Jesus and Christ - стр. 106

Nomor again "turned on" his trademark pause.

– about the Armenian origin of Jesus. At first, like you, I smiled too, but I did not argue much, because it is a dangerous matter. Still, we cannot know it for sure. Then, scratching my head, I thought – maybe he was partly right. I was a little wrong about the ancient texts. And what I thought was this: why should we consider Jesus to be unquestionably Jewish? Why not a Jew? Understand correctly: in the Holy Scripture there is both a reference to the people of Judaea and a message to the Jews. Agree, they are not the same thing. And why couldn't Jesus have been of another nation? He could have been. He spoke Aramaic. And many peoples of that region spoke and wrote Aramaic. Armenia was a great and large country at that time. By the way, it freed Judea from the Seleucid power. As it is known, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar after the destruction of the first Temple in V century B.C. moved a part of Jews to Armenia. After Tigranes the Great freed the Jews from the yoke of the Seleucids, many Jews began to return to their native lands. The reason for this was to a large extent to allow the Jews to practice the rituals of their historical religion. I will not claim that there are Armenian ancestral ties to Jesus, but I doubt even more about Jewish ones. It is very difficult to find the true picture behind the tinsel of historical composing, embellishment, propaganda, and sometimes outright falsification of events. Let me just say this: Armenia is the first country that adopted Christianity on the state level; Armenians are a biblical nation; the Armenian Diocese of the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the dioceses that is currently participating in the ceremony of carrying the Holy Fire. This ceremony is conducted by the clergymen of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, as well as the Coptic and Syrian Churches. Let me remind you, and those who are poorly informed – I will explain: the Holy Fire (in Greek and Armenian traditions – the Holy Light) is the fire taken out of the Holy Sepulchre at a special service held annually on Great Saturday on the eve of Orthodox Easter in the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem. Literally, the procedure is called: the Exodus from the Kuvukliya. This fire symbolizes the coming out of the Tomb of the "true Light" (John 1:9), that is, the risen Jesus Christ. I will not go into details of this event, I will return to the general line of the theme. I will only note the fact of Mary's escape from Herod's fury not somewhere, but in Egypt, and the mysterious Susanna among the Myrrh-bearing women who witnessed the resurrection of Christ. In the first case (by escape), it means that there was someone to whom, in the second case Susanna came from Armenia. It is true that only the Armenian version of the Gospel, written in the ancient Armenian language Grabar, testifies to this, but it is one of the oldest, not subjected to editing. One of the most important features of the Armenian version of the Bible is the inclusion of some books that are considered apocryphal in all other traditions. About the nationality of Jesus, if we can say so (for nationality is a purely modern term), neither I nor, perhaps, anyone can say anything for sure. It is one of the elements of the concept of faith. And, let me tell you, with all these nations that are mentioned in the Bible, there is much that is confusing, bordering on both mysterious and ridiculous. Let me explain why. Let's take the Jews and the Hebrews. Some researchers believe that at the time of Christ there were no Jews at all, there were only Jews, and Jews appeared in the Middle Ages for the same reason that Jews were forced to change their names among different peoples, in different epochs. As if the Jews, wishing to avoid the wrath of the Inquisition, began to be called Jews. And the mention of Jews in antiquity is a labor of scribes and interpretation. Simple logic can serve as an argument. Tell me – why should one and the same people be called in different ways? If we were talking about Russians and Englishmen and, mentioning one event, we would talk about these two peoples, participating in it in tandem, and then claim that it is one people – would it be true? Of course not! So why are the Jews and the Hebrews suddenly one and the same, but the Aramaeans are not, although their language was spoken and written at the time. It is strange that this people now does not exist as an ethnos. According to history and the Bible itself – they were quite developed and had great influence in the region. The mere fact that most people wrote and spoke Aramaic speaks volumes. Jesus himself spoke and probably wrote in Aramaic. Now back to my interlocutor in history. Perhaps the ancient scribe wrote something down a little inaccurately. Or perhaps he didn't. Why? Let's take the same Armenians as an example. Armenia, Armenians – this is not an autochthonous definition. It all has rather Latin origin and was left from the historians of Rome and Greece. Because Armenians themselves are called… though, some languages do not have this letter and sound, I hope the system will still correctly transmit the sound… ayi, and the country is called Hayastan. Armenia and Armenians are a derivative of "ara" and "men", meaning people who live near Ararat. By the way, they call Ararat Masis. And here in this key the Aramaeans already become more mysterious. First of all, they disappeared somewhere. Secondly, perhaps the same "ara" and "mei". My interlocutor referred to a certain secret book created by the ancient Armenian script. Allegedly, this writing preceded the Armenian alphabet adopted in 405. He, being a colleague of mine, claims that Mesrop Mashtots, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, did not reinvent the Armenian alphabet, but used the ancient Armenian scripts that have not been preserved by now. It is really strange not to have a written language for at least a couple thousand years. Otherwise, how do we know about this people under other names from different sources, including their sacred texts of the Torah, long before the Behistun inscription of Darius I. Looking ahead, I will say: the version of biblical and evangelical stories are present in one interpretation or another among the peoples of the whole Middle East region. And, of course, they come from deep antiquity. In texts from the country of Ebla (in northern Syria), between 2300-2200 BC, the neighboring state of Armanum/Armani is mentioned. Many scholars believe that this is the first surviving written mention of Armenia. By the way, Syrians still call Armenians by the word "Armani". You will rightly wonder why I went into such details. I assure you that in the program in which you are to participate, ancient written testimonies will play a very important role. The book to which my interlocutor referred has been copied many times from ancient sources. Naturally, it describes events in the original account of ancient eyewitnesses, without cosmetic censorship for ideological reasons. It is no secret that we live in a world of propaganda, which has brought us the history as it was presented by those who wanted to show it to us in this way. Otherwise there would be no apocryphal gospels. And they do exist in the Vatican's hiding places. The very book to which my theological colleague referred is handed down in secret, from hand to hand. Naturally, it is not recognized by the official church. Not only that, it is wanted for the purpose of destruction. Therefore, in our hands, although ancient, but not the original. He didn't tell me where the original is kept. I can tell you for a fact, I didn't find it in the Vatican vaults. Yes, I have access to it. I confess, I myself give permission to familiarize with the documents stored there. I did not find the book in Armenia itself, in the Matenadaran, the repository of ancient manuscripts. The book interests me not from this position – to find out the nationality of Jesus. The voluminous book tells about many events of the epoch before the crucifixion of Christ. After all, you will not claim that all, for example, Jews and Islamic Ummah are wrong, telling a different story about Jesus. They got it from somewhere. The book has a very strange title. Unless, of course, one considers the title of Tacitus' Annals to be strange. By the way, the original title is Ab excessu divi Augusti, which translates to "From the death of the divine Augustus." And, since I mentioned it, I will note: Book XV contains a description of the executions of Christians under Nero – one of the first independent testimonies about Christ and the existence of the Christian community in Rome. The word "annals" has this meaning: a record of events in chronological order. Synonyms: chronicles, annals. So, the book my interlocutor was talking about is called "Dommar". When I asked him what this word means, he found it difficult to answer, referring to the fact that it is a very ancient word and is used nowadays only in one of the seven Armenian dialects. As a result, he translated this word to me as a concept meaning "original, primary, basis, most important, origin, root of the genus, as well as – veins, vessels". Right, I was surprised by such a diverse interpretation… However, let us return to our general line. The main argument of the adherents of the Jewish origin of Jesus is the fact that the entrance to the Jerusalem temple beyond the fence of the balustrade was forbidden to non-Jews on pain of death. This argument is considered to be almost the main one in defining Jesus as a Jew, because on the walls of the temple there was a categorical inscription: "No non-Jew dares to enter beyond the bars and fence of the sanctuary; whoever is seized will be guilty of his own death. But if we remember that before the Romans the Seleucids, i.e. the Greeks, trying to change the religion of the Jews, desecrated the temples in every possible way, not that they did not let "non-Jews" in, had intercourse on the altar, cut pigs in the temple, then perhaps the Romans, for the sake of democracy, allowed everyone to enter the temple.