Why did people follow the teachings of Yeshua. Image of Yeshua Ha-Nozri

Purpose: to compare the images of Yeshua and Jesus, highlight the general and particular, determine the universal principle in the image of Yeshua.

• educational: to teach students to analyze artistic images by means of comparison; see the main techniques that reflect the ideological load of the image;
• educational: bring up feeling of good, Truth, Justice, help students in the formation of the basic spiritual qualities of a person;
• developing: develop logical thinking, analysis abilities, the ability to draw conclusions.

Teacher: It's no secret that one of the most complex works of the 20th century is M.A. Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita. To this day, the novel and its characters evoke a storm of emotions both among fans of the writer's work and opponents. Some argue that the novel is a kind of chanting dark forces, others argue the opposite, others see in the novel only images that have nothing to do with religion. But one way or another, there are no indifferent readers of the novel, those who, after reading the work, closed the book and calmly switched to everyday affairs. Undoubtedly, there are as many opinions as there are readers, but let us also make our small contribution to the study of immortal creation, because “manuscripts do not burn” when the book lives in the heart of the reader.

And in order to feel the full depth of the novel, let's try to feel its main secret: who is this a strange man Yeshua Ha-Nozri, what is his place in the novel and how his image is connected with his biblical prototype. It's so strange that Great master will prove to us well-known truths, based on an image that, perhaps, we understand much more deeply.

It is no coincidence that at the very beginning of the master's novel the question of faith is raised, because to each "it will be given according to his faith."

Let's define those problems in the work raised by the author that need to be clarified in order to fully understand the image of the hero.

The temple of the old faith will collapse and a new temple of Truth will be created.

1. Are Yeshua and Jesus the same person?
2. Was Jesus a type of Yeshua?
3. Does Yeshua reflect the features of Christian morality?
4. Ga-Nozri - a man?
5. A master's novel about Yeshua and Pilate?

4. Working with text

1) What do you know about Jesus?

2) Who are his parents?

3) Why does the divine origin of Jesus play a special role in the Bible?

Conclusion: students tell the story of Jesus, about his birth, about his earthly parents. They explain that it is Jesus who is the earthly incarnation of the commandments of God.

5. Group work

Write down the commandments that Jesus reflected in earthly sojourn.

(Slide 3.)

Commandments

1. I, the Lord your God, so that you have no other gods but me.
2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol, nor any likeness of that which is in heaven above, that which is on the earth below, that which is in the waters under the earth; do not bow down and serve them.
3. Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to spend it holy: work for six days and do all your works in them, and the seventh day - the day of rest, may it be dedicated to the Lord your God.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that you may be well and that you live long on earth.
6. Don't kill.
7. Don't commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not bear false witness against another.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, covet not thy neighbor's house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any of his livestock, or in general anything that belongs to your neighbor.

4) What did the commandments reflect?
Students argue that the commandments are a reflection of the basic principles of human community based on the harmonious development of the world, therefore it is the Son of God who embodies these commandments among people.

5) Who were the companions of Jesus?
The students argue that the companions of Jesus acted as the successors of his work, which means that, willy-nilly, they cause fear among those who try to dictate the commandments of God, based on their own interests. Naturally, those who disagree act as an opposing force. But the biblical Pilate does not yet understand the full power of Jesus and his supporters in the fight against power. It means that someone who will stop those who go against the authorities is simply needed.

6) Who is Pilate?
adopting biblical story, Bulgakov still seeks to tear the reader away from the dependence of biblical images. It is important for him to show that Pilate is, first of all, a person, and only then a historical figure, which is why it is so important that the atheists Berlioz and Bezdomny hear the story of Pilate not from a historian, but from a mythical creature, in which there is more earthly than in themselves . After all, Woland immediately speaks about the Man, not about his spirituality, not about his mind and abilities, but simply about the person behind whom each of us hides.

7) What role did he play in the fate of Jesus?
8) Why do we hear the story about Pontius Pilate for the first time from the lips of Woland?
9) Why does this story begin with a description of Pontius?

(Slide 4.)

Pontius

10) Why is Pilate's cloak “white with bloody lining”?
11) For what purpose does the author emphasize that Pilate lives in the palace of Herod the Great?
12) What is this historical person?
13) How did the deeds of Herod fit in with the deeds of the biblical Pilate?
14) What were both afraid of?
15) What enhances the contrast in the clothing of Yeshua and Pilate?

Conclusion: So, Pilate is a man. But a man endowed with great power and his symbols of power are so naturally associated with human illnesses and weaknesses that Pilate, a politician, a statesman, fades into the background. Nothing human is alien to him: he does not want to live in a hated country, that's why he does not have his own housing, because he is here under duress, which means temporarily, he does not want to understand the people of this country, he strives for what is close every person. Perhaps that is why he meets the wandering philosopher so ambiguously. On the one hand, he understands that before him is a criminal detained by the authorities, on the other, a person who is openly rejected by the country that the procurator hates.

(Slide 5.)

Yeshua
16) Why did “the man brought in look at the procurator with anxious curiosity”?

(Slide 6.)

Yeshua
17) What does the appeal “good person” mean?
18) What good does he see in people?

(Slide 7.)

Images of Yershalaim chapters
19) Why does Pontius punish Yeshua for turning Yeshua?
20) What scares him about him?
21) Why does the author deliberately deprive Yeshua of the memory of his parents?
22) How does this help distinguish Yeshua from Jesus?
23) Who were for Jesus his disciples?
24) Who was Yeshua's “disciple”?

Conclusion: The image of Yeshua is the image of a man who swam with the flow of life. He is not disturbed by earthly ups and downs, it is important for him to know that the sun is shining, life is in full swing around. But he realized long ago that the most important truth is hidden in a person: a person is always kind, because the whole essence of humanity is hidden in this kindness. Pilate is frightened by the phrase about a man. He understands that kindness is weakness. Power will never be able to rely on the ideas of Yeshua. But after the blows of Mark Ratslayer, when Pilate noticed fear in the eyes of the philosopher, he realized that kindness, fear, and love are a manifestation of the qualities of a Human. And the fact that Yeshua has no followers, but only the sighted tax collector Levi Matthew, Pilate affirms in the thought that a person limits himself, is afraid of his own revelations. And this departure from the human frightens Pontius Pilate. However, in Yeshua he sees someone who openly recognizes the power of Man, and this earns the respect of the procurator of Judea. It is in this scene that Bulgakov openly talks about the destiny of Man, about the corrupting influence of power.

(Slide 8.)

Levi
25) Was he his student?
26) How is the teaching of Yeshua different from the teaching of Jesus?
27) How did Jesus preach the new faith?
28) What is it?

In order to confirm people in the faith, Jesus not only became a model himself, but was also ready to lead. He entered temples, expelled merchants from there, openly opposed the power of the high priests, who corrupted the souls of believers with their actions. But the salvation of the soul is the basis of the faith preached by Jesus. Jesus understood that a person's spiritual life and his physical presence on earth are one and indivisible.

29) What is Yeshua's faith?
30) What does he preach?
31) Why does Pilate decide to have mercy on Yeshua?
32) In what does he see the “correctness” of his teaching?
33) Who are Gestas, Dismas and Bar-Rabban?
34) What is their crime?
35) What changed the attitude of Pontius?
36) What is he afraid of?
37) Why does Yeshua's statements about authority frighten him?

(Slide 9.)

About power
38) What does Yeshua mean by these words?
39) What does the hegemon see in them?
40) How do you understand these words?

Yeshua does not fight for the soul of man. His philosophy is simple and clear. A person should live honestly and openly, without thinking about pleasing anyone. Power, according to Yeshua, is the force that takes away naturalness from a person, forcing him to lie, dodge, killing the most best qualities. Therefore, Pilate decides to pardon the wanderer, recognizing, albeit not openly, that he was right.

41) Why does Pilate combine the affirmation of the sentence with the words “hateful city”?
42) Why does Yeshua ask for mercy?
43) Why does Pilate still want to have mercy on Yeshua?
44) What way does he find for this?
45) Who is Joseph Kaifa?

Conclusion: Yeshua openly says that someday Justice will prevail. No, he does not call for anarchy; the power that kills everything beautiful in a person must perish itself. In a person, his natural beginning must win. But Pilate himself is the representative of this authority. His thoughts and actions are permeated with what he lived for many years. That is why he is afraid that in Rome they will not understand his act. Unable to overcome fear, he pins hopes for the salvation of Yeshua on Kaifa. In the depths of his soul, he understands that the “hated city” has become the place of his discoveries.

(Slide 10.)

Kaifa
46) How do you understand the word “high priest”?
47) What does Pilate want from Kaifa?
48) Why is Kaifa against pardoning Yeshua?
49) Why is he ready to pardon the murderer of Bar-Rabban, but to execute a peaceful wanderer?
50) Why, realizing that it will not be possible to save Yeshua, Pilate thinks: “Immortality… Immortality has come”? What did he realize?

Conclusion: The end of Yeshua's life is as tragic as that of Jesus. Like Jesus, the chief priests do not want pardon for a man who confuses the minds of the people. For them, pardoning a murderer is much easier than pardoning a person who has encroached on their unshakable foundations. It was precisely all the fears and fears of power that Bulgakov invested in the high priest Kaifa. Kaifa is not only a bright representative of his time, but also one who is ready to steal the Truth for his own benefit. He, not afraid, opposes the conqueror, knowing full well that his kind will always be on his side. Pilate understands the seriousness of the decision. And his “immortality” is the eternal reproach of descendants to those who, fighting for power, are ready to sacrifice the future of all mankind.

Teacher: The biblical story used by the author in the novel finds a completely unusual interpretation. After all, well-known images are changing, filled with a new, unusual meaning. Identify the signs that Jesus and Yeshua have in common and what makes them different.

(Slide 11.)

Are Jesus and Yeshua the same person?

Teacher: Quite minor differences, but how they help ordinary passers-by see Yeshua. Masterfully, M.A. Bulgakov makes the reader immerse himself not in the world of a literary hero, but in the world of the reader himself. Makes us think about our actions, about our thoughts. And if there are still doubts in the soul of someone, then the scene of execution best of all puts Yeshua on the same level as an ordinary person.

execution
1) Golgotha ​​- place of execution. Why is this mountain called Bald in the novel?
2) Why does Pilate take such security measures during his execution?
3) Why didn't people rebel?
4) Tell us about how the execution took place?
5) What is the “happiness” of Yeshua on the cross?

(Slide 12.)

Yeshua on the cross

6) How is the execution of Yeshua Levi Matthew going through?
7) What does he ask God for?

Conclusion : Unlike the mountain, where Jesus took the torment for humanity, Bald Mountain should serve as a platform for a bloody performance. Pilate cannot understand how people do not see those simple truths voiced by Yeshua. He, having received his sight, cannot come to terms with how blind others are. Yeshua cannot bear suffering. He is a man with no physical force, nor spiritual, on the cross loses consciousness. No, Yeshua is not Jesus, he cannot suffer for those who rejected him. After all, his truth lives only in himself. Matthew Levi understands this and asks God for death for Yeshua.

(Slide 13.)

Storm
8) What symbolic meaning brings a thunderstorm?
9) How does Yeshua die?
10) Why does Pilate order Yeshua to be killed?
11) Does he see the same as Levi?

(Slide 14.)

Yershalaim
12) What does Bulgakov emphasize with the words: “Darkness covered Yershalaim”?
The “blind” people did not see their savior, they could not discern in the strange wandering philosopher the one who had long understood the meaning of life. So the darkness becomes tangible. It closes everything around, plunging humanity into further slavery of the spirit.

13) Why is Pontius Pilate burdened?
14) Why did he decide to avenge the death of Yeshua?
15) Whom does he consider the main culprit of the execution?
16) Why does he take revenge on Judas?
17) How does he understand last words Yeshua transmitted by Aphranius?

(Slide 15.)

Meeting with Aphranius

Conclusion: Pilate cannot accept what has happened. He is eager to punish the guilty. Therefore, the wise and cunning Aphranius becomes the sword of vengeance. The procurator's promises push Aphranius to carry out the order. But most of all, Pilate punishes himself.

(Slide 16.)

Pilate's thoughts
18) Who emphasizes main disadvantage Pilate?

(Slide 17.)

Dog

19) Tell about the death of Judas.
20) What sin did Judas commit in the eyes of God and people?
21) How does Bulgakov's Judas differ from the biblical one?

Conclusion: Cowardice has become the greatest vice. Not murder, not the desire to maintain one's power, not betrayal, but precisely cowardice. Pontius Pilate suffers from a monstrous mistake. He is rejected by himself. And a faithful dog is a silent reproach to him. After all (the one who loves must share the fate of the one he loves. ”But cowardice has flooded everything. Cowardice kills everything human in a person, forcing him to transgress the law, the commandments. Therefore, the words of Pontius Pilate at the end of the novel sound so guilty: “Tell me, after all was there no execution?” And the all-forgiving answer was: “Of course, it wasn't.” After all, for Yeshua, people are not strong and courageous, they are just kind.

Teacher: Prepare answers to the questions: What is further fate characters in the novel? Why does the story about them not end with their physical death?”

21. She will give birth to a son, and you will name him Yeshua [which means ‘Adonai saves’], because he will save his people from their sins.”
Verse 21 This verse is an example of "Semitism" (a fixed expression in Hebrew or Aramaic) literally translated into Greek. This phenomenon serves as strong evidence in support of the theory that, in addition to the Greek manuscripts that have survived to our time, there was an oral or written tradition in Hebrew or Aramaic, since the disclosure of the meaning of the name Yeshua makes sense only in Hebrew and Aramaic. In Greek (or Russian) it means nothing.

The Hebrew word for "he saves" is Yoshiah, whose root (Yud-shin-ayin) is also the root of the name Yeshua (yud-shin-vav-ayin). Thus the name of the Messiah explains what he must do. From an etymological point of view, the name Yeshua is an abbreviated version Jewish name Yehoshua, which in turn means "YHWH saves." It is also a form male the words "Yeshua" which means "salvation". The synodal translation of this verse is as follows: “... you will give birth to a Son, and you will call his name: Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins.” But from the point of view of the Russian language, the salvation of people cannot be a reason to call someone Jesus, as well as Vladimir or Anatoly. The Greek version also does not explain anything. Only Hebrew or Aramaic can truly explain the reason. In modern Hebrew, Yeshua sounds like Yeshu (Yud-shin-vav, without the letter ayn) when used by unbelievers. This verse shows why the name "Yeshu" would not be correct - it does not include all three letters of the root of the word Yoshia. However, this issue needs further analysis. According to professors David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, Orthodox Jews, the name "Yeshua" was pronounced "Yeshu" by the Galileans of the first century. We learn further from 26:73 that the Jews of Galilee spoke a dialect different from that of Judea. According to Flusser (Jewish Sources of Early Christianity, p. 15), the Galileans did not pronounce the letter ayn at the end of a word. That is, instead of saying "Yes-shu-ah", they said "Yes-shu." Undoubtedly, some people began to write this name as it was pronounced. However, the story does not end there. It has become common in Jewish anti-Christian controversy to deliberately and intentionally use the distorted "Yeshu" instead of the name Yeshu, since someone once thought that "Yeshu" is an acronym consisting of the first letters of an insult in Hebrew: "Yimach shmo uzihro" ("Let his name and his memory will be blotted out"; the expression is taken from the book of Psalms 109:13 and slightly modified). Thus, "Yeshu" became a kind of coded spell against Christian preaching. Moreover, since traditional Judaism treated Yeshua as a false prophet, blasphemer, and idol worshiped as God, and because the Torah says, “do not mention the names of other gods” (Exodus 23:13), the name of the Messiah was deliberately changed. These days, when many Israelis say Yeshu, they assume that this is his real name and do not mean anything offensive. The ENZ does not use the name "Yeshu" due to incorrect etymology, and also because in Hebrew this name is used in the sense of "the god worshiped by the Gentiles." However, Yosef Vactor (see n. 10:37) deciphers the acronym "Yeshu" to praise Yeshua: "Yitgadal shmo umalhuto!" (May his name and kingdom be exalted!)

2. YESHUA GA-NOZRI AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

The master's novel begins with an interrogation of Yeshua. "Biographical" data are put into the mouth of the accused, and therefore they are especially reliable for the reader. The first difficulty arises in connection with the nickname Ha-Notsri. The most common option is to consider it derived from the name of the city: from Nazareth. The novel does not say anything about the virgin birth, nor about healings and resurrections, nor about the resurrection of Yeshua Ha-Nozri, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth. Bulgakov's Yeshua, introducing himself to Pilate, calls Ha-Nozri a nickname. The first oddity: neither the arrested person nor the “truthful narrator” mention Nazareth anywhere in the future. Second: “Ha-Notzri” cannot be derived from the name of the city, since it means “Nazarite”, which is associated with religious affiliation, and not with geographical concept. In the Gospels there are two words similar in sound, but different in meaning: Nazarene (Mark 1:24; 14:67; Luke 4:34; 24:19) and Nazarene (Matt. 2:23; Mark 10:47 ; Luke 18:37; John 18:5, 7). Neither word is a nickname in literally words, and Christ himself never called himself that. But the word "notzri" - Nazirite literally means "a Jew consecrated to God from childhood." The Nazarite rite is very ancient; for the first time it is mentioned in the Old Testament (Numbers 6:1-21; Is. 11:1). The Nazarenes were obliged not to cut their hair, not to drink wine and to avoid all kinds of filth. The apostles called Jesus a Nazirite (although in the truest sense of the word he was not such), emphasizing His chosenness. In the time of Jesus, the Nazarenes were most commonly referred to as Nazir. In subsequent Jewish tradition, Jesus is referred to not as Nazir, but as Notzri. This word probably comes from the Hebrew “netzer”, a branch, which in the mouths of the early Christians meant the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which announced that the Messiah would be a branch (“netzer”) from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Jews, who did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, put a contemptuous meaning into the definition of "notzri" - "budding", "renegade". In short, it is wrong to understand the nickname Ha-Nozri as an indication of the place of residence in Nazareth. The respectful Notzri (a branch of the house of David) cannot be a nickname either. There remains a contemptuous nickname recorded in the Talmud, especially since Yeshua Nazareth himself does not consider his native city: “I have no permanent home ... I travel from city to city” (p. 438).

The nickname Ha-Nozri is assigned to Jesus not only in the Talmudic, but also in fiction. It is mentioned in A. Frans' story "Pontius Pilate" and in S. Chevkin's play "Yeshua Ganotsri" - works well known to Bulgakov.

Yeshua, like Christ, came to Yershalaim from Galilee. In Galilee there was also the city of Gamala, in which, according to Yeshua, he was born (p. 438).

Why did Bulgakov consider it necessary to make the birthplace of Yeshua not Bethlehem, where Christ was born, and not even Nazareth, where Jesus lived for thirty years, but a city completely unknown from the Gospels in northwestern Palestine? It seems that for one reason: a person of unknown origin (and, moreover, not a Jew by blood), who was born in Gamal, in Palestine could in no way claim the role of the Messiah. With his answer to Pilate, Yeshua not only crosses out the Old Testament prophecy about the birthplace of the Messiah, which should be Bethlehem - Small town in South Palestine, near Jerusalem, but also draws a clear line between himself and Jesus: a man who bore the nickname Ha-Nozri, no one would ever call Christ by virtue of his origin and place of birth.

The city of Gamala was located in Lower Gaulon, near the Lake of Gennesaret (Sea of ​​Galilee). Yeshua is called in one place "a beggar from En-Sarid" (p. 735), that is, from the Gennesaret lands located in Galilee.

Gamala was located on a rock that resembled a camel (Gamala means "Camel City"). He is repeatedly mentioned by Josephus Flavius ​​in The Jewish War. The location of the city caused numerous disputes among historians, since it was destroyed by the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus. According to Josephus Flavius, the reference point for finding Gamala was the town of Tarihe, located opposite the Camel City. Other sources place Gamala northeast of Tiberias. To eliminate difficulties, scientists used the topographic information of Pliny (Natural History, XV, 3).

Another fortress with the same name was located above Gebast in Carmel (Karmel). In Flavius, it is called the "City of Horsemen" (Hamala), since Herod brought the Roman legions here. O. Grubber notes that the New Testament character Judas the Galilean (Judas the Gavlonite), mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 5:37), was born in this Gamala. Judas the Galilean was the head of a rebel party (long before the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) that opposed the Romans in Galilee. Flavius ​​Josephus narrates about him (Jude. war, II, 17), noting that the rebellious Judas received the nickname Galilean at the place of action, and he was called Gavlonite at the place of birth.

In the Acts of the Apostles, Judas the Galilean from Gamala is characterized as a rebel: “... during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away enough people with him; but he perished, and all who obeyed him were scattered” (Acts 5:37). The reason for the revolt of Judas was the taxation introduced by the Roman authorities in 6 AD. e. in connection with the national inventory of lands and the population census. Judas the Galilean and his adherents organized a party of militant messianism that did not recognize any authority other than Divine, that is, they were, in essence, anarchists of a religious persuasion. Roman troops brutally suppressed the uprising of Gaulonite, but Judas himself managed to escape.

In Bulgakov's characterization of Yeshua, there are many features of Judas Gavlonite, mentioned by Josephus Flavius: religiosity and denial of state power, Gamala as a place of birth and Galilee as an arena social activities. The city of Gamala did not enter the wanderings of Christ in Palestine, there is no evidence of this in the New Testament, so from the very first words of the “under investigation from Galilee” it is clear that Yeshua is only situationally close to Christ, but he cannot be.

Yeshua does not remember his parents, only rumors about a Syrian father reached him. This statement denies not only the immaculate conception, but also the presence of a living mother. “I am alone in the world,” says the prisoner (p. 438). Moreover, Yeshua is a “foundling” (p. 735), but it remains unknown when and to whom he was thrown. His appearance into the world is similar to the appearance of nowhere, his life before the trial by Pilate is a mystery.

Most likely, Yeshua is a proselyte, that is, not a Jew by blood, who converted to Judaism, which can be assumed from the Syrian blood from his father and the confession of monotheism. Many pagans lived in Galilee, but Yeshua says to Pilate: “There is only one God ... I believe in him” (p. 448), thus asserting the monotheistic nature of his faith, but without specifically defining who this one God is.

In all these differences from the New Testament texts, Yeshua's testimonies about himself can be considered denials of the Gospels, as long as they show through the main idea: Yeshua Ha-Nozri was not He did not pretend to be the Messiah, and by virtue of his birth and origin he could not do this, which Pilate and Afranius are well aware of. Pilate, complaining to Aphranius about the hardships of the service, says: “What was this Messiah alone worth, whom they suddenly began to expect this year!” (p. 719). Aphranius also commemorates the Messiah, ironically remarking that the slain Judas will rise only when “when the trumpet of the Messiah, whom expect will sound over him” (p. 741). Both references have nothing to do with the person of Yeshua; moreover, even in a conversation with Kaifa, Yeshua appears only as a "philosopher" (p. 454).

During the interrogation, Pilate asks Yeshua about his arrival in Yershalaim, repeating the gospel description of the Lord’s Entry into Jerusalem: “By the way, tell me: is it true that you came to Yershalaim through the Susa gate on a donkey, accompanied by a crowd of mob shouting greetings to you as if to a certain prophet ? – here the procurator pointed to a scroll of parchment” (p. 443). But Yeshua denies the solemnity of the entry, citing the absence of a donkey. Christ did not have a donkey either, he was specially taken with the permission of the owner for the Entrance to Jerusalem. But Yeshua also claims that in Yershalaim he is absolutely unknown to anyone and, therefore, no one could greet him. Pilate's question is provocative and again connected with the prophecy about the Messiah (Is. 62:11; Zech. 9:9): according to the prophecy, the Messiah should appear on a donkey. But who was listed on the parchment? Yeshua's answer is unequivocal: false information was used in the report (they, according to this version, will later be included in the records of the evangelists), but the “truth” is only what Yeshua says.

The master’s novel is entirely built in such a way as to, first of all, refute the prophecies of the Old Testament about Jesus Christ. The chapters "Execution" and "Burial" continue these refutations. The executioners refused Yeshua’s clothes: “The rat-slayer, looking with disgust at the dirty rags lying on the ground near the poles, the rags that were recently the clothes of criminals, which the executioners refused, recalled two of them and ordered: “Follow me!” (pp. 596–597). Parallel in the New Testament: “When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took His clothes and divided them into four parts, each soldier in a part, and a tunic; the tunic was not sewn, but all woven from above. So they said to each other: Let us not tear him apart, but let us cast lots for him, whose will it be, so that what is said in the Scripture will come true: They divided My garments among themselves and cast lots for My clothes. This is what the soldiers did” (John 19:23-24).

The broken legs of Yeshua are also a “negative” of the prophecy of the Psalmist: “Let not his bone be broken” (Ps. 33:21). Unlike Yeshua, killed with the executioner's spear in the heart, Jesus died himself, which is why they didn't break his shins, they only pierced his ribs.

The last cry of Jesus Christ on the Cross “Either, Or! Lama Savahfani?” (“My God, my God! why did you leave me?”) is a Psalm verse (Psalm 21:2), which is usually interpreted as messianic. Yeshua does not address God at all and, of course, does not say any prayers. His last word is addressed to Pilate: "Hegemon..." (p. 598).

The very fact of being buried in a pit outside the city along with the robbers is a refutation of Isaiah's prophecy about the burial of the Messiah "with the rich" (Is. 53:9), which, of course, is in conflict with the Gospels.

The above is enough to make it clear: in the master's novel, the messianism of Jesus is a lie and fiction. This puts it in the category of “anti-gospels”, because not one or another scientific evidence or new interpretations are given, but the gospel events themselves are simply crossed out (or rather, served with a minus sign). It is understandable why Pilate and Aphranius mention the Messiah in their conversation: yes, the Jews were waiting for Him this year, but only a certain philosopher appeared, who can only be passed off as the Messiah “after the fact”, thereby fooling the gullible. The master’s novel reveals the “kitchen” of how, with the help of Pilate and Aphranius, the facts were “selected”, which later became Holy History, but “in fact” everything is simple: there was no Christ, but there was Yeshua - the same as Judas the Galilean, the overthrower of Roman power, coupled with the power of the Jewish clergy.

The central theme of the interrogation of Yeshua was whether the person under investigation was inciting to destroy the Yershalaim temple. Three times, in three languages, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, the procurator asks about this and three times he receives a negative answer, and Yeshua is verbose and tries in every possible way to win the favor of Pilate: “... I, hegemon, never in my life was going to destroy the building of the temple and anyone did not incite to this senseless action” (p. 439). And about the temple “in the bazaar” they said one thing: “... the temple of the old faith will collapse and a new temple of truth will be created. He said it in such a way that it was clearer” (p. 441).

The accusation brought against Yeshua coincides with the one presented during the interrogation to Jesus Christ, but Jesus was asked about this not by Pilate, but by the high priest Caiaphas. Two false witnesses came to the Sanhedrin and declared that Jesus said: “I can destroy the temple of God and build it in three days” (Matt. 26:61). Jesus did not respond to accusations or questions. He did not try to explain to the assembly the meaning of his words, which the false witnesses literally conveyed, giving them a magically miraculous character. The Sanhedrin did not suspect Christ's rebelliousness, explaining these words as fantasy, and therefore considered the accusation insufficient. The Sanhedrin sentenced Him to death, which Pontius Pilate had to approve, because of Christ's affirmative answer to the question of messianism: "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" (All four evangelists testify to this.) The high priest accused Jesus of imposture and blasphemy - enough to demand the death penalty. Thus, during the interrogation by the historical Pilate, the question of the “destruction of the temple” fell away as unimportant, but the “imposture” (the Messiah was also understood as an earthly king) caused Pilate new questions.

Jesus is very restrained in his answers to both the clergy and Pilate. When the high priest asked Him what His Teaching was and who His disciples were, He answered very succinctly and definitely: “I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews always converge, and secretly did not say anything. What are you asking me? ask those who heard what I said to them” (John 18:20-21).

In the master's novel we observe the opposite. The only accusation is in incitement to the destruction of the temple. Yeshua is in a hurry to take him away from himself and sets out his philosophical position in some detail. He delivered his speeches in the bazaar, that is, they do not have the character of sermons, but rather have a social orientation. It seemed to Pilate that he would be able to help the arrested person, because the incitement in the market needed more weighty evidence than a report, but Yeshua readily confirmed Judas’ denunciation about anarchist statements about the essence of power and developed this topic in the presence of a witness-secretary, which secured himself death sentence. The word "king" neither in the Jewish (Messianic) nor in the Roman (political) meanings was uttered during the interrogation of Yeshua by Pontius Pilate.

But quite often another word sounded, superficially bringing the master's work closer to the New Testament - "truth". Christ tells Pilate about the essence of his Incarnation: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth; everyone who is from the truth hears my voice” (John 18:37), after which Pilate asks Him the famous question, which remained unanswered: “What is truth?”

Yeshua, talking about the coming times, opposes old faith to "truth": "... the temple of the old faith will collapse and a new temple of truth will be created" (p. 441). Therefore, the old faith - faith in one God - is not true? And what is the "new temple of truth"? The answer is rather vague, but for some reason Yeshua believes that the Jews do not have the true faith, he breaks the concepts of "truth" and "faith". This is not an anti-clerical attack, but a statement of the falsity of the Jewish faith as such. It should be noted here that Christ, who often denounced the Pharisees, the keepers of the religious traditions of Judaism, for narrowness of views, for hypocrisy, for following the letter to the detriment of the essence, and for other sins, could not reproach them for the “untruth” of faith, for they confessed the One God, although they are called hypocrites in the gospels.

To the philosophical reasoning of Yeshua Pilate objected in the same way as his gospel namesake: “What is truth?” And then the unexpected happened: Yeshua avoided answering such a seemingly global question and jokingly shifted the concepts: “The truth is, first of all, that your head hurts” (p. 441). Having demonstrated his ability to move from serious problems to a light, almost secular tone, Yeshua did not stop there. It seemed that he was waiting for Pilate's question in order to prove to him his originality: leaving aside philosophy, he discovered the ability of clairvoyance, extraordinary observation and possession of a suggestive method of treatment or some other method of healing. He acted in complete opposition to Jesus Christ, who, being delivered to the tetrarch Herod Antipas, categorically refused, despite the requests of the ruler of Galilee, to demonstrate miracles: and hoped to see some miracle from Him, and asked Him many questions, but He answered him nothing” (Luke 23:8-9).

Yeshua did not limit himself to healing Pilate’s headache and went on to a prophetic description of the nature of the procurator, predicted a thunderstorm that should break out in the evening, determined the role of his beloved dog in Pilate’s life, explaining, however, quite logically, how he guessed about the existence of Bunga: “... you moved your hand through the air... as if you wanted to stroke it, and your lips...” (p. 442). But it must be assumed that Pilate's affection for the dog Yeshua was known even without observing the procurator's gestures. Pays attention, how exactly Yeshua spoke during the interrogation about dogs. Speaking about Levi, who, while still a tax collector, insulted Yeshua, calling him a “dog”, he emphatically commented on his attitude to the insult in a non-Jewish way: “... I personally do not see anything wrong in this beast to be offended by this word” (p. 440). The Jews considered the dog to be an unclean animal, and therefore Yeshua’s reaction caused the astonishment of Pilate’s secretary: “The secretary stopped taking notes and surreptitiously cast a surprised look, but not at the arrested person, but at the procurator” (p. 440), as if testing his reaction. In general, it seems that the reasoning about dogs was delivered by Yeshua specifically for Pilate, and this played a role in the fact that Pilate was imbued with sympathy for the “philosopher”. But no amount of observation can explain the words of Yeshua about the loneliness of Pilate: “... you are too closed off and have completely lost faith in people. After all, it’s impossible, you must agree, to place all your affection in a dog ”(p. 442).

Of course, there were not so many miracles, but they were enough to bring Pilate out of his indifferently detached state: as soon as the headache subsided, the procurator, as a token of special confidence, ordered to untie the arrested man's hands. Pilate's interest was growing: it turned out that Yeshua, who had already discovered the knowledge Greek He can also speak Latin. The arrested person behaves very directly and naturally: he easily switches from one language to another, he puts his predictions in such a form that it becomes clear - this is familiar and easy for him. The healing of the procurator's hemicrania is devoid of demonstrativeness, and one would think that the headache would stop by itself if Yeshua had not hinted to Pilate that this would not happen without his participation. Pilate, presumably, is impressed by the modesty of the “tramp”, who denies that he is a “great doctor” (p. 442), he also likes the fact that he knows how to unobtrusively reveal his originality. It is obvious that the arrested person also likes the procurator, and he consciously seeks to interest him in himself, which is why he does not hide his amazing abilities.

This is another difference between Yeshua and Christ, who performed miracles only at the request, according to the faith of the one who asked, and not for the sake of winning sympathy or a miracle as such. The silence of Jesus before the accusers, His unwillingness to make excuses is connected with the Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah: “He was tortured, but suffered voluntarily and did not open His mouth; like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7). As you can see, this prediction is refuted by the behavior of Yeshua.

Knowing the sacred essence of the oath, Pilate wants Yeshua to prove his innocence by swearing this. Yeshua willingly goes to meet him: “What do you want me to swear to?” (p. 443). It should be noted that Jesus Christ imposed a ban on swearing: “But I say to you: do not swear at all: not by heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor the earth, for it is His footstool; nor Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King; swear not by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black” (Matthew 5:34-36).

But, despite his complete readiness, Yeshua does not have to swear, because the conversation moves to a different plane and Pilate no longer returns to his request. This is a small departure from main theme interrogation testifies to Yeshua's faith in the Higher Providence and is an allusion to three gospel positions at once. We have just quoted the first one ("Do not swear by your head..."). The second is also from the Gospel of Matthew: “Are not two sparrows sold for an assarium? And not one of them will fall to the ground without the will of your Father; but the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:29-30). The third we find in the Gospel of Luke: "... and you will be hated by all for My name's sake, but even a hair from your head will not be lost" (Luke 21:17-18). Pilate perceives the prisoner's objection to his, Pilate's, remark about the possibility of disposing of the life of a tramp at his own discretion as a clever move that allows Yeshua to avoid the oath. Yeshua is sure that only the one who hung him can cut the hair on which his life now hangs (p. 443), and with this answer he really escapes from the oath, although he had just been ready for it. This is perhaps the darkest place for comments in the dialogue between Yeshua and Pilate. At this point, he is closest to the New Testament prototype, and at the same time, is not his reasoning a trick to get away from the need for an oath? And if so, why? After all, not in order to fulfill the prohibition of Christ by our behavior: we have already noted too many oppositions to Him. Perhaps he did not want to falsely swear? Does that mean the reports were true? But most likely the clairvoyant Yeshua knows how the interrogation will end, and he hints at Pilate to understand this, although later a short time brilliantly play out naive bewilderment about the intentions of the guards. One way or another, the religious reasoning of Yeshua during the interrogation by Pilate becomes the only moment of a positive, albeit free, "quoting" of the New Testament. It is aphoristic, very capacious, and therefore immediately attracts the reader's attention, evoking associations with the New Testament - a wonderful addition to the "make-up" under Christ! In the reader's mind, this moment is fixed as one of the "realities" that brings the master's novel closer to the Passion of Christ.

Pilate is very pleased with Yeshua's remark. “So, so,” Pilate said with a smile, “now I have no doubt that idle onlookers in Yershalaim followed you on your heels. I don’t know who hung your tongue, but it is hung well” (p. 443).

In general, the interrogation in Yershalaim echoes the trial of the Franciscan monk Fra Giovanni in Anatole France's Tragedy of Man. Fra Giovanni says like Yeshua: "I stood for justice and Truth", and the judge answers the reasoning of the condemned monk in the same way as Pilate: "Your tongue is well suspended." Fra Giovanni is accused of plotting to overthrow the existing order in the city of Viterboro, but he himself denies this. The socio-political moment, as we see, is present in both Frans and Bulgakov, the philosophical positions of Fra Giovanni and Yeshua are also close, however, the hero of The Tragedy of Man, unlike Yeshua, does not insist on the initial kindness of people: “Among people there is not a single good or bad. But they are all unhappy."

In interpreting the image of Jesus Christ as an ideal of moral perfection, Bulgakov departed from traditional, canonical ideas based on the four Gospels and the apostolic epistles. V. I. Nemtsev writes: “Yeshua is the author’s embodiment in deeds positive person to which the aspirations of the heroes of the novel are directed.

In Yeshua's novel, not a single spectacular heroic gesture is given. He - ordinary person: “He is not an ascetic, not a hermit, not a hermit, he is not surrounded by the aura of a righteous man or an ascetic, torturing himself with fasting and prayers. Like all people, he suffers from pain and rejoices at being freed from it.

The mythological plot, on which Bulgakov's work is projected, is a synthesis of three main elements - the Gospel, the Apocalypse and Faust. Two thousand years ago, "a means of salvation that changed the course of world history" was found. Bulgakov saw him in spiritual achievement a man who in the novel is called Yeshua Ha-Nozri and behind whom his great gospel prototype is visible. The figure of Yeshua was Bulgakov's outstanding discovery.

There is evidence that Bulgakov was not religious, did not go to church, and refused unction before his death. But vulgar atheism was deeply alien to him.
Real new era in the 20th century, this is also the era of "personification", the time of new spiritual self-salvation and self-government, similar to which was once revealed to the world in Jesus Christ. Such an act can, according to M. Bulgakov, save our Fatherland in the 20th century. The revival of God must take place in each of the people.

The story of Christ in Bulgakov's novel is not presented in the same way as in Holy Scripture: the author offers an apocryphal version of the gospel narrative, in which each of

participants combines opposite features and acts in a dual role. “Instead of a direct confrontation between the victim and the traitor, the Messiah and his disciples and those who are hostile to them, a complex system is formed, between all members of which relations of kinship of partial similarity appear.” Rethinking the canonical gospel narrative gives Bulgakov's version the character of an apocrypha. The conscious and sharp rejection of the canonical New Testament tradition in the novel is manifested in the fact that the writings of Levi Matthew (i.e., as it were, the future text of the Gospel of Matthew) are evaluated by Yeshua as completely untrue. The novel appears as the true version.
The first idea of ​​the apostle and evangelist Matthew in the novel is given by Yeshua himself: “... he walks, walks alone with goat parchment and continuously writes, but once I looked into this parchment and was horrified. Absolutely nothing of what is written there, I did not say. I begged him: burn your parchment for God's sake! Therefore, Yeshua himself rejects the authenticity of the testimonies of the Gospel of Matthew. In this regard, he shows the unity of views with Woland-Satan: “Already someone who,” Woland turns to Berlioz, “and you should know that absolutely nothing of what is written in the Gospels never really happened” . It is no coincidence that the chapter in which Woland began to tell the Master's novel was titled "The Gospel of the Devil" and "The Gospel of Woland" in draft versions. Much in the Master's novel about Pontius Pilate is very far from the gospel texts. In particular, there is no scene of the resurrection of Yeshua, there is no Virgin Mary at all; Yeshua's sermons do not last for three years, as in the Gospel, but in best case- a few months.

As for the details of the "ancient" chapters, Bulgakov drew many of them from the Gospels and checked them against reliable sources. historical sources. Working on these chapters, Bulgakov, in particular, carefully studied the "History of the Jews" by Heinrich Graetz, "The Life of Jesus" by D. Strauss, "Jesus Against Christ" by A. Barbusse, "The Book of My Being" by P. Uspensky, "Hofsemane" by A. M, Fedorov, “Pilate” by G. Petrovsky, “Procurator of Judea” by A. Frans, “The Life of Jesus Christ” by Ferrara, and of course, the Bible, the Gospels. A special place was occupied by E. Renan's book "The Life of Jesus", from which the writer drew chronological data and some historical details. From Renan's "Antichrist" Aphranius came to Bulgakov's novel.

To create many details and images of the historical part of the novel, some works of art. So, Yeshua is endowed with some qualities of a sideboard Don Quixote. To Pilate’s question whether Yeshua really considers all people kind, including the centurion Mark the Ratslayer, who beat him, Ha-Nozri answers in the affirmative and adds that Mark, “it’s true, an unhappy person ... If you could talk to him, it would suddenly be dreamy said the prisoner, “I am sure that he would have changed dramatically.” In Cervantes' novel: Don Quixote is insulted in the duke's castle by a priest who calls him an "empty head", but meekly replies: "I must not see. And I do not see anything offensive in the words of this kind man. The only thing I regret is that he did not stay with us - I would prove to him that he was wrong. It is the idea of ​​"infection with good" that makes Bulgakov's hero with the Knight of the Sorrowful Image. In the majority of cases literary sources are so organically woven into the fabric of the narrative that for many episodes it is difficult to unambiguously say whether they are taken from life or from books.

M. Bulgakov, portraying Yeshua, nowhere shows a single hint that this is the Son of God. Yeshua is everywhere represented by a Man, a philosopher, a sage, a healer, but a Man. There is no halo of holiness over Yeshua, and in the scene of painful death there is a goal - to show what injustice is happening in Judea.

The image of Yeshua is only a personified image of the moral and philosophical ideas of mankind, the moral law, which enters into an unequal battle with the legal right. It is no coincidence that the portrait of Yeshua as such is virtually absent in the novel: the author indicates the age, describes the clothes, facial expression, mentions bruises and abrasions - but nothing more: “... they brought in ... a man of about twenty-seven. This man was dressed in an old and tattered blue chiton. His head was covered with a white bandage with a strap around his forehead, and his hands were tied behind his back. The man had a large bruise under his left eye, and an abrasion with dried blood in the corner of his mouth. The man brought in looked at the procurator with anxious curiosity.

To Pilate's question about his relatives, he answers: “There is no one. I am alone in the world." But what is strange again: this does not at all sound like a complaint about loneliness ... Yeshua does not seek compassion, there is no feeling of inferiority or orphanhood in him. For him it sounds something like this: “I am alone - the whole world is in front of me”, or - “I am alone in front of the whole world”, or - “I am this world”. Yeshua is self-sufficient, taking in the whole world. V. M. Akimov rightly emphasized that “it is difficult to understand the integrity of Yeshua, his equality to himself - and to the whole world that he has absorbed into himself.” One cannot but agree with V. M. Akimov that the complex simplicity of Bulgakov's hero is difficult to comprehend, irresistibly convincing and omnipotent. Moreover, the power of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is so great and so embracing that at first many take it for weakness, even for spiritual lack of will.

However, Yeshua Ha-Nozri is not an ordinary person. Woland-Satan thinks of himself with him in the heavenly hierarchy on an equal footing. Bulgakov's Yeshua is the bearer of the idea of ​​a god-man.

The vagabond philosopher is strong in his naive faith in the good, which neither the fear of punishment nor the spectacle of flagrant injustice, of which he himself becomes a victim, can take away from him. His unchanging faith exists in spite of ordinary wisdom and the object lessons of execution. In everyday practice, this idea of ​​goodness, unfortunately, is not protected. “The weakness of Yeshua’s preaching is in its ideality,” V. Ya. Lakshin rightly believes, “but Yeshua is stubborn, and there is strength in the absolute integrity of his faith in goodness.” In his hero, the author sees not only a religious preacher and reformer - he embodies the image of Yeshua in free spiritual activity.

Possessing a developed intuition, a subtle and strong intellect, Yeshua is able to guess the future, and not just a thunderstorm that “will begin later, in the evening:”, but also the fate of his teaching, already now incorrectly expounded by Levi. Yeshua is inwardly free. Even realizing that he is really threatened by the death penalty, he considers it necessary to tell the Roman governor: "Your life is meager, hegemon."

B. V. Sokolov believes that the idea of ​​"infection with good", which is the leitmotif of Yeshua's sermon, was introduced by Bulgakov from Renan's Antichrist. Yeshua dreams of "the future kingdom of truth and justice" and leaves it open to absolutely everyone: "... the time will come when there will be no power of either the emperor or any other power." Man will pass into the realm of truth and justice, where no power will be needed at all.

Ha-Notsri preaches love and tolerance. He does not give preference to anyone; Pilate, Judas, and Ratslayer are equally interesting to him. All of them are “good people”, only they are “crippled” by certain circumstances. In a conversation with Pilate, he succinctly outlines the essence of his teaching: "... evil people not in the world." Yeshua's words resonate with Kant's statements about the essence of Christianity, defined either as a pure faith in goodness, or as a religion of goodness - a way of life. The priest in it is just a mentor, and the church is a meeting place for teachings. Kant considers good as a property inherent in human nature, as well as evil. In order for a person to become established as a person, that is, a being capable of perceiving respect for the moral law, he must develop a good beginning in himself and suppress the evil. And everything here depends on the person himself. For the sake of his own idea of ​​good, Yeshua does not utter a word of untruth. If he had even a little twisted his soul, then “the whole meaning of his teaching would have disappeared, for good is the truth!”, And “it’s easy and pleasant to tell the truth.”
What is main force Yeshua? First of all, openness. immediacy. He is always in a state of spiritual impulse "towards". His very first appearance in the novel captures this: “The man with his hands tied leaned forward a little and began to say:
- a kind person! Trust me...".

Yeshua is a man, always open to the world, "Openness" and "isolation" - these, according to Bulgakov, are the poles of good and evil. "Movement towards" - the essence of goodness. Withdrawal into oneself, isolation - this is what opens the way for evil. Withdrawal into oneself and a person one way or another comes into contact with the devil. M. B. Babinsky notes the ability of Yeshua to put himself in the place of another in order to understand his condition. The basis of the humanism of this person is the talent of the subtlest self-consciousness and on this basis - the understanding of other people with whom his fate brings him together.

This is the key to the episode with the question: "What is truth?". To Pilate, who is tormented by hemicrania, Yeshua answers this way: "The truth ... is that your head hurts."
Bulgakov is true to himself here too: Yeshua's answer is connected with the deep meaning of the novel - a call to see the truth through hints, to open one's eyes, to begin to see.
Truth for Yeshua is what it really is. This is the removal of the cover from phenomena and things, the liberation of the mind and feelings from any fettering etiquette, from dogma; it is the overcoming of conventions and hindrances. “The truth of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is the restoration of a real vision of life, the will and courage not to turn away and not lower one’s eyes, the ability to open the world, and not close oneself from it either by the conventions of the ritual or by the outbursts of the “bottom”. Yeshua's truth does not repeat "tradition", "regulation" and "ritual". It becomes alive and each time full capacity for dialogue with life.

But here lies the most difficult thing, because for the completeness of such communication with the world, fearlessness is necessary. Fearlessness of the soul, thoughts, feelings.

A detail characteristic of Bulgakov's Gospel is a combination of miraculous power and a feeling of fatigue and loss in the protagonist. The death of the hero is described as a universal catastrophe - the end of the world: “twilight came, and lightning plowed black sky. Fire suddenly burst out of it, and the cry of the centurion: “Take off the chain!” - drowned in the roar... Darkness covered Yershalaim. The downpour poured suddenly ... The water fell so terribly that when the soldiers ran down, raging streams were already flying after them.
Despite the fact that the plot seems complete - Yeshua is executed, the author seeks to assert that the victory of evil over good cannot be the result of a social and moral confrontation, this, according to Bulgakov, is not accepted by human nature itself, should not be allowed by the entire course of civilization. One gets the impression that Yeshua never realized that he was dead. He was alive all the time and left alive. It seems that the very word "died" is not in the episodes of Golgotha. He stayed alive. He is dead only for Levi, for Pilate's servants.

The great tragic philosophy of Yeshua's life is that the right to truth (and to choose to live in truth) is also tested and affirmed by the choice of death. He "managed" not only his life, but also his death. He "hung" his bodily death just as he "hung" his spiritual life.
Thus, he truly "governs" himself (and the whole routine on earth), governs not only Life, but also Death.

Yeshua's "self-creation", "self-management" passed the test of death, and therefore it became immortal.

Yeshua Ha-Nozri

YESHUA GA-NOZRI - central character novel by M.A. Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" (1928-1940). The image of Jesus Christ appears on the first pages of the novel in a conversation between two interlocutors at the Patriarch's Ponds, one of whom, the young poet Ivan Bezdomny, composed an anti-religious poem, but did not cope with the task. Jesus turned out to be completely alive, but it was necessary to prove that he did not exist at all, "that all the stories about him are mere inventions, the most ordinary myth." This image-myth in Bulgakov's novel is opposed by the wandering philosopher Yeshua Ga-Notsri, as he appears in two chapters of the "ancient" plot: first in the second - under interrogation by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate - and then in the sixteenth chapter, depicting the execution of the righteous man crucified on the cross . Bulgakov gives the name of Jesus in Judaized form. A likely source was the book of the English theologian F.V. Farrar "The Life of Jesus Christ" (1874, Russian translation - 1885), where the writer could read: Hoshea or Hosea is salvation." It was also explained that "ga-notseri" means a Nazarene, literally - from Nazareth. The image of Jesus Christ, as it is displayed in the novel, contains many deviations from the canonical gospels. Bulgakov's wandering philosopher is a man of twenty-seven (and not thirty-three), a Syrian (and not a Jew). He knows nothing about his parents, he has no relatives and followers who have accepted his teachings. “I am alone in the world,” says I. Only person, who showed interest in his sermons, is the tax collector Levi Matvey, who follows him with parchment and continuously writes, but he “wrongly writes down”, everything is confused there, and one can “fear that this confusion will continue for a very long time.” for a long time". Finally, Judas from Kiriath, who betrayed I., was not his student, but a casual acquaintance with whom a dangerous conversation began about state power. The image of I. has absorbed various traditions of the image of Jesus Christ that have developed in scientific and fiction, but is not tied to any one, strictly defined one. Obviously, the influence of the historical school, which found the most consistent expression in E. Renan's book "The Life of Jesus" (1863). However, Bulgakov does not have such a "consistency", expressed in the "cleansing" of the gospel story from everything fabulous and fantastic from the standpoint of Renan's "positive science", is absent. There is no opposition in the novel to Jesus - to Christ, the son of man - to the son of God (in the spirit of A. Barbusse's book "Jesus Against Christ", published in Russian translation in 1928 and, presumably, famous writer). During the interrogation by Pilate and later, during the execution, I., perhaps, does not realize himself as the messiah, but he is (becomes) him. An ambassador comes from him to Woland with a decision on the fate of the Master and Margarita. He is the highest authority in the hierarchy of light, just like Woland is the supreme ruler of the world of shadows. Actor, objectified in the narrative, I. is shown on the last day of his earthly journey, in the guise of a righteous man, a bearer of the ethical imperative of goodness, convinced that "evil people do not exist in the world", a thinker in whose view "any power is violence against people" and therefore, it has no place in the “realm of truth and justice”, where a person must sooner or later go. The time of the creation of the novel falls at the height of political processes, the victims of which were those who committed "thought crime" (Orwell's term), while the criminals were declared "socially close elements". In this temporal context, the story of the condemnation to execution of the “thought-criminal” I. (and the release of the murderer Barrabban) acquired an allusive meaning. I. destroys the cowardly state machine, but it is not the root cause of his death, which is predetermined by a misanthropic ideology, posing as a religion.

Lit. see the article "Master".

All characteristics in alphabetical order: