Having met the reader at the Patriarch's Ponds, Bulgakov leads him through Moscow in the twenties - along its alleys and squares, embankments and boulevards, along the alleys of gardens, looking into institutions and communal apartments, into shops and restaurants. The underbelly of theatrical life, the prose of the existence of the literary fraternity, the life and concerns of ordinary people appear before our eyes. And suddenly, with the magical power given by his talent, Bulgakov takes us to a city distant for hundreds of years, thousands of kilometers. Beautiful and terrible Yershalaim... Hanging gardens, bridges, towers, a hippodrome, bazaars, ponds... And on the balcony of a luxurious palace, flooded with hot sunlight, stands a short man of about twenty-seven and bravely makes strange and dangerous speeches. “This man was dressed in an old and torn 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.” This is Yeshua, a wandering philosopher, Bulgakov’s reinterpretation of the image of Christ.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri, this is how Jesus Christ was called in the Jewish books (Yeshua literally means Savior; Ha-Nozri means “from Nazareth”, Nazareth is a city in Galilee in which Saint Joseph lived and where the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary about the birth of her Son took place God. Jesus, Mary and Joseph returned here after their stay in Egypt. Jesus spent his childhood and adolescence here).

But further the personal data diverges from the original source. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, spoke Aramaic, read Hebrew and possibly spoke Greek, and stood trial at age 33. And Yeshua was born in Gamala, did not remember his parents, did not know Hebrew, but also spoke Latin, he appears before us at the age of twenty-seven. To those who do not know the Bible, it may seem that Pilate’s chapters are a paraphrase of the Gospel story of the trial of the Roman governor in Judea, Pontius Pilate, over Jesus Christ and the subsequent execution of Jesus, which occurred at the beginning of the new history of mankind.
Indeed, there are similarities between Bulgakov's novel and the Gospels. Thus, the reason for the execution of Christ, his conversation with Pontius Pilate, and the execution itself are described in the same way. It can be seen how Yeshua is trying to push ordinary people to the right decision, trying to direct them to the path of righteousness and truth: “Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (Gospel of John 18:37).
In “The Master and Margarita,” Yeshua, in dialogue with Pontius Pilate, also tries to answer the question of what truth is: “The truth, first of all, is that you have a headache, and it hurts so much that you are cowardly thinking about death. Not only are you unable to speak to me, but it is difficult for you to even look at me. And now I am unwittingly your executioner, which saddens me. You can’t even think about anything and dream only that your dog, apparently the only creature to which you are attached, will come. But your torment will now end, your headache will go away.”
This episode is the only echo of the miracles performed by Jesus and described in the Gospels. Although there is another indication of the divine essence of Yeshua. In the novel there are the following lines: “...near that, a column of dust caught fire.” Perhaps this place is intended to be associated with the 13th chapter of the Biblical book “Exodus”, which talks about how God, showing the way to the Jews in the exodus from Egyptian captivity, walked before them in the form of a pillar: “The Lord walked before them by day in a pillar cloud, showing them the way, and at night in a pillar of fire, giving them light, that they might go both day and night. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from the presence of the people.”
Yeshua does not demonstrate any messianic destiny, much less substantiate his divine essence, while Jesus clarifies, for example, in a conversation with the Pharisees: he is not just the Messiah, the Anointed of God, He is the Son of God: “I and the Father are one.”
Jesus had disciples. Only Matthew Levi followed Yeshua. It seems that the prototype of Matthew Levi is the Apostle Matthew, the author of the first Gospel (before meeting Jesus, he was a tax collector, that is, just like Levi, a tax collector). Yeshua met him for the first time on the road in Bethphage. And Bethphage is a small settlement near the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. From here began, according to the Gospels, the solemn procession of Jesus to Jerusalem. By the way, there are also differences with this biblical fact: Jesus, accompanied by his disciples, rides into Jerusalem on a donkey: “And as he rode, they spread their clothes along the road. And when he approached the descent from Mount Elern, the whole multitude of disciples began to praise God loudly and joyfully for all the miracles that they had seen, saying: Blessed is the King who comes of the Lord! peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Gospel of Luke 19:36-38). When Pilate asks Yeshua whether it is true that he “entered the city through the Susa Gate riding on a donkey,” he replies that he “doesn’t even have a donkey.” He came to Yershalaim exactly through the Susa Gate, but on foot, accompanied by only Levi Matthew, and no one shouted anything to him, since no one knew him in Yershalaim then.
Yeshua knew a little about the man who betrayed him, Judas from Kiriath: “... The day before yesterday I met a young man near the temple who called himself Judas from the city of Kiriath. He invited me to his house in the Lower City and treated me... A very kind and inquisitive person... He showed the greatest interest in my thoughts, received me very cordially...” And Judas from Kariot was a disciple of Jesus. Christ himself proclaimed that Judas would betray him: “When evening came, He lay down with the twelve disciples; and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” They were greatly saddened, and began to say to Him, each one of them: Is it not I, Lord? He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand into the dish with Me, this one will betray Me; However, the Son of Man comes, as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it would have been better for this man not to have been born. At this, Judas, who betrayed Him, said: Isn’t it me, Rabbi? Jesus says to him, “You have spoken” (Gospel of Matthew 26:20-25).
At Pilate’s first trial in God’s Law, Jesus behaves with dignity and actually looks like a king: “Pilate asked Jesus Christ: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus Christ answered: “You say” (which means: “Yes, I am the King”). When the high priests and elders accused the Savior, He did not answer. Pilate said to Him: “You don’t answer anything? You see how many accusations there are against You.” But the Savior did not answer anything to this either, so Pilate marveled. After this, Pilate entered the praetorium and, calling Jesus, asked Him again: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus Christ said to him: “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” (i.e., do you think so yourself or not?) “Am I a Jew?” - Pilate answered, “Your people and the chief priests handed You over to me; what did You do?” Jesus Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then My servants (subjects) would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” "So You are the King?" - asked Pilate. Jesus Christ answered: “You say that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.” From these words, Pilate saw that standing before him was a preacher of truth, a teacher of the people, and not a rebel against the power of the Romans.” And in the novel, Yeshua behaves insignificantly and looks completely defenseless and, as Bulgakov himself writes, “his eyes became meaningless” and “with his whole being expressing his readiness to answer intelligently, not to cause anger anymore.” Another important point is also important. “When they brought Jesus Christ to Golgotha, the soldiers gave him sour wine mixed with bitter substances to drink to ease his suffering. But the Lord, having tasted it, did not want to drink it. He did not want to use any remedy to relieve suffering. He took upon Himself this suffering voluntarily for the sins of people; That’s why I wanted to carry them through to the end,” - this is exactly how it is described in the Law of God. And in the novel, Yeshua again shows himself to be weak-willed: “Drink,” said the executioner, and the sponge soaked in water at the end of the spear rose to Yeshua’s lips. Joy sparkled in his eyes, he clung to the sponge and greedily began to absorb the moisture...”
At the trial of Jesus, described in God's Law, it is clear that the chief priests conspired to condemn Jesus to death. They could not carry out their sentence because there was no guilt in the actions or words on the part of Jesus. Therefore, members of the Sanhedrin found false witnesses who testified against Jesus: “We heard Him say: I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will erect another, not made with hands” (the Law of God). And Bulgakov is trying to make his hero a prophet at the trial at Pilate. Yeshua says: “I, the hegemon, said that the temple of the old faith would collapse and a new temple of truth would be created...”
A significant difference between Bulgakov's hero and Jesus Christ is that Jesus does not avoid conflicts. “The essence and tone of his speeches,” says S.S. Averintsev, “are exceptional: the listener must either believe or become an enemy... Hence the inevitability of a tragic end.” And Yeshua Ha-Nozri? His words and actions are completely devoid of aggressiveness. The credo of his life lies in these words: “It is easy and pleasant to speak the truth.” The truth for him is that there are no evil people, only unhappy ones. He is a man who preaches Love, while Jesus is the Messiah who affirms Truth. Let me clarify: Christ’s intolerance manifests itself only in matters of faith. In relationships between people, He teaches: “... do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him” (Gospel of Matthew 5:39).
The Apostle Paul clarifies these words: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” that is, fight evil, but at the same time do not increase it yourself. In the novel “The Master and Margarita” Bulgakov gives us his interpretation of the commandment of Jesus Christ. Can we say that the words of the Apostle Paul apply to Yeshua Ha-Nozri, Bulgakov’s Christ? Of course, because throughout his entire life he does not deviate one step from his goodness. It is vulnerable, but not despised, perhaps because it is difficult to despise those who, without knowing you, believe in your kindness, are disposed towards you, regardless of anything. We cannot blame him for inaction: he is looking for meetings with people, ready to talk to everyone. But he is completely defenseless against cruelty, cynicism, betrayal, because he himself is absolutely kind.
And yet, the non-conflict Yeshua Ha-Nozri faces the same fate as the “conflict” Jesus Christ. Why? It is possible that here M. Bulgakov is telling us: the crucifixion of Christ is not at all a consequence of His intolerance, as one might assume when reading the Gospel. The point is something else, more significant. If we do not touch on the religious side of the issue, the reason for the death of the hero of “The Master and Margarita”, as well as his prototype, lies in their attitude to power, or more precisely, to the way of life that this power personifies and supports.
It is well known that Christ resolutely distinguished between the “things of Caesar” and the “things of God.” Nevertheless, it is the earthly authorities, secular (the governor of Rome) and ecclesiastical (Sanhedrin), who sentence him to death for earthly crimes: Pilate condemns Christ as a state criminal, allegedly laying claim to the royal throne, although he himself doubts this; Sanhedrin - as a false prophet, blasphemously calling himself the Son of God, although, as the Gospel clarifies, in fact the high priests wished him death “out of envy” (Gospel of Matthew 27, 18).
Yeshua Ha-Nozri does not claim power. True, he publicly evaluates it as “violence against people” and is even sure that someday it, power, may not exist at all. But such an assessment in itself is not so dangerous: when else will it be so that people can completely do without violence? Nevertheless, it is precisely the words about the “non-eternity” of the existing government that become the formal reason for the death of Yeshua (as in the case of Jesus Christ).
The true reason for the death of Jesus and Yeshua is that they are internally free and live according to the laws of love for people - laws that are not characteristic and impossible for power, and not Roman or any other, but power in general. In M. A. Bulgakov’s novel Yeshua Ha-Nozri and in the Law of God, Jesus is not just free people. They radiate freedom, are independent in their judgments, and are sincere in expressing their feelings in a way that an absolutely pure and kind person cannot be sincere.

“The Master and Margarita” is the last work of Mikhail Bulgakov. This is what not only writers say, but also he himself. Dying from a serious illness, he told St...

Yeshua Ha-Nozri in Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”: characterization of the image

From Masterweb

24.04.2018 02:01

“The Master and Margarita” is the last work of Mikhail Bulgakov. This is what not only writers say, but also he himself. Dying from a serious illness, he told his wife: “Perhaps this is right. What else could I create after “The Master”?” Really, what else could the writer say? This work is so multifaceted that the reader does not immediately understand what genre it belongs to. An amazing plot, deep philosophy, a bit of satire and charismatic characters - all this created a unique masterpiece that is read all over the world.

An interesting character in this work is Yeshua Ha-Nozri, who will be discussed in the article. Of course, many readers, captivated by the charisma of the dark lord Woland, do not pay much attention to such a character as Yeshua. But even if in the novel Woland himself recognized him as his equal, we certainly shouldn’t ignore him.

Two towers

“The Master and Margarita” is a harmonious intricacy of opposite principles. Science fiction and philosophy, farce and tragedy, good and evil... Spatial, temporal and psychological characteristics are shifted here, and in the novel itself there is another novel. Before the eyes of readers, two completely different stories created by one author echo each other.

The first story takes place in modern Moscow for Bulgakov, and the events of the second take place in ancient Yershalaim, where Yeshua Ha-Notsri and Pontius Pilate meet. Reading the novel, it is difficult to believe that these two diametrically opposed short stories were created by one person. Events in Moscow are described in a living language, which is not alien to notes of comedy, gossip, devilry and familiarity. But when it comes to Yershalaim, the artistic style of the work sharply changes to strict and solemn:

In a white cloak with a bloody lining, and with a shuffling gait, in the early morning of the fourteenth day of the spring month of Nisan, the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, came out into the covered colonnade between the two wings of the palace of Herod the Great... (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || ).push(());

These two parts should show the reader the state of morality and how it has changed over the past 2000 years. Based on this author’s intention, we will consider the image of Yeshua Ha-Nozri.

Teaching

Yeshua arrived in this world at the beginning of the Christian era and preached a simple doctrine of goodness. Only his contemporaries were not yet ready to accept new truths. Yeshua Ha-Nozri was sentenced to death - a shameful crucifixion on a stake, which was intended for dangerous criminals.

People have always been afraid of what their minds could not comprehend, and an innocent person paid with his life for this ignorance.

Gospel according to...

Initially, it was believed that Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Jesus are one and the same person, but that’s not what the author wanted to say at all. The image of Yeshua does not correspond to any Christian canon. This character includes many religious, historical, ethical, psychological and philosophical characteristics, but still remains a simple person.

Bulgakov was educated and knew the Gospel well, but he did not have the goal of creating another copy of spiritual literature. The writer deliberately distorts the facts, even the name Yeshua Ha-Nozri means “savior from Nazareth”, and everyone knows that the biblical character was born in Bethlehem.

Inconsistencies

The above was not the only discrepancy. Yeshua Ha-Nozri in the novel “The Master and Margarita” is an original, truly Bulgakovian hero who has nothing in common with the biblical character. So, in the novel he appears to the reader as a young man of 27 years old, while the Son of God was 33 years old. Yeshua has only one follower, Matthew Levi, Jesus had 12 disciples. In the novel, Judas was killed on the orders of Pontius Pilate, and in the Gospel he committed suicide.

With such inconsistencies, the author is trying in every possible way to emphasize that Yeshua Ha-Nozri is, first of all, a person who was able to find psychological and moral support in himself, and he remained true to his convictions until the very end.

Appearance

In the novel “The Master and Margarita,” Yeshua Ha-Nozri appears before the reader in an ignoble external image: worn sandals, an old and torn blue tunic, his head is covered with a white bandage with a strap around his forehead. His hands are tied behind his back, he has a bruise under his eye, and an abrasion in the corner of his mouth. By this, Bulgakov wanted to show the reader that spiritual beauty is much higher than external attractiveness.

Yeshua was not divinely calm, like all people, he felt fear of Pilate and Mark the Rat-Slayer. He did not even know about his (possibly divine) origin and acted in the same way as ordinary people.

Divinity is present

In the work, a lot of attention is paid to the human qualities of the hero, but with all this, the author does not forget about his divine origin. At the end of the novel, it is Yeshua who becomes the personification of the force that told Woland to grant the Master peace. And at the same time, the author does not want to perceive this character as a prototype of Christ. This is why the characterization of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is so ambiguous: some say that his prototype was the Son of God, others claim that he was a simple man with a good education, and still others believe that he was slightly crazy.

Moral truth

The hero of the novel came into the world with one moral truth: every person is kind. This position became the truth of the entire novel. Two thousand years ago, a “means of salvation” (that is, repentance for sins) was found, which changed the course of all history. But Bulgakov saw salvation in a person’s spiritual feat, in his morality and perseverance.

Bulgakov himself was not a deeply religious person, he did not go to church and before his death he even refused to receive unction, but he did not welcome atheism either. He believed that the new era in the twentieth century is a time of self-salvation and self-government, which was once revealed to the world in Jesus. The author believed that such an act could save Russia in the twentieth century. We can say that Bulgakov wanted people to believe in God, but not blindly follow everything that is written in the Gospel.

Even in the novel, he openly states that the Gospel is a fiction. Yeshua evaluates Matthew Levi (who is also an evangelist who is known to everyone) in these words:

He walks and walks alone with a goat's parchment and writes continuously, but one day I looked into this parchment and was horrified. I said absolutely nothing of what was written there. I begged him: burn your parchment for God’s sake! var blockSettings13 = (blockId:"R-A-116722-13",renderTo:"yandex_rtb_R-A-116722-13",horizontalAlign:!1,async:!0); if(document.cookie.indexOf("abmatch=") >= 0)( blockSettings13 = (blockId:"R-A-116722-13",renderTo:"yandex_rtb_R-A-116722-13",horizontalAlign:!1,statId: 7,async:!0); ) !function(a,b,c,d,e)(a[c]=a[c]||,a[c].push(function())(Ya.Context. AdvManager.render(blockSettings13))),e=b.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=b.createElement("script"),d.type="text/javascript",d.src="http:// an.yandex.ru/system/context.js",d.async=!0,e.parentNode.insertBefore(d,e))(this,this.document,"yandexContextAsyncCallbacks");

Yeshua himself refutes the authenticity of the testimony of the Gospel. And in this his views are united with Woland:

“Who, who,” Woland turns to Berlioz, but you should know that absolutely nothing of what is written in the Gospels ever actually happened.

Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Pontius Pilate

A special place in the novel is occupied by Yeshua’s relationship with Pilate. It was to the latter that Yeshua said that all power is violence against people, and one day the time will come when there will be no power left except the kingdom of truth and justice. Pilate sensed a grain of truth in the prisoner’s words, but still cannot let him go, fearing for his career. Circumstances put pressure on him, and he signed a death warrant for the rootless philosopher, which he greatly regretted.

Later, Pilate tries to atone for his guilt and asks the priest to release this particular condemned man in honor of the holiday. But his idea was not crowned with success, so he ordered his servants to stop the suffering of the condemned man and personally ordered that Judas be killed.

Let's get to know each other better

You can fully understand Bulgakov's hero only by paying attention to the dialogue between Yeshua Ha-Nozri and Pontius Pilate. It is from it that you can find out where Yeshua was from, how educated he was and how he treated others.

Yeshua is just a personified image of the moral and philosophical ideas of humanity. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the novel there is no description of this man, there is only a mention of how he is dressed and that there is a bruise and abrasions on his face.

You can also learn from the dialogue with Pontius Pilate that Yeshua is lonely:

There is no one. I'm alone in the world.

And, strangely, there is nothing in this statement that could sound like a complaint about loneliness. Yeshua does not need compassion, he does not feel like an orphan or somehow defective. He is self-sufficient, the whole world is in front of him, and it is open to him. It is a little difficult to understand the integrity of Yeshua; he is equal to himself and the whole world that he has absorbed into himself. He does not hide in the colorful polyphony of roles and masks, he is free from all this.

The power of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is so enormous that at first it is mistaken for weakness and lack of will. But he is not so simple: Woland feels on an equal footing with him. Bulgakov's character is a vivid example of the idea of ​​a god-man.

The wandering philosopher is strong because of his unshakable faith in goodness, and this faith cannot be taken away from him by either fear of punishment or visible injustice. His faith persists despite everything. In this hero the author sees not only a preacher-reformer, but also the embodiment of free spiritual activity.

Education

In the novel, Yeshua Ha-Nozri has developed intuition and intelligence, which allows him to guess the future, and not just possible events in the next few days. Yeshua is able to guess the fate of his teaching, which is already being incorrectly presented by Matthew Levi. This man is so internally free that even realizing that he faces the death penalty, he considers it his duty to tell the Roman governor about his meager life.

Ha-Nozri sincerely preaches love and tolerance. He doesn't have any that he would prefer. Pilate, Judas and Rat Slayer - they are all interesting and “good people”, only crippled by circumstances and time. Talking with Pilate, he says that there are no evil people in the world.

Yeshua’s main strength is openness and spontaneity; he is constantly in such a state that he is ready to meet halfway at any moment. He is open to this world, therefore he understands every person with whom fate confronts him:

The trouble is,” continued the bound man, unstoppable by anyone, “that you are too closed and have completely lost faith in people.

Openness and closedness in Bulgakov's world are the two poles of good and evil. Good always moves towards, and isolation opens the way for evil. For Yeshua, truth is what it really is, overcoming conventions, liberation from etiquette and dogma.

Tragedy

The tragedy of the story of Yeshua Ha-Nozri is that his teaching was not in demand. People were simply not ready to accept his truth. And the hero even fears that his words will be misunderstood, and the confusion will last for a very long time. But Yeshua did not renounce his ideas; he is a symbol of humanity and perseverance.

The Master experiences the tragedy of his character in the modern world. One could even say that Yeshua Ha-Nozri and the Master are somewhat similar. Neither of them gave up their ideas, and both paid for them with their lives.

Yeshua's death was predictable, and the author emphasizes its tragedy with the help of a thunderstorm, which ends the storyline and modern history:

Dark. Coming from the Mediterranean Sea, it covered the city hated by the procurator... An abyss fell from the sky. Yershalaim, a great city, disappeared, as if it did not exist in the world... Everything was devoured by darkness...

Moral

With the death of the main character, not only Yershalaim plunged into darkness. The morality of its townspeople left much to be desired. Many residents watched the torture with interest. They were not afraid of either the hellish heat or the long journey: execution is so interesting. And approximately the same situation occurs 2000 years later, when people passionately want to attend Woland’s scandalous performance.

Looking at how people behave, Satan draws the following conclusions:

...they are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... humanity loves money, no matter what it is made of, whether leather, paper, bronze or gold... Well, they are frivolous... well, and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts.

Yeshua is not a dimming, but forgotten light, in which shadows disappear. He is the embodiment of goodness and love, an ordinary person who, despite all the suffering, still believes in the world and people. Yeshua Ha-Nozri are powerful forces of good in human form, but even they can be influenced.

Throughout the novel, the author draws a clear line between the spheres of influence of Yeshua and Woland, but, on the other hand, it is difficult not to notice the unity of their opposites. Of course, in many situations Woland looks much more significant than Yeshua, but these rulers of light and darkness are equal to each other. And thanks to this equality, there is harmony in the world, because if there were no one, then the existence of the other would be meaningless. The peace that the Master was awarded is a kind of agreement between two powerful forces, and the two great forces are driven to this decision by ordinary human love, which is considered in the novel as the highest value.

Kievyan Street, 16 0016 Armenia, Yerevan +374 11 233 255

“Nothing can be understood in the novel
Misha, if just for a minute
forget that he is the son of a professor
theology."
(Elena Bulgakova, co
words of a literary critic
Marietta Chudakova)

If you conduct a survey of readers of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita” on the topic: who in your opinion is Yeshua Ha-Nozri, the majority, I am sure, will answer: the prototype of Jesus Christ. Some will call him God; someone an angel preaching the doctrine of soul salvation; someone simple, not having a divine nature. But both of them will most likely agree that Ha-Notsri is a prototype of the one from whom Christianity came.
Is this so?
To answer this question, let’s turn to the sources about the life of Jesus Christ - the canonical Gospels, and compare it with Ha-Nozri. I’ll say right away: I’m not a big specialist in the analysis of literary texts, but in this case you don’t have to be a big specialist to doubt their identity. Yes, both were kind, wise, meek, both forgave what people usually could not forgive (Luke 23:34), both were crucified. But Ha-Nozri wanted to please everyone, but Christ did not want to and said everything he thought to his face. Thus, at the treasury in the temple, he publicly called the Pharisees children of the devil (John 8:44), in the synagogue its elder - a hypocrite (Luke 13:15), in Caesarea, the disciple Peter - Satan (Matthew 16:21-23). He did not beg the disciples for anything, unlike Ha-Notsri, who begged Matvey to burn the goat parchment with the texts of his speeches, and the disciples themselves, with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, did not even think of disobeying him. And, of course, it is completely absurd to consider Yeshua Ha-Nozri Jesus Christ after the first, answering Pilate’s question what truth is, declared: “The truth, first of all, is that you have a headache...”, which is inconsistent with the words of Jesus Christ himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And further. In the twenty-ninth chapter of the novel, at the hour when they were viewing the city from the roof of “one of the most beautiful buildings in Moscow,” Ga-Notsri’s envoy Levi Matvey appeared to Woland and Azazello with a request to take the Master with them and reward him with peace. It seems to be nothing special - an ordinary, completely realistic scene, if, of course, it is permissible to evaluate a mystical novel in such categories, but one has only to imagine Christ in the place of Ha-Nozri, how a completely realistic scene turns into an openly surreal one. Just think about it: Jesus Christ, God, the son of God, makes a request to his primordial enemy Satan! Not only is this offensive to Christians, which Bulgakov, despite his ambiguous attitude towards religion, would hardly have allowed, it contradicts church dogmas - God is omnipotent, which means he is able to solve his problems himself, but if he cannot solve his problems, then he is not omnipotent and, therefore, not God, but God knows who - some son of a Syrian from Palestine endowed with psychic abilities. And the last thing on the topic: why Yeshua Ha-Nozri is not Jesus Christ. Most of the names in the Master's built-in novel have gospel prototypes - the prefect of Judea Pontius Pilate, Judas, the high priest Caiaphas, the tax collector Levi Matthew (Matthew), and the events take place in the same city (Yershalaim - the Hebrew phonetic version of the pronunciation of Jerusalem). But the names of the main characters, although similar, are still different: in the New Testament - Jesus Christ, in the novel of the Master - Yeshua Ha-Nozri. There are also fundamental differences between them. So, thirty-three-year-old Jesus Christ had twelve followers-disciples, and they crucified him on the cross, and twenty-seven-year-old Yeshua Ha-Nozri had only one, and they crucified him on a pillar. Why? The answer, in my opinion, is obvious - for the author of the novel, Mikhail Bulgakov, Jesus Christ and Yeshua Ha-Nozri are different people.
Then who is he, Yeshua Ha-Nozri? A person who does not have a divine nature?
One could agree with this statement, if not for his stormy posthumous activity... Let us remember: in the sixteenth chapter he dies, being crucified on a pillar, in the twenty-ninth he is resurrected, meets with Pilate, and easily turns to Woland with the request that was mentioned higher. Woland - for some unknown reason - fulfills it, and then, in the best traditions of Soviet communal apartments, gets along with Levi Matvey as if they have known each other for at least two thousand years. All this, in my opinion, bears little resemblance to the actions of a person who does not have a divine nature.
Now it’s time to ask another question: who invented the novel about Pilate. Master? Then why were its first chapters voiced by Woland, who had just arrived in Moscow “at the hour of an unprecedentedly hot sunset”? Woland? During his first meeting with the Master, which took place immediately after Satan’s ball in the house at Bolshaya Sadovaya, 302 bis, he had no idea of ​​attributing his authorship to himself. And then there are the mysterious words of the Master, spoken by him after the poet Ivan Bezdomny recounted the first chapters to him: “Oh, how I guessed right! Oh, how I guessed everything!” What did he guess? Events in the novel that you yourself invented, or something else? And is this a novel? The Master himself called his work a novel, but he did not pamper his readers with its characteristic features, such as branching plots, multiple plot lines, and a large time span.
Then what is this if not a novel?
Let's remember where the story of the preacher was copied from, who, on the recommendation of the Sanhedrin headed by the high priest Caiaphas, was sent to execution by the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. From the canonical Gospels. And if so, then perhaps we should agree with some literary critics who call the Master’s work a Gospel or, as T. Pozdnyaev did, an anti-Gospel.
A few words about this genre. The word Gospel is translated from Greek as good news. In the broad sense of the word - the news of the coming of the Kingdom of God, in the narrow sense - the news of the birth, earthly ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. The canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are usually called divinely inspired or divinely inspired, that is, written under the influence of the Spirit of God on the human spirit. And here two questions immediately arise: if the Master’s work is truly the Gospel, who is the person who was influenced by the spirit, and who is the spirit that led the man’s hand? My answer is this. If we consider that angels in the Christian tradition are generally considered to be creatures devoid of creativity, then the person influenced by the spirit was the Master, and the spirit whispering to the Master what to write was the fallen angel Woland. And here it immediately becomes clear: how the Master “guessed everything”, how Woland knew what was written in the Master’s novel before meeting him, why Woland agreed to take him with him and reward him with peace.
In this regard, one episode from the thirty-second chapter is noteworthy, where the horsemen leaving Moscow - the Master, Margarita, Woland and their retinue witnessed the meeting of Ha-Nozri with Pilate.
“...here Woland again turned to the master and said: “Well, now you can finish your novel with one phrase!” The master seemed to be waiting for this already, while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting procurator. He clasped his hands like a megaphone and shouted so that the echo jumped across the deserted and treeless mountains: “Free! Free! He is waiting for you!".
Pay attention to Woland’s words addressed to the Master: “...now you can end your novel with one phrase,” and the Master’s reaction to Woland’s appeal: “It’s as if the Master was already waiting for this.”
So, we found out: from whom the Gospel was written - from the Master. Now it remains to answer the question: the good news about whose earthly ministry, death, resurrection sounded on its pages, and we will finally find out who he is, Yeshua Ha-Nozri.
To do this, let us turn to the beginning of the Gospel of the Master, namely, to the interrogation of the “wandering philosopher” by Pontius Pilate. To the accusation made by the prefect of Judea that Ha-Nozri, according to “the testimony of the people,” was inciting the people to destroy the temple building, the prisoner, denying his guilt, replied: “These good people, hegemon, did not learn anything and confused everything that I said. I'm actually starting to fear that this confusion will continue for a very long time. And all because he writes me down incorrectly.” Now let's figure it out. The fact that Ha-Notsri meant Levi Matthew - a prototype of the evangelist Levi Matthew, when he said: “he writes down incorrectly for me” is beyond doubt - Ha-Notsri himself mentioned his name during the interrogation of Pilate. And who did he mean when he said: “these good people, hegemon, did not learn anything and got everything mixed up”? In general - the listening crowd, in particular - those who listened and conveyed his speeches to others. Hence the conclusion: since there are no people listening and reporting, except Matthew Levi, in the Gospel from the Master, and the Master himself passes off Ha-Nozri as Jesus Christ, the speech in this replica, apparently, is about the evangelists - those who listened and reported the teachings of Christ to those who could not hear him. And this is what happens...
If you imagine Christianity in the form of a building, then at the base of the foundation of this building lies the Old Testament (all the apostles, along with Jesus Christ, were Jews and were brought up in the traditions of Judaism), the foundation consists of the New Testament, reinforced by four cornerstone pillars - the Gospels, the superstructure - walls with a roof , from the Holy Tradition and the works of modern theologians. In appearance, this building seems solid and durable, but it seems so only until someone posing as Christ comes and says that the “good people” who created the New Testament Gospels got everything mixed up and distorted for the reason that they were recording him incorrectly. Then - you can guess - other people will come, not so kind, who will say: since the Church of Christ stands on four defective pillars, all believers should urgently leave it for safety reasons... Ask: who needs this and why? My grandmother, if she were alive, would answer this question like this: “God damn it, there’s no one else!” And I would be right. But not some abstract Antichrist, but a very concrete one with a capital letter “A”. He definitely needs this. His very name is Antichrist, which translated from Greek means: instead of Christ - better than any declaration of intentions, expresses the meaning of existence and the purpose of life - to replace God. How to achieve this? You can gather an army and give battle to the army of Jesus Christ at Armageddon, or you can quietly, quietly oust his image from the mass consciousness of Christians and himself reign in it. Do you think this is not possible? Jesus Christ thought it was possible and warned: “...they will come in My name and say: “I am the Christ.” (Matthew 24:5), “...false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders to deceive” (Matthew 24:24), “I have come in the name of My Father, and you do not receive Me; and another will come in his own name, accept him” (John 5:43). You can believe in this prediction, you can not believe it, but if the false Christ and the false prophet do come, we will most likely accept them and not notice how for a long time we did not notice that one of the popular programs on the historical TV channel “365” The hour of truth” was preceded by an epigraph from the already quoted gospel from the Master: “These good people did not learn anything and confused everything that I said. I'm actually starting to fear that this confusion will continue for a very long time. And all because he writes me down incorrectly.” It is unlikely that anti-Christians and Satanists sit in the leadership of the TV channel. No. It’s just that none of them, seduced, saw deception in Ha-Nozri’s words, but accepted it on faith, not noticing how they were deceived.
Perhaps this is exactly what Woland was counting on when, for one hundred thousand rubles, he “ordered” the Master to write a gospel about the coming of the kingdom of the Antichrist. After all, if you think about it: the idea of ​​proclaiming in Moscow - the Third Rome, first one “good news”, followed by another, a third, and canonizing the best of them at the next Ecumenical Council, does not seem so unthinkable either now, much less in the twenties of the Godless years, when Bulgakov conceived the novel “The Master and Margarita”. By the way: it is believed that Woland came to Moscow because it had become godless, and left, realizing that his help in the religious degradation of Muscovites was not needed. May be. Or maybe he left it because, in order to prepare for the coming of the Antichrist, he needed believers, which Muscovites no longer were, as Woland was able to verify personally by visiting the variety theater. And the fact that he tried to convince Berlioz and Ivan Bezdomny of the existence of Jesus, and, moreover, of his existence without any evidence or points of view, perfectly confirms this version.
But let's return to Ga-Notsri. Having recognized him as the Antichrist, it can be explained why he has one follower, and not twelve, like Jesus Christ, whom he will try to imitate, for what reason he was crucified on a stake and not on a cross, and why on earth Woland agreed to respect Ha’s request -Nozri give the Master peace. So: Ha-Notsri in the built-in novel has one follower, since the Antichrist in the New Testament also has one - a false prophet, whom Saint Irenaeus of Lyons called “the squire of the Antichrist”; The Antichrist was crucified on a stake because to be crucified on the cross means to be associated with Christ, which is categorically unacceptable for him; Woland could not fail to fulfill Ha-Notsri’s request due to the fact that he was, or more precisely: will be, or already is, the spiritual, and possibly blood father of the Antichrist.
The novel “The Master and Margarita” is a multi-layered novel. It is about love and betrayal, about the writer and his relationship with power. But this is also a story about how Satan, with the help of the Master, wanted to provide the coming of the Antichrist with, as they would say today: information support, but failed in his opposition to Muscovites, who were spoiled by housing and other vital “issues.”
And the last thing... I must admit, I myself don’t really believe that Mikhail Bulgakov copied his Yeshua Ha-Nozri from the Antichrist. And yet, who knows? - perhaps this is precisely the only case in the history of literature when one of the characters in a novel used an unsuspecting author for his own purposes far from literature.

Having met the reader at the Patriarch's Ponds, Bulgakov leads him through Moscow in the twenties - along its alleys and squares, embankments and boulevards, along the alleys of gardens, looking into institutions and communal apartments, into shops and restaurants. The underbelly of theatrical life, the prose of the existence of the literary fraternity, the life and concerns of ordinary people appear before our eyes. And suddenly, with the magical power given by his talent, Bulgakov takes us to a city distant for hundreds of years, thousands of kilometers. Beautiful and terrible Yershalaim... Hanging gardens, bridges, towers, a hippodrome, bazaars, ponds... And on the balcony of a luxurious palace, flooded with hot sunlight, stands a short man of about twenty-seven and bravely makes strange and dangerous speeches. “This man was dressed in an old and torn 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.” This is Yeshua, a wandering philosopher, Bulgakov’s reinterpretation of the image of Christ.
Yeshua Ha-Nozri, this is how Jesus Christ was called in the Jewish books (Yeshua literally means Savior; Ha-Nozri means “from Nazareth”, Nazareth is a city in Galilee in which Saint Joseph lived and where the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary about the birth of her Son took place God. Jesus, Mary and Joseph returned here after their stay in Egypt. Jesus spent his childhood and adolescence here). But further the personal data diverges from the original source. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, spoke Aramaic, read Hebrew and possibly spoke Greek, and stood trial at age 33. And Yeshua was born in Gamala, did not remember his parents, did not know Hebrew, but also spoke Latin, he appears before us at the age of twenty-seven. To those who do not know the Bible, it may seem that Pilate’s chapters are a paraphrase of the Gospel story of the trial of the Roman governor in Judea, Pontius Pilate, over Jesus Christ and the subsequent execution of Jesus, which occurred at the beginning of the new history of mankind.

Indeed, there are similarities between Bulgakov's novel and the Gospels. Thus, the reason for the execution of Christ, his conversation with Pontius Pilate, and the execution itself are described in the same way. It can be seen how Yeshua is trying to push ordinary people to the right decision, trying to direct them to the path of righteousness and truth: “Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice” (Gospel of John 18:37).
In “The Master and Margarita,” Yeshua, in dialogue with Pontius Pilate, also tries to answer the question of what truth is: “The truth, first of all, is that you have a headache, and it hurts so much that you are cowardly thinking about death. Not only are you unable to speak to me, but it is difficult for you to even look at me. And now I am unwittingly your executioner, which saddens me. You can’t even think about anything and dream only that your dog, apparently the only creature to which you are attached, will come. But your torment will now end, your headache will go away.”
This episode is the only echo of the miracles performed by Jesus and described in the Gospels. Although there is another indication of the divine essence of Yeshua. In the novel there are the following lines: “...near that, a column of dust caught fire.” Perhaps this place is intended to be associated with the 13th chapter of the Biblical book “Exodus”, which talks about how God, showing the way to the Jews in the exodus from Egyptian captivity, walked before them in the form of a pillar: “The Lord walked before them by day in a pillar cloud, showing them the way, and at night in a pillar of fire, giving them light, that they might go both day and night. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from the presence of the people.”
Yeshua does not demonstrate any messianic destiny, much less substantiate his divine essence, while Jesus clarifies, for example, in a conversation with the Pharisees: he is not just the Messiah, the Anointed of God, He is the Son of God: “I and the Father are one.”
Jesus had disciples. Only Matthew Levi followed Yeshua. It seems that the prototype of Matthew Levi is the Apostle Matthew, the author of the first Gospel (before meeting Jesus, he was a tax collector, that is, just like Levi, a tax collector). Yeshua met him for the first time on the road in Bethphage. And Bethphage is a small settlement near the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem. From here began, according to the Gospels, the solemn procession of Jesus to Jerusalem. By the way, there are also differences with this biblical fact: Jesus, accompanied by his disciples, rides into Jerusalem on a donkey: “And as he rode, they spread their clothes along the road. And when he approached the descent from Mount Elern, the whole multitude of disciples began to praise God loudly and joyfully for all the miracles that they had seen, saying: Blessed is the King who comes of the Lord! peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Gospel of Luke 19:36-38). When Pilate asks Yeshua whether it is true that he “entered the city through the Susa Gate riding on a donkey,” he replies that he “doesn’t even have a donkey.” He came to Yershalaim exactly through the Susa Gate, but on foot, accompanied by only Levi Matthew, and no one shouted anything to him, since no one knew him in Yershalaim then.
Yeshua knew a little about the man who betrayed him, Judas from Kiriath: “... The day before yesterday I met a young man near the temple who called himself Judas from the city of Kiriath. He invited me to his house in the Lower City and treated me... A very kind and inquisitive person... He showed the greatest interest in my thoughts, received me very cordially...” And Judas from Kariot was a disciple of Jesus. Christ himself proclaimed that Judas would betray him: “When evening came, He lay down with the twelve disciples; and while they were eating, he said, “Truly I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” They were greatly saddened, and began to say to Him, each one of them: Is it not I, Lord? He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand into the dish with Me, this one will betray Me; However, the Son of Man comes, as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed: it would have been better for this man not to have been born. At this, Judas, who betrayed Him, said: Isn’t it me, Rabbi? Jesus says to him, “You have spoken” (Gospel of Matthew 26:20-25).
At Pilate’s first trial in God’s Law, Jesus behaves with dignity and actually looks like a king: “Pilate asked Jesus Christ: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus Christ answered: “You say” (which means: “Yes, I am the King”). When the high priests and elders accused the Savior, He did not answer. Pilate said to Him: “You don’t answer anything? You see how many accusations there are against You.” But the Savior did not answer anything to this either, so Pilate marveled. After this, Pilate entered the praetorium and, calling Jesus, asked Him again: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus Christ said to him: “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” (i.e., do you think so yourself or not?) “Am I a Jew?” - Pilate answered, “Your people and the chief priests handed You over to me; what did You do?” Jesus Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then My servants (subjects) would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” "So You are the King?" - asked Pilate. Jesus Christ answered: “You say that I am a King. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice.” From these words, Pilate saw that standing before him was a preacher of truth, a teacher of the people, and not a rebel against the power of the Romans.” And in the novel, Yeshua behaves insignificantly and looks completely defenseless and, as Bulgakov himself writes, “his eyes became meaningless” and “with his whole being expressing his readiness to answer intelligently, not to cause anger anymore.” Another important point is also important. “When they brought Jesus Christ to Golgotha, the soldiers gave him sour wine mixed with bitter substances to drink to ease his suffering. But the Lord, having tasted it, did not want to drink it. He did not want to use any remedy to relieve suffering. He took upon Himself this suffering voluntarily for the sins of people; That’s why I wanted to carry them through to the end,” - this is exactly how it is described in the Law of God. And in the novel, Yeshua again shows himself to be weak-willed: “Drink,” said the executioner, and the sponge soaked in water at the end of the spear rose to Yeshua’s lips. Joy sparkled in his eyes, he clung to the sponge and greedily began to absorb the moisture...”
At the trial of Jesus, described in God's Law, it is clear that the chief priests conspired to condemn Jesus to death. They could not carry out their sentence because there was no guilt in the actions or words on the part of Jesus. Therefore, members of the Sanhedrin found false witnesses who testified against Jesus: “We heard Him say: I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will erect another, not made with hands” (the Law of God). And Bulgakov is trying to make his hero a prophet at the trial at Pilate. Yeshua says: “I, the hegemon, said that the temple of the old faith would collapse and a new temple of truth would be created...”
A significant difference between Bulgakov's hero and Jesus Christ is that Jesus does not avoid conflicts. “The essence and tone of his speeches,” says S.S. Averintsev, “are exceptional: the listener must either believe or become an enemy... Hence the inevitability of a tragic end.” And Yeshua Ha-Nozri? His words and actions are completely devoid of aggressiveness. The credo of his life lies in these words: “It is easy and pleasant to speak the truth.” The truth for him is that there are no evil people, only unhappy ones. He is a man who preaches Love, while Jesus is the Messiah who affirms Truth. Let me clarify: Christ’s intolerance manifests itself only in matters of faith. In relationships between people, He teaches: “... do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him” (Gospel of Matthew 5:39).
The Apostle Paul clarifies these words: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” that is, fight evil, but at the same time do not increase it yourself. In the novel “The Master and Margarita” Bulgakov gives us his interpretation of the commandment of Jesus Christ. Can we say that the words of the Apostle Paul apply to Yeshua Ha-Nozri, Bulgakov’s Christ? Of course, because throughout his entire life he does not deviate one step from his goodness. It is vulnerable, but not despised, perhaps because it is difficult to despise those who, without knowing you, believe in your kindness, are disposed towards you, regardless of anything. We cannot blame him for inaction: he is looking for meetings with people, ready to talk to everyone. But he is completely defenseless against cruelty, cynicism, betrayal, because he himself is absolutely kind.
And yet, the non-conflict Yeshua Ha-Nozri faces the same fate as the “conflict” Jesus Christ. Why? It is possible that here M. Bulgakov is telling us: the crucifixion of Christ is not at all a consequence of His intolerance, as one might assume when reading the Gospel. The point is something else, more significant. If we do not touch on the religious side of the issue, the reason for the death of the hero of “The Master and Margarita”, as well as his prototype, lies in their attitude to power, or more precisely, to the way of life that this power personifies and supports.
It is well known that Christ resolutely distinguished between the “things of Caesar” and the “things of God.” Nevertheless, it is the earthly authorities, secular (the governor of Rome) and ecclesiastical (Sanhedrin), who sentence him to death for earthly crimes: Pilate condemns Christ as a state criminal, allegedly laying claim to the royal throne, although he himself doubts this; Sanhedrin - as a false prophet, blasphemously calling himself the Son of God, although, as the Gospel clarifies, in fact the high priests wished him death “out of envy” (Gospel of Matthew 27, 18).
Yeshua Ha-Nozri does not claim power. True, he publicly evaluates it as “violence against people” and is even sure that someday it, power, may not exist at all. But such an assessment in itself is not so dangerous: when else will it be so that people can completely do without violence? Nevertheless, it is precisely the words about the “non-eternity” of the existing government that become the formal reason for the death of Yeshua (as in the case of Jesus Christ).
The true reason for the death of Jesus and Yeshua is that they are internally free and live according to the laws of love for people - laws that are not characteristic and impossible for power, and not Roman or any other, but power in general. In M. A. Bulgakov’s novel Yeshua Ha-Nozri and in the Law of God, Jesus is not just free people. They radiate freedom, are independent in their judgments, and are sincere in expressing their feelings in a way that an absolutely pure and kind person cannot be sincere.

YESHUA HA-NOZRI

A character in the novel “The Master and Margarita”, going back to Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Bulgakov met the name “Yeshua Ga-Notsri” in Sergei Chevkin’s play “Yeshua Ganotsri. An impartial discovery of truth" (1922), and then checked it against the works of historians. The Bulgakov archive contains extracts from the book of the German philosopher Arthur Drews (1865-1935) “The Myth of Christ”, translated into Russian in 1924, where it was stated that in ancient Hebrew the word “natsar”, or “natzer”, means “branch” " or "branch", and "Yeshua" or "Joshua" is "help to Yahweh" or "God's help." True, in his other work, “Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in the Past and Present,” which appeared in Russian in 1930, Drewe preferred a different etymology of the word “natzer” (another option is “notzer”) - “guard”, “shepherd” ", joining the opinion of the British biblical historian William Smith (1846-1894) that even before our era, among the Jews there was a sect of Nazarenes, or Nazarenes, who worshiped the cult god Jesus (Joshua, Yeshua) "ha-notzri", i.e. . "Guardian Jesus." The writer’s archive also preserves extracts from the book “The Life of Jesus Christ” (1873) by the English historian and theologian Bishop Frederick W. Farrar. If Drewe and other historians of the mythological school sought to prove that the nickname of Jesus Nazarene (Ha-Nozri) is not of a geographical nature and is in no way connected with the city of Nazareth, which, in their opinion, did not yet exist in Gospel times, then Farrar, one of the most prominent adherents of the historical school (see: Christianity), defended traditional etymology. From his book, Bulgakov learned that one of the names of Christ mentioned in the Talmud, Ha-Nozri, means Nazarene. Farrar translated the Hebrew “Yeshua” somewhat differently than Drewe, “whose salvation is Jehovah.” The English historian connected the city of En-Sarid with Nazareth, which Bulgakov also mentioned, causing Pilate to see in a dream “the beggar from En-Sarid.” During interrogation by prosecutor I.G.-N. The city of Gamala, mentioned in the book of the French writer Henri Barbusse (1873-1935) “Jesus against Christ,” appeared as the birthplace of the wandering philosopher. Extracts from this work, published in the USSR in 1928, are also preserved in the Bulgakov archive. Since there were different etymologies of the words “Yeshua” and “Ha-Notsri” that contradicted each other, Bulgakov did not in any way reveal the meaning of these names in the text of “The Master and Margarita”. Due to the incompleteness of the novel, the writer did not make his final choice on one of the two possible places of birth of I. G.-N.

In the portrait of I. G.-N. Bulgakov took into account the following message from Farrar: “The Church of the first centuries of Christianity, being familiar with the elegant form in which the genius of pagan culture embodied his ideas about the young gods of Olympus, but also aware of the fatal depravity of the sensual image in it, apparently tried with particular persistence to free himself It was from this idolization of bodily qualities that she took as Isain’s ideal the image of a stricken and humiliated sufferer or David’s enthusiastic description of a despised and reviled man by people (Ex., LIII, 4; Ps., XXI, 7, 8, 16, 18). His beauty, says Clement of Alexandria, was in his soul, but in appearance he was thin. Justin the Philosopher describes him as a man without beauty, without glory, without honor. His body, says Origen, was small, ill-built and unattractive. “His body,” says Tertullian, “did not have human beauty, much less heavenly splendor.” The English historian also cites the opinion of the Greek philosopher of the 2nd century. Celsus, who made the tradition of the simplicity and ugliness of Christ the basis for denying His divine origin. At the same time, Farrar refuted the assertion, based on an error in the Latin translation of the Bible - the Vulgate - that Christ, who healed many of leprosy, was himself a leper. The author of “The Master and Margarita” considered the early evidence about Christ’s appearance reliable, and made his I.G.-N. thin and homely with traces of physical violence on his face: the man who appeared before Pontius Pilate “was dressed in an old and torn blue tunic. 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.” Bulgakov, unlike Farrar, strongly emphasizes that I.G.-N. - a man, not God, which is why he is endowed with the most unattractive, unmemorable appearance. The English historian was convinced that Christ “could not have been in his appearance without the personal greatness of a prophet and high priest.” The author of “The Master and Margarita” took into account Farrar’s words that before being interrogated by the procurator, Jesus Christ was beaten twice. In one of the versions of the 1929 edition, I. G.-N. He directly asked Pilate: “Just don’t hit me too hard, otherwise they’ve already beaten me twice today...” After the beating, and even more so during the execution, Jesus’ appearance could not possibly contain signs of the greatness inherent in a prophet. On the cross at I. G.-N. Quite ugly features appear in his appearance: “. ..The face of the hanged man was revealed, swollen from bites, with swollen eyes, an unrecognizable face,” and “his eyes, usually clear, were now cloudy.” External disgrace I. G.-N. contrasts with the beauty of his soul and the purity of his idea about the triumph of truth and good people (and, in his opinion, there are no evil people in the world), just as, according to the Christian theologian of the 2nd-3rd centuries. Clement of Alexandria, the spiritual beauty of Christ contrasts with his ordinary appearance.

In the image of I. G.-N. reflected the reasoning of the Jewish publicist Arkady Grigorievich (Abraham-Uriah) Kovner (1842-1909), whose polemic with Dostoevsky became widely known. Bulgakov was probably familiar with the book dedicated to Kovner by Leonid Petrovich Grossman (1888-1965) “Confession of a Jew” (M.-L., 1924). There, in particular, a letter from Kovner was quoted, written in 1908 and criticizing the reasoning of the writer Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856-1919) about the essence of Christianity. Kovner argued, turning to Rozanov: “There is no doubt that Christianity has played and is playing a huge role in the history of culture, but it seems to me that the personality of Christ has almost nothing to do with it. Not to mention the fact that the personality of Christ is more mythical than real, which many historians doubt his very existence, that Jewish history and literature do not even mention him, that Christ himself is not at all the founder of Christianity, since the latter formed into a religion and church only a few centuries after the birth of Christ - not to mention everything This, after all, Christ himself did not look at himself as the savior of the human race. Why do you and your associates (Merezhkovsky, Berdyaev, etc.) place Christ as the center of the world, the God-man, holy flesh, monoflower, etc.? We cannot allow , so that you and your relatives sincerely believe in all the miracles that are told in the Gospels, in the real, concrete resurrection of Christ. And if everything in the Gospel about miracles is allegorical, then where do you get the deification of a good, ideally pure person, of which, however, the world history knows a lot? How many good people have died for their ideas and beliefs? How many of them suffered all sorts of torment in Egypt, India, Judea, Greece? In what way is Christ higher, more holy than all the martyrs? Why did he become a god-man?

As for the essence of Christ’s ideas, as far as they are expressed by the Gospel, his humility, his complacency, among the prophets, among the Brahmins, among the Stoics you will find more than one such complacent martyr. Why, again, is Christ alone the savior of humanity and the world?

Then none of you explains: what happened to the world before Christ? Humanity has somehow lived for how many millennia without Christ, but four-fifths of humanity live outside of Christianity, therefore, without Christ, without his redemption, i.e., not needing him at all. Are all the countless billions of people lost and doomed to destruction simply because they were born before the Savior Christ, or because they, having their own religion, their own prophets, their own ethics, do not recognize the divinity of Christ?

Finally, ninety-nine hundredths of Christians to this day have no idea about true, ideal Christianity, the source of which you consider Christ. After all, you know very well that all Christians in Europe and America are rather worshipers of Baal and Moloch than of the monoflower of Christ; that in Paris, London, Vienna, New York, St. Petersburg they still live, as the pagans lived before in Babylon, Nineveh, Rome and even Sodom... What results did holiness, light, God-manhood, the redemption of Christ give if his fans remain pagans still?

Have courage and answer clearly and categorically all these questions that torment unenlightened and doubting skeptics, and do not hide under expressionless and incomprehensible exclamations: divine cosmos, god-man, savior of the world, redeemer of humanity, monoflower, etc. Think about us , hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and speak to us in human language."

I.G.-N. Bulgakov speaks to Pilate in completely human language, and appears only in his human, and not divine, incarnation. All the gospel miracles and the resurrection remain outside the novel. I.G.-N. does not act as the creator of a new religion. This role is destined for Matvey Levi, who “writes down incorrectly” for his teacher. And nineteen centuries later, even many of those who consider themselves Christians continue to remain in paganism. It is no coincidence that in the early editions of The Master and Margarita, one of the Orthodox priests organized a sale of church valuables right in the church, and another, Father Arkady Elladov, convinced Nikanor Ivanovich Bosogo and other arrested people to hand over their currency. Subsequently, these episodes were removed from the novel due to their obvious obscenity. I.G.-N. - this is Christ, cleared of mythological layers, a good, pure man who died for his conviction that all people are good. And only Matthew Levi, a cruel man, as Pontius Pilate calls him, and who knows that “there will still be blood”, is able to found a church.

Bulgakov Encyclopedia. - Academician. 2009 .

See what "YESHUA HA-NOZRI" is in other dictionaries:

Yeshua Ha Nozri: Yeshua ha Nozri (ישוע הנוצרי), Yeshua of Nazareth is the reconstructed original form (back translation) of the gospel nickname of Jesus Christ (Greek Ἰησους Ναζαρηνος, Jesus the Nazarene). Yeshu (ha Nozri) character Toledot... ... Wikipedia

The central character of M.A. Bulgakov’s novel “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 on the Patriarch’s Ponds, one of whom, the young poet Ivan Bezdomny, composed... ... Literary heroes

This term has other meanings, see Yeshua Ha Nozri. Yeshua, nicknamed Ha Nozri (Hebrew: ישוע הנוצרי) ... Wikipedia

Ga Notsri is one of the heroes of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”. It is an analogue of Jesus Christ in an alternative interpretation to the Holy Scriptures. The uncensored version of the Babylonian Talmud mentions a preacher named Hebrew. ‎יש ו‎… … Wikipedia

Yeshua Ga Notsri is one of the heroes of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”. It is an analogue of Jesus Christ in an alternative interpretation to the Holy Scriptures. The uncensored version of the Babylonian Talmud mentions a preacher named Hebrew. ‎יש… … Wikipedia

A world religion that unites followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ as set out in the New Testament, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), the Acts of the Apostles and some other sacred texts. The Holy Book X. is recognized... ... Bulgakov Encyclopedia

Novel. During Bulgakov's lifetime it was not completed and was not published. For the first time: Moscow, 1966, No. 11; 1967, No. 1. The time of the beginning of work on M. and M. Bulgakov dated in different manuscripts either 1928 or 1929. Most likely, it dates back to 1928... ... Bulgakov Encyclopedia