Atheistic literature of recent years. Book series “Library of Atheistic Literature “Twilight of the Gods” Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre

1. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

2. "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell

3. "Twilight of the Gods" Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre

4. "Adam's Diary" Mark Twain

5. "God is not love. How religion poisons everything" Christopher Hitchens

6. "The Gospel of Jesus" by Jose Saramago

7. “Ancient critics of Christianity” A.B. Ranovich

8. Friedrich Nietzsche "Antichrist"

9. “Uncombed thoughts, or In the beginning was the Word” Stanislav Jerzy Lec

10. “I believe - I don’t either” Frederic Beigbeder, Jean-Michel di Falco

Notes on

atheistic literature of recent years.

Careful familiarization with the very numerous anti-religious

literature led me to the following conclusions:

1. This literature is striking, first of all, by its incredible backwardness.

In it you can find many provisions expressed in science for 100-150 years

ago and after long since decisively rejected.

2. In many cases the situation is much worse: here we find

a mass of gross distortions of facts and completely obvious fabrications.

ignorance, often in the most basic matters. The latter, however,

is explained, in particular, by the fact that among the many people writing in

atheistic themes, there is not one not only outstanding, but just ordinary

Over 120 books and articles of anti-religious propaganda were reviewed.

Despite such an abundance of literature, comments on it can be reduced to:

several points, since the vast majority of these brochures and articles

conscientiously repeat each other. Sometimes this conscientiousness happens

amazing.

For example, Guryev textually repeats Yaroslavsky and Rozhitsin, who

does not remain in debt, also literally reproducing Yaroslavsky. Similar "

many borrowings" were found in various articles and books, although I did not

The goal was to establish the degree of originality of the literature reviewed.

Let me group the main comments as follows.

WAS CHRIST RISEN?

This is the fundamental question of all religion, all philosophy, all sciences,

concerning human views, for only God could rise again.

Therefore, the question of resurrection is the question of whether God exists. Not

it is surprising that almost all the works of anti-religious people are based on

question about the resurrection, and they all, as expected, answer this question

negative. They may not realize that after some

the most important discoveries (I will talk about them later) did not recognize the fact of the resurrection of Christ

who else than Friedrich Engels. Specifically, in the preface to the reissue of his

in his essays he writes:

"The newest Cappadocian discoveries oblige us to change our view of

some few, but the most important events in world history, and the fact that

previously seemed worthy of the attention of only mythologists, will henceforth have to

attract the attention of historians. New documents that conquer skeptics with their

convincingly, they speak in favor of the greatest of miracles in history, about

the return to life of the One who was deprived of it on Calvary."

True, these lines of Engels remained unknown in Russia even

because they have never been translated into Russian in publications

Marx and Engels.

The Cappadocian discoveries, which convinced even Engels, were followed by a series of

discoveries are no less, but more important. More on this later. Now let's go back to

atheistic literature.

The basis for anti-religious people, in particular for deniers

resurrection, is, as they claim, the lack of evidence of

resurrection.

What is the reality like? Are they really like that?

no evidence? One of the most frequently speaking authors,

a certain Duluman writes: “At a time when, according to the teachings of the clergy, there should have been

exist on earth Christ, there lived many scientists and writers: Josephus,

Austin of Tiberias, Plexides, Seneca, etc. - but they all didn’t say a word

talking about Christ."

I quoted from Duluman not because I think he is the most

quoted here a certain Candidov, who rewrote these lines from

Rakovich, and he, in turn, took them from Shakhnovich, who literally

repeats Yaroslavsky, that is, this is the general opinion of our atheists. Is it true,

here and there there are small variations: for example, a certain Sokolovsky to

the writers listed by Duluman are added by Liberia Zulia, and Rozhitsin and

Tarnogradsky - Tacita and Balandia. This exhausts the list of ancient

They didn’t write about Christ. Is it so?

Let's start in order. Neither Austen really wrote about Christ

Tiberias, nor Liberius Sulius, nor Balandius, but for the reason that these

"ancient writers" never existed. There was no Liberius Sulia

neither in ancient times nor in later times. There was Lavrenty Sury, but also

he lived not at the time of Christ, but ten centuries later. Even greater embarrassment

happened with the “ancient writer” Balandius. He was never there either

nature, and there was a monk Bollan, but he lived after Christ by one thousand five hundred years,

Therefore, it is not surprising that, describing contemporary events, he could not

relate specifically to the resurrection of Christ. Austin of Tiberias is also fictional. IN

Ossia Tverdnik, who lived during the Palestinian events, is known in literature,

but this is not a writer at all, but the hero of an old Byzantine story,

literary character.

So, these “ancient writers” can hardly be taken into account. But

Besides them, atheists also mention Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus.

They, according to atheists, also did not leave any evidence of

resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is it so?

Let's start with Josephus. He is one of the most reliable historical

witnesses. Karl Marx said: "Reliable history can only be written in

based on such documents as the works of Josephus and equivalent ones."

In addition, Flavius ​​during his life could also have been aware of events

described in the Gospel. Finally, Josephus was not a follower of Christ, and no

there is reason to expect from him some exaggerations beneficial to Christians.

Does Josephus really say nothing about the resurrection of Christ?

Those who say this should look into the world at least once in their lives.

excerpts from his works published in the Soviet edition of the USSR Academy of Sciences. There

it is written in black and white: “At this time, Jesus Christ, a man

high wisdom, if only one can call Him a man, a perfecter

wonderful things; when, following the denunciation of our leading people, Pilate crucified Him

on the cross, those who first loved Him were shaken. On the third day

He appeared to them alive again." How does this fit in with the statements and

assurances that Josephus does not say a word about Christ?

Let me make a small disclaimer. A hundred years ago this testimony of Josephus was

questioned. The point was this: at first two were known

version of the manuscript. In one of them the words “on the third day He appeared to them

alive" were, but absent in the other. On this basis, B. Bauer (1809-

1882), and then his followers decided that these words were inscribed

Christians later. This is how the legend of interpolation appeared in Josephus.

However, three more variants were later found, and these findings led to

another conclusion: the discrepancies between the first and second options are not explained

inscription in the first version, and loss of pages in the second version, in which

two more chapters turned out to be missing, which became clear from those found later

three options where lines about the resurrection of Christ are present. Besides,

One more circumstance is very important. World scientist Yu. Wellhausen

[Wellhausen, modern,] together with another major philologist De Sessoni

brought indisputable evidence that the lines of Flavius ​​were written by him

ourselves. The fact is that Josephus wrote in a very unique language, with

compliance with all the features, so it is impossible to fake it. But,

Of course, the final blow to doubts about the authenticity of the manuscript was dealt

discovery of three versions of his works. The first version of the manuscript was the most

the oldest of all.

At present, none of the scientists repeat speculations about the records of

Flavia. So whoever continues to do this shows that he is behind

for ninety to a hundred years.

At the moment of Christ's resurrection, Labirinios found himself with his

officials near this place. Those who clearly saw the fall of the stone,

covering the coffin, rising above this place with an unusually bright shining

figure, Labirinios, along with his companions and guards, rushed

report this to the authorities.

Greek Hermidius [Germisius], who held the official position of biographer

ruler of Judea, also wrote a biography of Pilate. His messages deserve

special attention for two reasons. Firstly, they contain extremely

a lot of reliable information on the history of Palestine and Rome and formed the basis

history of Judea. Secondly, Hermidius stands out sharply in his manner

presentation. This person is not able to succumb to any impressions. By

definition of the famous historian Academician S. A. Zhebelev: “he is with

with the impartial precision of a photographic camera he narrated everything.”

The testimony of Hermidius is also valuable because he, too, during the resurrection

was near that place, accompanying one of Pilate's assistants. Important

add that Hermidius was at first opposed to Christ and, like himself

spoke, persuaded Pilate's wife not to restrain her husband from the death sentence

To Christ. Until the crucifixion, he considered Christ a deceiver. Therefore he

on his own initiative went to the tomb on Sunday night, hoping

make sure you are right. But it turned out differently.

"Approaching the tomb and being one hundred and fifty steps away from it, -

writes Hermidius, “we saw in the faint light of the early dawn the guards at the tomb: two

people were sitting, the rest were lying on the ground, it was very quiet. We walked very

slowly, and we were overtaken by the guards who were going to the coffin to replace the one who

I had been there since the evening. Then suddenly it became very light. We could not

understand where this light comes from. But they soon saw that it was coming from a moving

from above a shining cloud. It sank to the coffin and appeared above the ground

a man who seems to be all glowing. Then there was a clap of thunder, but not in the sky,

but on the ground. From this blow the guards jumped up in horror and then fell. In it

While a woman was walking towards the coffin to the right of us along the path, she suddenly shouted:

"It's opened! It's opened!" And at this time it became clear to us that indeed

a very large stone rolled at the entrance to the cave, as if by itself

got up and opened the coffin [opened the entrance to the cave of the coffin]. We were very scared.

Then, some time later, the light above the coffin disappeared, it became as quiet as

usually. When we approached the coffin, it turned out that it was no longer there.

the body of a buried person."

The testimony of Hermidius is interesting from another point of view. He writes that

shortly before the execution of Christ, a coin with a large

image of Caesar [Tiberius] on one side and with a small image

Pilate on the other hand. On the day of Christ's trial, when Pilate's wife sent

people came to him, through whom she convinced her husband not to impose the death sentence,

she asked him: “How will you atone for your guilt, if the person you condemned

really the Son of God, and not a criminal?" - Pilate answered her: "If He

Son of God, then He will rise, and then the first thing I will do is

prohibition to mint my image on coins while I am alive."

explain that being depicted on coins was considered very high in Rome

honor. Pilate kept his promise. When was it established that Christ

resurrected, Pilate actually forbade depicting himself on coins. This

Hermidius' message is fully supported by material evidence.

From Roman numismatics it is known that in Jerusalem at that time there were

coins were made with the image of Caesar on one side and without the image

Pilate on the other [they began to mint coins only with the image of Caesar].

Syrian Yeishu [Eishu], a famous doctor close to Pilate and who treated

him... is one of the most outstanding people of his time. Prominent

a physician of his time, a naturalist who enjoyed wide fame in

East, and then in Rome, he left works that amounted to a whole

era in science. It is not for nothing that historians of science, including the American scientist

Kiggerists, they believe that Yeishu ranks as a doctor next to Hippocrates,

Celsus, Galen, and as an anatomist - next to Leonardo da Vinci and Vesalius

; only the little-known language in which he wrote prevented

his confession. What is important is under what circumstances Yeishu observed what was described.

them. On Pilate's instructions, from the evening before the resurrection he was near

the coffin along with his five assistants, who always accompanied him.

He also witnessed the burial of Christ. On Saturday he examined twice

coffin, and in the evening, by order of Pilate, he went here with his assistants and must

was spending the night here. Knowing the prophecies regarding the resurrection

Christ, Yeishu and his medical assistants were also interested in how

naturalists. Therefore, everything connected with Christ and His death, they

thoroughly researched. On Sunday night they took turns staying awake.

In the evening his assistants went to bed, but long before the resurrection they woke up and

resumed their observations of what was happening in nature. "We are all doctors,

the guards,” writes Yeishu, “were healthy, cheerful, and felt as usual.

We didn't have any premonitions. We did not believe at all that the deceased

may be resurrected. But He really rose again, and we all saw it

was a skeptic. In his writings he invariably repeated the expression that

Later, thanks to him, it became a proverb in the East: “What I myself do not

I saw it, I think it’s a fairy tale.”

As can be seen from the previous, contrary to the opinion of anti-religious people,

There is plenty of evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One of the world's largest experts on antiquity, academician V.P. Buzeskul

said: "The Resurrection of Christ is confirmed by historical and archaeological

finds with such certainty as the existence of Ivan the Terrible and

Peter the Great... If you deny the resurrection of Christ, then you need to deny

(and with much greater reason) the existence of Pilate, Julius Caesar,

Nero, Augustus, Trojan, Marcus Aurelius, Russian princes Vladimir and Olga,

Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita, Daniil Galitsky, Yuri Dolgorukov and

many others."

This is only a small part of the sources where it is said that Christ

really resurrected. For brevity, I will limit myself to just a list of others

sources: Epiphanius Africanus, Eusebius of Egypt, Sardonius Panidorus, Hippolytus

Macedonian, Ammon of Alexandria, Sabellinus the Greek, Isaac of Jerusalem,

Konstantin [Constantius] of Tire and others. These are only those who lived during

Christ, and were in Jerusalem or in the immediate vicinity of

him and were eyewitnesses of the resurrection itself or irrefutable facts,

confirming it...

It is extremely significant that several testimonies about the resurrection

[those who have not converted to Christianity] tend to suppress this fact in every possible way. Among

Jewish writers who spoke directly about the resurrection, we find such reliable

Mesopotamian, Maferkant.

Maferkant, in particular, was one of the members of the Sanhedrin, treasurer. To him

had to be present at the resurrection. He came to the tomb to

pay the guards who guarded the coffin. Maferkant saw that the coffin was secure

protected. Having paid the money, he left... But he did not have time to move away from the coffin

far away, when a clap of thunder was heard and a huge stone was thrown away by an unknown

by force. Returning back to the coffin, Maferkant saw from a distance the disappearing

shine. All this is described by him in the essay “On the Rulers of Palestine,” which

is one of the most valuable and truthful sources on the history of this

For reasons difficult to explain, Maferkant unexpectedly appeared in

Emelyan Yaroslavsky [who headed the union of atheists, real name

Gubelman Miney Izrailevich] in the following form: “He is silent about the resurrection of Christ

even such a sensationalist hack as Mayferkant, called

Maruta". Truly the greatest ingenuity is needed so that in one

a small mention can allow so many ridiculous perversions.

Let's figure it out now. Firstly, Mayferkant, instead of Maferkant,

mentioned by Yaroslavsky is not a writer at all, but a city in Syria. Secondly,

there never was any "Mayferkant called Maruta", but there was Maruta

Mephos, from the name of the city in which he lived, by the way, five hundred

more than a year later than the Gospel events. Thirdly, Maruta was not

a hack, as Yaroslavsky qualified him, and one of the most

talented writers of that time, who were highly valued by Goethe, Byron,

Hugo and others. His work "Syrian Monisto" was translated into

many European languages, as well as into Russian (from English), and was published in

publication of Gospolitizdat. Fortunately, the employees of this publishing house,

Apparently they didn’t read Yaroslavsky. Like this, who lived in the first century AD

the Jew Maferkant was turned by our atheists into a Syrian who lived in

half a thousand years later, and at the same time declared a hack without guilt.

In total, according to calculations by an expert on Roman history,

literature, Academician I.V. Netushil, the number of completely reliable evidence of

the resurrection of Christ exceeds 210; according to the calculations of modern scientists - 230,

for to the data of Netushil we must also add those historical monuments that

were discovered after the publication of his work.

It is significant that anti-religionists invariably shy away from

debates with serious scientists on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. IN

In Leningrad, the “union of the atheists” did not dare to debate with Academician Tarle,

Academician Rostovtsev, Academician Kareev, Academician Uspensky and members-

correspondents of the Academy of Sciences Egorov and Gauthier, and in Odessa - with

Professor Parkhomenko.

Of course, the resurrection of Christ is the main, most important event, after

which everything else in religion is of secondary importance. IN

in fact, since Christ has risen, that means He is God. Currently for

The fact of the resurrection is undeniable for every even knowledgeable historian. Not

only major, but also simply conscientious historians no longer express

no doubt about it.

Doubts about the resurrection were dispelled mainly after the most important

finds, of which there were many. The first ones date back to the nineteenth century, and

the latter to the present day. The enormous importance of the latest finds [from Qumran]

so great that they were even reported in the press, although only a few

component parts. These are the oldest Jewish texts. They literally shocked

the whole world.

It is highly significant that among our anti-religious

there has never been a single not only major researcher, but even

an ordinary scientist. Who, exactly, are our leading “writers”?

Gubelman (under the pseudonym of Yaroslavsky);

Schneider (under the pseudonym Rumyantseva);

Friedman (under the pseudonym Kandidova);

Edelstein (under the pseudonym Zakharova);

Epstein (under the pseudonym Yakovleva), served as head of the department

anti-religious literature in the central council of the militant union

atheists;

Rakovich, Shakhnovich, Skvortsov-Stepanov and other active leaders

of this union: D. Mikhnevich, M. Iskinsky, Y. Kogan, G. Eilderman, F. Saifi,

A. Ranovich, Y. Ganf, M. Sheinman, M. Altshuler, V. Dorfman, Y. Vermel, K.

Berkovsky, M. Persits, S. Wolfzon, D. Zilberberg, I. Grinberg, A. Schlieter.

What can you say about them?

Emelyan Yaroslavsky is usually put in first place. For example, I take

the first volume of the second edition of his works, dedicated to anti-religious

propaganda, I skip the first three pages devoted to his biography and not

related to science. On page four it says that Christ is not

could have been born, because, according to the Gospel, He was born under Herod, and this Herod

died 50 years earlier. Here Yaroslavsky mixed different Herods. There were

Page 5 says the Bible is a mishmash

various fictions collected from different peoples of those times. As proof

he refers to the once popular, but rejected by scientists, opinion about “two

Bibles", since in the first chapters of the Bible the name Elohim appears, and in the following

Jehovah. Whoever first stated this fact was not dealing with

Hebrew text, and with translations from it. But in other translations,

made directly from the original, this discrepancy is absent. IN

in the Hebrew text the names Elohim and Jehovah are synonymous, just as in

Russian: God, Lord. And if in the Gospel in one place it says God, and in

God is a friend, this does not mean that the book was written by two authors. So in

all four Gospels.

Moving on to the next page of Yaroslavsky, we read: “Everything flows, everything

changes, the Romans said." This was what the Greeks said (Heraclitus).

On the next page it says: "Moses' sister Regina laid it..."

in Hebrew.

On another page: “The Jewish book Kabbalah says that a person

gave names to the animals." There is not a word about this in Kabbalah. It is said in that

the Bible itself, of which Yaroslavsky is considered an expert.

distortions. Firstly, there could not be Avestan priests, since Avesta -

Iranian book. Secondly, Rossonak never existed, but Rossiona.

And thirdly, he was not a priest, but a Brahmin, and he was related to Iran,

not India.

On the next page: "The companion of the god Ohrmazd is Ahriman." Ahriman

cannot be called a companion of Ohrmazd, because they act as

irreconcilable antipodes, opponents. In short, the list of Yaroslavsky’s mistakes could

would compose a volume thicker than the volume of his works, so we will limit ourselves

the examples given here. In his acclaimed book “The Bible for Believers and

non-believers" 197 errors were discovered, but he, so to speak, was

specialist in atheism.

But maybe his followers are luckier? Nothing happened.

About Rozhitsin. When he presented his dissertation, even such a soft

and a benevolent scientist, like Academician Buzeskul, advised to remove it from

protection "to avoid complete failure." Rozhitsin moved his dissertation defense to

Leningrad, but the largest historical researchers Tarle, Kareev and Grevs also

advised him to pick her up.

I won’t dwell in detail on the oversaturated anecdotal

in some places books by the most modern anti-religiousists Lenzman and Shenkman.

In general, when familiarizing yourself with our anti-religious literature, everything

the question arises more persistently: what is the opinion of your readers?

For example, Grishin’s article in the journal “Science and Life”. He writes and

the editors let it into print that the Bible erroneously tells about

the presence of Jews in Egypt, this, according to Grishin, is clearly absurd. TO

information of Grishin, as well as the All-Russian magazine, which, apparently,

quite reliable. This historical fact can be learned from all

This is also evidenced by the monuments of Ancient Egypt. For example (Sukhapet): “In captivity

We have as many Israelis as there are grains of sand on the banks of the Nile." And again: "They left

captivity of the Israelites." And in the epitaph of the Egyptian Seth it is said: "You pursued

the people of Judah, leaving our captivity under the leadership of Moses."

And this is only a small part of evidence of this kind.

Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that the Russian

anti-religious propaganda is absolutely incompetent in the issue it covers.

References:

Academician A.I. Beletsky

Academician I.V.Netushil

Academician V. Buzeskul

Collected works of E. Yaroslavsky (1 volume 2 edition)

"The Bible for believers and non-believers" by E. Yaroslavsky

Newspapers, magazines, notes, brochures related to the issue under consideration.

Notes on
atheistic literature of recent years.

Careful familiarization with the very numerous anti-religious literature led me to the following conclusions:

1. This literature is striking, first of all, by its incredible backwardness. In it you can find many positions expressed in science 100-150 years ago and then decisively rejected long ago.

2. In many cases, the situation is much worse: here we find a lot of gross distortions of facts and completely obvious fabrications.

3. The authors of many anti-religious works display stunning ignorance, often in the most elementary issues. The latter, however, is explained, in particular, by the fact that among the many people writing on atheistic topics, there is not a single not only outstanding, but simply ordinary scientist.

Over 120 books and articles of anti-religious propaganda were reviewed. Despite such an abundance of literature, comments on it can be reduced to several points, since the overwhelming majority of these brochures and articles faithfully repeat each other. Sometimes this conscientiousness is amazing.

For example, Guryev textually repeats Yaroslavsky and Rozhitsin, who does not remain in debt, also literally reproducing Yaroslavsky. Many similar “borrowings” were found in various articles and books, although I did not set out to establish the degree of originality of the literature I reviewed.

Let me group the main comments as follows.

WAS CHRIST RISEN?

This is the fundamental question of all religion, all philosophy, all sciences concerning human views, for only God could rise again. Therefore, the question of resurrection is the question of whether God exists. It is not surprising that almost all the works of anti-religious people are based on the question of the resurrection, and all of them, as expected, answer this question in the negative. They may not imagine that after some important discoveries (I will talk about them later), the fact of the resurrection of Christ was recognized by none other than Friedrich Engels. Specifically, in the preface to the reissue of his works, he writes:

“The newest Cappadocian discoveries oblige us to change our view of some few, but the most important events of world history, and what previously seemed worthy of the attention only of mythologists will now have to attract the attention of historians. New documents, captivating skeptics with their persuasiveness, speak in favor of the greatest of miracles in history, about the return to life of the One who was deprived of it on Calvary."

True, these lines of Engels remained unknown in Russia also because they were never translated into Russian in the publications of Marx and Engels.

The Cappadocian discoveries, which convinced even Engels, were followed by a series of discoveries of no less, but more important. More on this later. Now let's return to atheistic literature.

The basis for anti-religious people, in particular for those who deny the resurrection, is, as they claim, the lack of evidence of the resurrection.

What is the reality like? Is there really no such evidence? One of the most frequently speaking authors, a certain Duluman, writes: “At the time when, according to the teachings of the clergy, Christ was supposed to exist on earth, many scientists and writers lived: Josephus, Austin of Tiberias, Plexides, Seneca, etc. - “However, they all don’t say a word about Christ.”

I quoted from Duluman not because I consider him the most authoritative researcher on this issue, but because he literally quoted here a certain Candidov, who rewrote these lines from Rakovich, and he, in turn, took them from Shakhnovich, who literally repeats Yaroslavsky, that is, this is the general opinion of our atheists. True, here and there there are slight variations: for example, a certain Sokolovsky adds Liberia Zulia to the writers listed by Duluman, and Rozhitsin and Tarnogradsky add Tacitus and Balandia. This exhausts the list of ancient authors who, according to our atheists, lived during that period and wrote nothing about Christ. Is it so?

Let's start in order. Neither Austin of Tiberias, nor Liberius Sulius, nor Balandius actually wrote about Christ, but for the reason that these “ancient writers” never existed. There was no Liberius Sulia either in ancient times or in later times. Lavrenty Sury existed, but he also lived not at the time of Christ, but ten centuries later. An even greater embarrassment ensued with the “ancient writer” Balandius. He, too, never existed in nature, but there was a monk Bollan, but he lived one thousand five hundred years later than Christ, so it is not surprising that, when describing contemporary events, he might not have touched specifically on the resurrection of Christ. Austin of Tiberias is also fictional. Ossia Tverdnik, who lived during the Palestinian events, is known in literature, but he is not a writer at all, but the hero of an old Byzantine story, a literary character.

So, these “ancient writers” can hardly be taken into account. But besides them, atheists also mention Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and Tacitus. They, according to atheists, also did not leave any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is it so?

Let's start with Josephus. He is one of the most reliable historical witnesses. Karl Marx said: “Reliable history can only be written on the basis of such documents as the works of Josephus and equivalent ones.”

In addition, Flavius ​​during his life could also have been aware of the events described in the Gospel. Finally, Josephus was not a follower of Christ, and there is no reason to expect from him any exaggerations that would benefit Christians. Does Josephus really say nothing about the resurrection of Christ?

Those who say this should at least once in their lives look at the excerpts of his works published in the Soviet edition of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It is written there in black and white: “At that time, Jesus Christ appeared, a man of great wisdom, if one can call Him a man, a performer of miraculous deeds; when, following the denunciation of our leading people, Pilate crucified Him on the cross, those who first loved Him wavered. On the third day He appeared to them again alive." How does this fit in with the statements and assurances that Josephus does not say a word about Christ?

Currently, none of the scientists repeats the speculations about the records of Josephus. So whoever continues to do this shows that he is ninety to a hundred years behind.

At the time of the resurrection of Christ, Labirinios found himself with his officials not far from this place. Clearly seeing the fall of the stone covering the coffin and an unusually bright shining figure rising above this place, Labirinios, along with his companions and guards, rushed to report this to the authorities.

The Greek Hermidius [Germisius], who held the official position of biographer of the ruler of Judea, also wrote a biography of Pilate. His messages deserve special attention for two reasons. Firstly, they contain an extremely large amount of reliable information on the history of Palestine and Rome and formed the basis of the history of Judea. Secondly, Hermidius stands out sharply in his style of presentation. This person is not able to succumb to any impressions. According to the definition of the famous historian Academician S. A. Zhebelev: “he narrated everything with the impartial accuracy of a photographic apparatus.” The testimony of Hermidius is also valuable because he, too, was near that place during the resurrection, accompanying one of Pilate’s assistants. It is important to add that Hermidius was initially opposed to Christ and, as he himself said, persuaded Pilate’s wife not to restrain her husband from sentencing Christ to death. Until the crucifixion, he considered Christ a deceiver. Therefore, on his own initiative, he went to the tomb on Sunday night, hoping to be convinced that he was right. But it turned out differently.

“Approaching the coffin and being about a hundred and fifty steps from it,” writes Hermidius, “we saw in the faint light of the early dawn the guards at the coffin: two people were sitting, the rest were lying on the ground, it was very quiet. We walked very slowly, and we were overtaken by the guards who were going to the coffin to replace the one who had been there since the evening. Then suddenly it became very light. We could not understand where this light came from. But soon we saw that it was coming from a shining cloud moving from above. It sank to the coffin and above a man appeared on the ground there, as if he was all glowing. Then a thunderclap was heard, but not in the sky, but on the ground. From this blow, the guards jumped up in horror and then fell. At this time, a woman was walking towards the coffin to the right of us along the path, she suddenly shouted: “It’s opened! It opened!" And at that time it became clear to us that a really very large stone, rolled at the entrance to the cave, seemed to rise by itself and open the coffin [opened the entrance to the cave of the coffin]. We were very scared. Then, some time later, the light above the coffin disappeared, it became quiet, as usual. When we approached the coffin, it turned out that the body of the buried person was no longer there."

The testimony of Hermidius is interesting from another point of view. He writes that shortly before the execution of Christ, a coin was to be minted in Judea with a large image of Caesar [Tiberius] on one side and with a small image of Pilate on the other side. On the day of Christ’s trial, when Pilate’s wife sent people to him, through whom she convinced her husband not to impose the death sentence, she asked him: “How will you atone for your guilt, if the person you condemned is really the Son of God, and not a criminal?” - Pilate answered her: “If He is the Son of God, then He will rise, and then the first thing I will do is to prohibit the minting of my image on coins while I am alive.” It must be explained that being depicted on coins was considered a very high honor in Rome. Pilate kept his promise. When it was established that Christ had risen, Pilate actually forbade depicting himself on coins. This message of Hermidius is fully confirmed by material evidence. From Roman numismatics it is known that in Jerusalem at that time coins were made with the image of Caesar on one side and without the image of Pilate on the other [they began to mint coins only with the image of Caesar].

The Syrian Yeishu [Eishu], a famous doctor close to Pilate and who treated him... is one of the most outstanding people of his time. A prominent physician of his time, a naturalist who enjoyed wide fame in the East, and then in Rome, he left works that constituted an entire era in science. It is not for nothing that historians of science, including the American scientist Kiggerist, believe that Yeishu occupies a place as a doctor next to Hippocrates, Celsus, Galen, and as an anatomist - next to Leonardo da Vinci and Vesalius; only the little-known language in which he wrote prevented his recognition. What matters is under what circumstances Yeishu observed what he described. On Pilate's instructions, from the evening before the resurrection he was near the tomb along with his five assistants, who always accompanied him. He also witnessed the burial of Christ. On Saturday he examined the coffin twice, and in the evening, by order of Pilate, he went here with his assistants and was supposed to spend the night here. Knowing about the prophecies regarding the resurrection of Christ, Yeishu and his medical assistants were also interested in this as natural scientists. Therefore, they carefully examined everything connected with Christ and His death. On Sunday night they took turns staying awake. In the evening, his assistants went to bed, but long before the resurrection they woke up and resumed their observations of what was happening in nature. “We all - doctors, guards,” writes Yeishu, “were healthy, cheerful, felt as always. We had no premonitions. We did not believe at all that the dead could rise again. But He really rose, and that’s all.” We saw it with our own eyes." What follows is a description of the resurrection... In general, Yeishu was a skeptic. In his works, he invariably repeated the expression, which later, thanks to him, became a proverb in the East: “What I myself have not seen, I consider a fairy tale.”

As can be seen from the previous one, contrary to the opinion of anti-religious people, there is plenty of evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

One of the world's largest experts on antiquity, academician V.P. Buzeskul, said: “The resurrection of Christ is confirmed by historical and archaeological finds with such certainty as the existence of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great... If you deny the resurrection of Christ, then you need to deny (and with much more great reason) the existence of Pilate, Julius Caesar, Nero, Augustus, Troyan, Marcus Aurelius, Russian princes Vladimir and Olga, Alexander Nevsky, Ivan Kalita, Daniil Galitsky, Yuri Dolgorukov and many others."

This is only a small part of the sources where it is said that Christ really rose from the dead. For brevity, I will limit myself to only a list of other sources: Epiphanius Africanus, Eusebius of Egypt, Sardonius Panidorus, Hippolytus the Macedonian, Ammon of Alexandria, Sabellinus the Greek, Isaac of Jerusalem, Constantine [Constantius] of Tire and others. These are only those who lived at the time of Christ, and were in Jerusalem or in the immediate vicinity of it and were eyewitnesses of the resurrection itself or irrefutable facts confirming it...

It is extremely significant that several evidence of the resurrection was also found in Jewish authors of that time, although it is quite understandable that Jews [who did not accept Christianity] tend to suppress this fact in every possible way. Among the Jewish writers who spoke directly about the resurrection, we find such reliable authors as Urista the Galilean, Joshua of Antioch, Mananiah the physician, Hanon of Mesopotamia, Maferkant.

Maferkant, in particular, was one of the members of the Sanhedrin, treasurer. He had to be present at the resurrection. He came to the coffin to pay the guards who were guarding the coffin. Maferkant saw that the coffin was securely guarded. Having paid the money, he left... But before he had time to move far from the coffin, there was a clap of thunder and a huge stone was thrown away by an unknown force. Returning back to the coffin, Maferkant saw from afar a disappearing radiance. All this was described by him in the essay “On the Rulers of Palestine,” which is one of the most valuable and truthful sources on the history of this country.

For reasons difficult to explain, Maferkant unexpectedly appeared in Emelyan Yaroslavsky [who headed the union of atheists, real name Gubelman Miney Izrailevich] in the following form: “Even such a sensationalist hack as Maferkant, called Maruta, is silent about the resurrection of Christ.” It takes truly the greatest ingenuity to allow so many ridiculous perversions in one small mention.

Let's figure it out now. Firstly, Mayferkant, instead of Maferkant, mentioned by Yaroslavsky, is not a writer at all, but a city in Syria. Secondly, there never was any “Mayferkant, called Maruta,” but there was Maruta of Mephos, from the name of the city in which he lived, by the way, more than five hundred years later than the gospel events. Thirdly, Maruta was not a hack, as Yaroslavsky classified him, but one of the most talented writers of the time, who was highly valued by Goethe, Byron, Hugo and others. His essay “Syrian Monisto” was translated into many European languages, as well as into Russian (from English), and was published by Gospolitizdat. Fortunately, the employees of this publishing house apparently did not read Yaroslavsky. So, the Jew Maferkant, who lived in the first century AD, was turned by our atheists into a Syrian who lived half a thousand years later, and at the same time, without guilt, was declared a hack.

In total, according to calculations by an expert on Roman historical literature, Academician I.V. Netushil, the number of completely reliable evidence of the resurrection of Christ exceeds 210; according to the calculations of modern scientists - 230, because to Netushil’s data it is necessary to add those historical monuments that were discovered after the publication of his work.

It is significant that anti-religionists invariably avoid debates with serious scientists on the topic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Leningrad, the “union of godless people” did not dare to debate with Academician Tarle, Academician Rostovtsev, Academician Kareev, Academician Uspensky and corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences Egorov and Gauthier, and in Odessa - with Professor Parkhomenko.

Of course, the resurrection of Christ is the main, most important event, after which everything else in religion is of secondary importance. In fact, since Christ has risen, that means He is God. At present, for every even knowledgeable historian, the fact of the resurrection is undeniable. Not only major, but also simply conscientious historians no longer express any doubts about this.

Doubts about the resurrection were dispelled mainly after the most important finds, of which there were many. The former date back to the nineteenth century, and the latter to the present day. The enormous importance of the latest finds [from Qumran] is so great that they were even reported in the press, although only about some of their components. These are the oldest Jewish texts. They literally shocked the whole world.

It is highly significant that among our anti-religious people there has never been a single not only major researcher, but even an ordinary scientist. Who, exactly, are our leading “writers”?

Gubelman (under the pseudonym of Yaroslavsky);

Schneider (under the pseudonym Rumyantseva);

Edelstein (under the pseudonym Zakharova);

Epstein (under the pseudonym Yakovleva), served as head of the department of anti-religious literature in the central council of the Union of Militant Atheists;

Rakovich, Shakhnovich, Skvortsov-Stepanov and other active leaders of this union: D. Mikhnevich, M. Iskinsky, Y. Kogan, G. Eilderman, F. Saifi, A. Ranovich, Y. Ganf, M. Sheinman, M. Altshuler, V. Dorfman, Y. Vermeule, K. Berkovsky, M. Persits, S. Wolfzon, D. Zilberberg, I. Grinberg, A. Schliter. What can you say about them?

Emelyan Yaroslavsky is usually put in first place. For example, I take the first volume of the second edition of his works, dedicated to anti-religious propaganda, and skip the first three pages, devoted to his biography and not related to science. On page four it says that Christ could not have been born, because, according to the Gospel, He was born under Herod, and this Herod died 50 years earlier. Here Yaroslavsky mixed different Herods. There were three of them.

On page five it says that the Bible is a mishmash of various fictions collected from different peoples of those times. As proof, he refers to the once popular, but rejected by scientists, opinion about “two Bibles,” since in the first chapters of the Bible there is the name Elohim, and in the following chapters Jehovah. The one who first stated this fact dealt not with the Hebrew text, but with translations from it. But in other translations made directly from the original, this discrepancy is absent. In the Hebrew text the names Elohim and Jehovah are synonyms, just as in Russian: God, Lord. And if the Gospel says God in one place and the Lord in another, this does not mean that the book was written by two authors. So it is in all four Gospels.

Moving on to the next page of Yaroslavsky, we read: “Everything flows, everything changes, the Romans said.” The Greeks said this (Heraclitus).

On the next page it says: “Moses’s sister Regina laid it...” and so on. For his information, Regina is not the sister of Moses, but... a basket in Hebrew.

On another page: “In the Jewish book Kabbalah it is said that man gave names to animals.” There is not a word about this in Kabbalah. This is said in the very Bible, of which Yaroslavsky is considered an expert.

Further: “Avestinian priest Rossonak...”. There are already three distortions in three words. Firstly, there could not be Avestan priests, since the Avesta is an Iranian book. Secondly, Rossonak never existed, but Rossiona. And thirdly, he was not a priest, but a Brahmin, and he was related to Iran, not India.

On the next page: "The companion of the god Ohrmazd is Ahriman." Ahriman cannot be called Ohrmazd’s companion, because they act as irreconcilable antipodes and opponents. In a word, the list of Yaroslavsky’s mistakes could fill a volume thicker than a volume of his works, so we will limit ourselves to the examples given here. In his acclaimed book, “The Bible for Believers and Unbelievers,” 197 errors were found, and yet he, so to speak, was an expert on atheism.

But maybe his followers are luckier? Nothing happened.

About Rozhitsin. When he presented his dissertation, even such a gentle and benevolent scientist as Academician Buzeskul advised him to withdraw it from defense “in order to avoid complete failure.” Rozhitsin moved the defense of his dissertation to Leningrad, but the leading historical researchers Tarle, Kareev and Grevs also advised him to take it back.

I will not dwell in detail on the books of the most modern anti-religiousists Lenzman and Shenkman, which are oversaturated with anecdotal passages.

In general, when familiarizing yourself with our anti-religious literature, the question arises more and more persistently: what opinion do these authors hold about their readers? Apparently, they are convinced that their readers are deprived of the opportunity to read anything else except their books.

For example, Grishin’s article in the journal “Science and Life”. He writes, but the editors let it into print, that the Bible erroneously tells about the presence of the Jews in Egypt; this, according to Grishin, is obvious absurdity. For the information of Grishin, as well as the All-Russian magazine, which apparently claims to be authoritative, I can report that the presence of Jews in Egypt is quite reliable. This historical fact can be learned from all authoritative studies of both the history of Egypt and the history of Judea. The monuments of Ancient Egypt also speak about this. For example (Sukhapet): “We have as many Israelis in captivity as there are grains of sand on the banks of the Nile.” And again: “The Israelis left captivity.” And in the epitaph to the Egyptian Seph it is said: “You pursued the people of Judah, leaving under the leadership of Moses from our captivity.” And this is only a small part of evidence of this kind.

Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that Russian anti-religious propaganda is absolutely incompetent in the issue it covers.

References:

Academician A.I. Beletsky

Academician I.V.Netushil

Academician V. Buzeskul

"The Bible for believers and non-believers" by E. Yaroslavsky

Newspapers, magazines, notes, brochures related to the issue under consideration.

Our children's writers of the 20th century managed to create hundreds of outstanding world-class works. And I am sure that in the soul of everyone who was born in Russia, the memory of childhood is inextricably linked with at least one of these creations. We can rightfully be proud of the unique Russian school of writing and its great representatives. However, remembering the merits of the classics, you should not console yourself with the thought that all Soviet children's literature was limited only to their work. We should not forget about its entire layer, which sets itself only one goal - the propaganda of atheism. Moreover, one should not underestimate the cultural influence of these opuses, even if they were written by less famous authors than S.Ya. Marshak or K.I. Chukovsky.

From a very young age, Soviet people should have known: faith is bad, atheism is good. Funny children's books in which pioneer heroes successfully fought religious fanatics and cunning hypocritical “priests” were entrusted with putting these “simple truths” into a child’s head. Not yet able to critically comprehend what they read, naive children had to look admiringly at their literary comrades and dream of the same adventures.

I didn’t find the books I’m going to talk about in an old, dusty attic. No! All of them have successfully migrated to the digital space, where they continue to live in the form of convenient collections on the websites of the largest online libraries. And they look through them, and read them, and even give them five “stars,” which is absolutely not surprising. After all, sooner or later, post-Soviet nostalgia was bound to spread to other parts of the communist legacy, including anti-religious ones.

Everyday atheism is in demand today: it provides simple and convenient formulas and answers

But what does bringing old Soviet myths back to life entail? What, after all, is the danger of mindlessly reading children's atheistic books? Like any propaganda, they cannot provide an objective picture of the world. This is not the purpose of this kind of literature. Instead, she successfully constructs the image of the Other, the enemy, the embodiment of Evil. And such an enemy becomes a believer, especially a priest. It must be fought by definition, due to its otherness. To put it simply: he is not like us, and therefore dangerous.

Such attitudes cannot bring anything good. They are closer to everyday xenophobia than to a serious and thoughtful position in life. So it turns out that promoted by such books, supported only by the desire to find the Other for the role of “scapegoat”, he himself falls into the category of “everyday”. And today, in the context of the ongoing economic, social and spiritual crisis, everyday atheism could not be more in demand. He does not require his followers to read serious scientific literature, nor to understand the wide range of classics of free thought from Jean Meslier or Pierre Bayle to Ludwig Feuerbach or Karl Marx. Instead, everyday atheism provides simple and convenient explanatory formulas that answer the “damned” Russian questions “Who is to blame?” and “What to do?”: fight religion – save Russia/democracy/the world (underline as appropriate).

Comrades are with you. And with me?

The list of Soviet children's atheistic literature is huge. It’s impossible to list all the books. Let us dwell on only two, which, in my opinion, are excellent examples of such “creativity”. These are “Comrades With You” by Tamara Vorontsova and “Miracle Worker” by Vladimir Fedorovich Tendryakov. Perhaps someone still has these books at home as a memory of their past childhood. Find them, re-read them, and you will see how much of what is written there is still alive in our minds.

“Comrades are with you” is a book about sectarians. Although at first there is nothing to indicate that it will be about them. The girl Ira, who arrived from Moscow to an unnamed Siberian town, spends a cheerful summer with her grandmother, but suddenly terrible stories about sectarians invade her world (not themselves, no, but only stories about them). All her new friends - both adults and children - vying with each other to scare the girl, either with descriptions of children crucified by fanatics, or with other horror stories. One day, Ira finds herself on the banks of a mighty river flowing through the city and meets an unusually handsome and delicate young man. The boy looks into the distance, when suddenly... he makes the sign of the cross. Ira understands: the boy is a sectarian, he needs to be saved.

Such a conclusion today is, of course, comical. Not everyone who is baptized is a sectarian. Moreover, until the end of the book it will not be clear what kind of sect settled on the banks of the great Siberian river. Followers of Brother Athanasius believe in Jesus Christ, are baptized, venerate icons, organize ecstatic devotions and read the Jehovah's Witness magazine “Watch Tower” (apparently a distorted name for “Watchtower”). In such a cocktail of incompatible ideas (as is known, Jehovah's Witnesses do not have icons, they do not consider Jesus Christ to be God, etc.) a new sect is born, known only to Tamara Vorontsova herself. However, painting the image of religious fanatics, dangerous and absurd, the author, in contrast with them, draws models of behavior for both the atheist pioneer and the “good” (acceptable in Soviet atheistic society) believer.

Let me remind you once again: Ira comes to the idea that the boy is unusual only because he crossed himself. This amazes her so much that she cannot get rid of the question: “Why is he being baptized?” It would seem that we are surprised. A girl from enlightened Moscow, from a family of scientists, she has probably simply never seen a believer, and therefore anyone who is baptized is a sectarian for her. But no, assembling a team to save the young man, the girl tells her friends about her experience with religion: “I went to church, prayed - and okay. The boys visited us, and I visited once. Out of interest." So, the girl knows about churches and about prayers, but doesn’t know about the fact that when people pray, they make the sign of the cross? Somehow I can’t believe it...

The girls learned: a “correct” believer should not pray outside of church. Does this remind you of anything?

No, the girl is embarrassed not by the fact of the sign of the cross, but by its public demonstration. In the USSR, open public expression of one’s religiosity outside the walls of a church, mosque, or synagogue entailed severe punishment, and therefore anyone who dared to do so was seen as a product of another world and in the young mind of the girl immediately received the label of a sectarian. A similar mythology (“a correct” believer will not pray outside of church, otherwise he is dangerous) has become so ingrained in the mass consciousness, so widely replicated in children’s and adult literature, that it is still often found: “Pray in your churches, but don’t take it out into the street. Live in the ghetto and be glad that you are at least alive.” To pray in the soul, but openly, not to be baptized in public - this is the permitted form of Soviet religiosity.

But why, according to Vorontsova, are sectarians so dangerous? Probably, with their fanaticism, reaching the point of self-mutilation: “They have such a faith: to sacrifice themselves to God.” However, the metaphysical Other actually turns out to be too close, because fanaticism and sacrifice are also characteristics of Soviet (communist and atheistic) ideology. ““Pig,” she cruelly called herself. - Selfish and pig.<…>“Oh, what a pig,” she thought, swallowing cold water. Her teeth ached, but she kept drinking, as if she was punishing herself for her returning fears...” No, this is not an act of self-torture by one of Brother Afanasy’s followers, that’s what Ira herself thinks when, due to an attack of nightmares, she accidentally wakes up her grandmother. Yes, and strange believers, as it turns out later, do not burn themselves or mutilate themselves. This means that this is not the point, this is not the main reason for the conflict between sectarians and atheists.

Violence is everywhere and for everyone. And the believer is beaten because he is incapable of violence, which means he is different and dangerous

“Comrades Are With You” paints an ugly picture of universal violence against anyone who differs from the majority. Here, both Ira’s friends “let go”, giving jabs to one of the members of their company - the overly talkative Shurik of the BBC, and the city hooligans, led by the dude Zhorka. The relationship between the local doctor and his nurses is built on violence, even if only verbal, (“With a bouquet in his hands, he (the doctor. – N.H.) quickly rushed along the corridor and, bursting into the quiet staff room, shouted right in Lucy's face(italics mine. – N.H.): “Are you filling the hospital with weeds?! Do you arrange secret meetings?! I will not let it! I’m a doctor here!”) Perhaps the only ones who do not cause direct violence to Another are sectarians, which becomes the main reason for their misunderstanding and rejection. One of the scenes in the book: Zhorka mercilessly beats the “thin young man” Zhenya. A group of girls (Ira and her friend Katya) arrive in time and fight off the young sectarian from the hooligan. A conversation ensues.

“Don’t be angry with her,” Irinka turned to Zhenya again, not paying attention to Katka’s words. “She’s angry at Zhorka, not at you.”

- And him too. That’s why they beat him, because he’s like a wet chicken...”

Just think about it: they beat him because he is a “wet chicken”! That is, it is precisely his inability to be an actor of “small violence” (T. Tolstoy’s expression), which permeated the entire Soviet society, that causes reproach. At the same time, Katya, dissatisfied with the young sectarian, fully complies with generally accepted social attitudes: she can not only punish the offender, but also slaps her friend Shurik in the face, who does not even think of attacking her. The only sectarian who directly threatens someone with violence is the nameless mother of the girl Marina, one of the youngest followers of Brother Afanasy’s community. And it was after her threats that the mother immediately changed her attitude towards the company of young atheists. Thus, the author himself unconsciously shows what role violence plays in the world of the book.

Hostage to freedom

“Violence” can be called one of the characters in another atheistic children’s book – “Miracle Worker” by Vladimir Fedorovich Tendryakov. Despite the fact that the story by V.F. Tendryakova looks no less like propaganda than “Comrades are with you,” in which the author manages to penetrate deeper into the very nature of the relationship between Soviet believers and atheists. Here society, represented by the teacher Praskovya Petrovna, is fighting a much stronger enemy than the naive sectarians. Here the enemy is smart Orthodox Christians who know how to live according to Soviet laws (including the unwritten law of “minor violence”). This is how their “ideologist” Father Dmitry is depicted in the story:

“This priest not only gets along well with Soviet laws, he also gets along with modern views on life. Try to dig into him: he is both for progress and for world peace, and from the very first push he is probably ready to shout “anathema” to foreign capital. He is submissive in everything, agrees with everyone and only wants little: so that Rodya Gulyaev (boy, main character. – N.H.) believed in the Almighty, was tolerant of all evil, recognized heavenly and earthly powers. Because of this “small” thing, the war begins. And here the gray-haired old man, now playing with a metal cigarette case with an image of the Kremlin tower on the lid, is Praskovya Petrovna’s enemy. Here he is sitting opposite, looking tenderly, smiling politely. It would be interesting to know one thing: does he himself realize that they are each other’s enemies (sic!), or not?.. It’s hard to guess.”

There is only one attitude: a believer is absolutely Other, he will never be able to become part of a “normal” society

The enemy may not even realize that he is an enemy. It is such by definition, by its ontological status. Under no circumstances can he be a normal member of society. And here the very essence of any such atheistic literature is revealed. Behind all the rational arguments there is hidden only one attitude - a believer is absolutely Other, he will never be able to become part of a “normal” society. This is exactly what teacher Praskovya Petrovna strives to convey to grandmother Rodya Gulyaev: to the grandmother’s question: “Lord! But can’t he believe in God and live like everyone else?” – the teacher confidently answers: “That’s it, it’s impossible. The time of Panteleimon the righteous has passed.”

It is the grandmother - the old woman Grachikha - and the school teacher who are the main antagonists of this book. The main conflict is between them. The rook is old (“old woman”, “grandmother”), the author directly indicates that she is over 60 years old. But what is the age of her ideological “enemy”? Unknown. It only says that Praskovya Petrovna has been working at school for “thirty years”, “since the founding of the collective farm,” and we can assume that she is no less than 50. But nowhere is she ever called either an old woman or a grandmother. Old age in the book is not age, but an ideological characteristic, an entry in a personal file. Old age is a connection with religion, which “the future threatens with decay and oblivion.” And again, as in the story “Comrades Are With You,” the author lets it slip. In the teacher’s pathetic monologue, we hear the true reason for such a tireless struggle:

“We, Praskovya Petrovna, are not pulling anyone’s ears towards the Orthodox faith,” he (priest) said. – N.H.) with dignity. “Our duty is just not to turn away from people.”

– If you pulled your ears, then our conversation would be simpler. You exist, that's enough. But no matter how you pretend, no matter how you reassure yourself that your goodness and your faith will be reconciled with ours (sic!), you still know: the future threatens you with decay and oblivion. Don't take this as a personal insult."

Atheism is precisely faith for Praskovya Petrovna; she knows this herself and therefore cannot allow other faiths to interfere with her “missionary work.”

However, like any war, the struggle with believers on the pages of V.F. Tendryakova has her own laws - the law of verbal and physical violence. And here it turns out that believers understand it no worse than atheists. One day, the behavior of the teacher, expressed in the classical techniques of “hate speech” - “hate speech”: the introduction of false identification of believers, false attribution, etc., encounters open aggression from believers, in particular the asocial element Akindin Poyarkov.

Under these conditions, realizing that she is losing, the school teacher asks for help from the district committee, where she is asked to take extreme measures.

“Kuchin (party organizer. – N.H.) sat, large, ruffled, looking at his large hands thrown out on the table.

“I see only one way out here.” This boy must be very carefully separated from his parents. For a while until their intoxication passes.”

The current situation can best be described by the term proposed by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben - “a state of exception.” It is important to understand that such a state, which in Russian rather corresponds to the concept of a state of emergency, is not a special form of legal reality, but is already beyond its limits. To first take a child and then apply legal standards to this is complete lawlessness.

But what about the boy? What does he want? Nothing. Relax and be a child: “catch a seasoned, overwintered frog, tie a thread to its leg, put it into the lake, watching how it goes, rejoiced at freedom, deep into the darkness of the opaque water, and then take it and pull it back out - you’re naughty, my dear.” Now you work with us as a diver, tell me what you saw in the water.”

No matter how ridiculous Rodka’s desire may sound, it is what he really wants. And most importantly, Rodka Gulyaev clearly does not want to be in the center of an adult conflict, which he does not even really understand. He is neither an atheist nor a believer. He carries the pioneer tie in his pocket, as well as the cross that his grandmother gave him. Rodka is simply a child who finds himself in the grip of two self-identifications, and society (not believers, namely Soviet, atheistic society) does not allow him to combine them. It is important to note here that the boy is not against wearing a cross, but one thought constantly drills into his head: if they see the cross, they will laugh.

The cross on the boy’s chest is a sign of illness: “he’s itching now, he needs to be hidden, like a bad sore.”

“Under my shirt, under my faded pioneer tie, a copper cross burns the skin on my chest. Sit in class and remember that none of the kids have it... Play during breaks, remember, if you fiddle around so that your shirt doesn’t come undone: if they see it, they’ll laugh...”

Fear of society in the person of village boys and classmates is the main justification for Rodkin’s atheism.

And even the intervention of the village teacher does not bring healing to the boy. During the conflict, the teacher even manages to take the boy away from home for a while, but even when he finds himself at Praskovya Petrovna’s, he feels like “a prisoner, not a prisoner, but something like that.” The author, of course, writes that this is Rodka’s salvation, that he will be better off here. But through all these lines there is a hint of falsehood. Well, a person cannot, having escaped from the clutches of mortal danger, and this is exactly how religion appears in the story, feel like he is in prison. Or maybe? If we remember that the canvas of the story is a maximally militarized reality, where there are “enemies” all around, then you can immediately guess who in these conditions is able to feel “like a prisoner.” Of course, a hostage. Unlike a prisoner, he may be treated very well, but he is not promised freedom. So it turns out that Rodka is a hostage - a hostage in the war of atheists against religion. And there were thousands of such little hostages throughout the Soviet Union.

I go out alone on the road…

The Khrushchev persecutions became another sad page in the life of the Russian Church. Against the background of the thaw, which smelled the breeze of freedom on Soviet citizens, they looked even more disgusting and hypocritical than Stalin’s. In the context of numerous rehabilitations of various “right-left deviationists,” Soviet politics needed a new internal enemy. They became believers again. They were enemies in the 1930s, they were enemies in the 1920s, and they are now. “You are going the right way, comrades!” – from a 1961 poster, Grandfather Lenin approved of the “old new” Khrushchev course.

But history decreed otherwise, and already in 1984, in the pre-perestroika film “Repentance,” one of the supporting characters seemed to enter into a dialogue with Vladimir Ilyich:

“Tell me, will this road lead to the temple?

– This is Varlama Street. This is not the street that leads to the temple.

- Then why is it needed? What's the point of a road if it doesn't lead to a temple?

And it would seem that the old path has long been abandoned. There is no longer any trace of that state. But the old myths have not gone away. They are still alive in our society and in ourselves. And again we hear about priestly enemies, about the “poison” of religion. But all the newly-minted “teachers” of atheism (or more correctly: “everyday atheism”), like A.G. Nevzorova, administrators of atheist communities on social networks or particularly zealous anti-church journalists do not come up with anything new, reproducing the old Soviet anti-religious narrative over and over again. Even the linguistic clichés that modern fighters against the “religious dope” use were inherited by them from the Soviet ideological machine. So, for example, the same A.G. Nevzorov in one of his interviews says that the Russian Orthodox Church is “a ferocious and extremist organization hiding behind all sorts of cute words.” Isn’t this a paraphrase of the speech of the village teacher Praskovya Petrovna, who sees in the priest a most dangerous enemy, who “looks kindly, smiles politely”? And the words: “I have nothing against your faith as long as you carry it silently” – a pinned post by the multimillion-strong “Atheist” community on the VKontakte network – isn’t it a direct copy of the Soviet attitude “pray, but don’t be baptized”?

Yes, there is heredity. This is also the reason for the rapid popularity of modern everyday atheism. Having only slightly changed its positioning, which was caused by the loss of its former state status, it continues to speak its former language. We have been taught this language for 70 years, including through atheistic children's books. It was they who formed myths about faith in the young reader, replacing in his mind the image of real religion with its sophisticated imitation. It was they who aroused in the souls of the little Octobrists and pioneers the fear of believers: cunning, cruel, fanatical and unprincipled. And, as you know, children's fears are the most persistent. Will our society be able to rid itself of this fear? It should get rid of it.