 1, 25:αυτης πρωτοτκον ; there is no end to the Gospel of Mark; there is no story about a woman who is in adultery. In the same way, quite a few omissions can be found in other manuscripts, and one can, giving them a special, unusual meaning, say: I do not recognize the dignity of such a text, which gives different concepts ... etc. But this would be completely unfair and contrary to the principles sound criticism. The fact is that this text, called (allegedly?) sovereign, promulgated, confessed, which in all the lists that were copied at the episcopal sees and read aloud in the churches of all Christians, was the
same(i.e. without options?), that such a text, we say, is assumed about, by Porfiry erroneously; such lists with the same, i.e. there was no exactly similar text (which is the current textus receptus, distributed by means of printing) in antiquity, and for the reasons indicated above it could not be. Evidence, in addition to the ancient lists that have come down to us, in the original and translations, works on comparing texts in different lists of Lucian, Hesyxia and
Origen and the latter's complaints about the malfunction of the lists of sacred books that existed in his time. Indeed, why would the aforementioned men undertake to correct the sacred text according to different manuscripts, if the text was the same in the manuscripts copied at the episcopal sees? What right and reason would
Origen have(Com. ad Math. 19, 19.) to complain that(nowadays a great difference in the manuscripts), without mentioning that the text is the same in the sovereign manuscripts, if it were so? No, not to talk about. Porfiry about the similarity of the text in the sovereign lists, this similarity remains only in his thoughts, but in fact the text in different lists of the ancients was not the same, according to all signs and evidence. That is why the argumentation of Fr. Porfiry, in favor of the sameness of the text in the sovereign manuscripts, is so vague and unproven; he himself seemed to realize that it was impossible to prove this. "The text of the New Testament has been invariably preserved in the Catholic Church." So; but what does it mean permanently? Was it that there were no variants in the manuscripts of the Catholic Church? The author hardly thinks, or at least can think so, if he does not admit that the manuscripts that have come down to us are all deliberately corrupted by heretics, with the exception of those which he considers sovereign, promulgated, confessed, and which only he knows. “For, he continues, although the handwritten writings of the evangelists and apostles were lost a very long time ago, almost from the 3rd century (let's put it this way), the lists remained from them in the churches founded by the apostles, namely in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome ". And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the review Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the review Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the review
Origen , from the writings of Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome. “From these lists, and mainly from Jerusalem, other lists and translations into different languages were made.” And in these translations there are many variants, and among them are precisely such variants, as we have seen from the few examples we have analyzed, because of which Fr. Porfiry suspects the Sinai manuscript of heresy, “The Jerusalem tradition of the New Testament, he continues, in the number of 50 copies, was received by Tsar
Constantine the Great, and from Tsaregrad it has come down to us in a Slavonic translation” (which, we add, has been corrected again many times). But this, it seems, does not at all prove that in the early days of the Christian church there was a text of sacred books without variants! But - "the history of the Catholic Church vouches for the fidelity (to autographs?) of such church lists of the New Testament." Curious; - where is this guarantee? “This story, explains Fr. Porfiry, does not present us with a single case when the apostolic churches would denounce one another for the corruption of the New Testament text, while he cites a lot of evidence of its corruption by heretics. It’s clear: along with the less serviceable manuscripts (not due to the maliciousness of the heretics, but due to the failure of correspondence and other reasons for the variants), there were manuscripts that were more serviceable, in which it was impossible to suspect any maliciousness,
the church in the corruption of the text by its heretics, for the ancients very well distinguished malicious corruption from ordinary malfunction. “For example, it never happened that the Jerusalem
church reproached the Antiochian or Alexandrian church for omitting the legend of the Evangelist Mark about the ascension of Christ into heaven.” Is it true; - but Eusebius calls the lists with the omission of this narrative of Mark ακριβη (serviceable); there are similar testimonies. Jerome n St.
Gregory of Nyssa? What does this mean? The fact that such lists were (wrong, but not heretical), although the churches did not reproach one another for this omission. – “And if this (denunciation of one church by another in the corruption of the New Testament text) did not happen: then all the apostolic churches always read the same text of the Gospel and the Apostle, just like now the entire Catholic
Churcheastern and western reads the same text. Those. O. Porfiry thinks that in the ancient church there was in the manuscripts the same identical, exactly uniform text, what is the current lextus receptus? But this, we repeat, is a mistake. The current textus receptus is based on all the ancient codes (according to certain critical principles), especially the most important ones, in which, however, there are a lot of variants, more or less important, and in ancient times there were no such completely uniform codes. This is beyond any doubt... Where did you find Fr. Porfiry is such a completely identical text? "In the East," he says, "I have seen many ecclesiastical lists of the New Testament in Greek, complete and in fragments, dating back to the fifth century. All such lists agree with each other." Those. no options? Is not it? this is impossible. Or just without those options which are indicated by him in the Sinai manuscript as proof of its heretical origin? If so, and if only on this basis, Fr. Porfiry considers these manuscripts not heretical, but containing the text of the rulers, promulgated and confessed: then he must recognize as heretical all the codes, translations and readings of the fathers and teachers of the church, which are identical in reading in the places considered with the Sinai manuscript. Will he agree to this? - What does the conclusion mean after this: “so, the centuries-old, continuous reading of the same (i.e., without variants? - unprecedented reading!) New Testament text in catholic churches, testified by history (non-existent evidence!) and confirmed By the very lists of it, ancient and new (known only to Father Porfiry!), is there an indisputable proof of the integrity of this text? Why is the concept of the integrity of the text mixed up here with the concept of its uniformity in the ancient lists? These are not words at all that can be put one instead of the other. The 50,000 variants (according to the existing lists of the ancients) in the New Testament do not at all testify against the integrity of the New Testament text; - options and remain only options in which the dogmatic (and not literal) integrity of the text remains in itself. This may seem incongruous, strange and incomprehensible only to those unfamiliar with the history of the text of sacred books, and give rise to a strange desire to prove that in ancient manuscripts there was the same text, without variants, and texts with variants are heretical texts, which (allegedly) for example. and the text of the Sinai manuscript, the most important variants of which, as we have seen, are found in many ancient codices,
There is no need for us to go through the remaining chapters of Fr. Porfiry: they do not relate to the issue we are considering, and do not explain either it or the above view of the text of the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry. The first chapter describes the composition and type of the manuscript; the second considers the place and time of its origin (Alexandria, in the 5th century; according to Tischendorf, more thoroughly, in the 4th century); the fourth chapter describes the fate of the manuscript and the indecent reproach of both the manuscript itself and its publisher Tischendorf, the Sinai monks and persons in contact with the publication, and the Russian learned clergy. We will only write out the words from the conclusion of this opinion about the meaning that the author himself attaches to it: “I declare this opinion, says Fr. Porfiry, before the publication of the printed text of the Sinai Bible. It's mine. It is made by my mind. It is the fruit of my free biblical criticism and is the first fruit on the basis of our theological literature. No one, having read it, will later say that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, that their seed is of poor quality for sowing and threshed poorly to separate the tares from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, that their seed is of poor quality for sowing and threshed poorly to separate the tares from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he
prophesies that everything he said about the dignity of the Sinai text “will turn out to be an immutable and unchanging truth, and that this truth will be clarified and defended by the Catholic churches, Eastern and Western, and will triumph after fiery doubts and zealous debates.” Falsehood will turn out to be false; and an opinion which, under other circumstances, would in fact not deserve criticism, cannot give rise to fiery doubts and zealous debates. It cannot be excused even by the fact that it is the fruit of free biblical criticism,
the first on the basis of our theological literature!
* * *
