On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy commentators and the Slavonic translations of the Holy Scriptures

Contents Part 1. About the text of seventy interpreters Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Part 2. About the Slavic translation of the Bible Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Part 1 About the text of seventy interpreters The teaching of the Eastern Church on the merits of the text of the seventy interpreters is opposed by two Western teachings. The Roman Church recognizes as self-authentic, real, self-authentic (authentic) the text of the Latin translation known as the Vulgate. The newest Western religions and sects in general have a rule of adhering exclusively to the Hebrew text, and not to assimilate the dogmatic importance of any translation. Not only in the first of these teachings, but also in the last, the Orthodox theologian must discern subtle one-sidedness, and stand between them in a firm position, determined by the essence of the matter, under the guidance of the word of God and tradition. In the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Scriptures, the text of seventy interpreters must acquire a dogmatic dignity, in some cases equal to the original, and even elevating it above the type of Jewish text that seems generally accepted in publications of modern times. The following and similar considerations will provide an explanation and proof of this. 1. The text of the seventy interpreters is the oldest translation of the Jewish sacred books, made by the enlightened men of the Jewish people, when they had not yet ceased to be the people of God, when the Hebrew language was still a living language, and when the Jews did not yet have incentives to transform the true meaning of the sacred books by incorrect translation. There are different testimonies about the time of compilation of the translation of the seventy: but it is certain that its beginning goes back far two hundred years before the birth of Christ. Consequently, one can see in it a mirror of the Hebrew text as it was two hundred or more years before the birth of Christ, excluding those places in which signs of changes that occurred from various reasons over time are visible. The importance of this remark is supported by the fact that the Hebrew text at the beginning of Christianity was in the hands of its enemies, and therefore could even be subject to deliberate damage, as St. Justin the Martyr speaks about this in his conversation with Tryphon. 2. The sacred writers of the New Testament in some places adhere more closely to the text of the seventy interpreters than to the Hebrew, and thus in relation to these places they give the former priority over the latter. Thus, the holy Evangelist Luke, in the genealogy of Christ the Savior, in accordance with the text of seventy interpreters, mentions Cainan, contrary to the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis, in which this name is not in the genealogy of the patriarchs. 3. The text of the seventy interpreters from the beginning of Christianity to the present day is constantly used in church reading, and consequently has the testimony of the primacy, and of all times the Eastern Church, of its dignity. 4. Psalm 144 verse 13, the second half: “The Lord is faithful in all His words and holy in all His deeds” itself represents indisputable proof that here the text of the seventy interpreters is intact and complete, and in the current Hebrew text this half of the verse is lost. For this psalm in Hebrew is written in alphabetical order, and in this place in the current Hebrew text there is a missing verse that begins with the letter נ, and this verse has been preserved in the translation of seventy interpreters, in the above words. 5. In Ps. 21, verse 17, the words “the tillage (pierced) my hands and my nose” represent an example of an important prophetic saying preserved intact in the text of seventy interpreters; meanwhile, the current Jewish reading of this place: _כУָאַ:רִי “like a lion”, instead of _כָאָרוУ “pierced”, by the very constraint of the composition of words and meaning reveals damage to the text, in which, not without reason, one can suspect the ill-intentioned hand of a Jew, who was looking for a means to evade the power of the prophetic testimony of the crucifixion of the Lord. However, respect for the text of seventy interpreters should not be so exceptional that the Hebrew text should be left completely unattended. Justice, benefit and necessity require that the Hebrew text also be accepted in dogmatic dignity as a consideration when interpreting Holy Scripture. The following considerations will provide an explanation and proof of this: 1. The text of the seventy interpreters obviously does not present the desired clarity in all places. What could be the closest aid to achieving it, like the original Hebrew text, from which the text of the seventy is a translation? This essential manual cannot be rendered completely unusable by the suspicion to which the Jews fell for damaging the Jewish text. This suspicion falls on a few places in the Hebrew text, from among those in the damage of which the Jews found their advantage for disputes with Christians: and therefore it is quite strong to refute the exclusive attachment to the Hebrew text, and to show the dogmatic importance of the text of the seventy; but it does not provide grounds for completely rejecting the use of the Hebrew text. The few parts of the Hebrew text that are damaged or suspected of being damaged are known and exposed: and therefore are not dangerous for the researcher. But there are many other places that the Jews had no need to damage, and which, without being doubtful, can be usefully, and sometimes out of necessity, should be used for consideration when interpreting the Holy Scriptures. 2. since the Apostle recognizes the most important advantage of the Jews is that “the words of God were entrusted to them” (Rom. 3:2), and this advantage does not take away from them, despite the fact that “they did not believe”: then even more so the very “words of God” entrusted to them, that is, the Jewish sacred books, inherently retain the same dignity in the times of the New Testament Church, which they had in the times Old Testament. That the holy fathers reasoned about this in this way, we can call the saints as witnesses to this - Athanasius the Great, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, John of Damascus. When they wanted to determine the number of canonical Old Testament books, they determined it according to the Hebrew text, and not according to the text of seventy interpreters, despite the fact that they had this latter in their eyes and in use. Instead of counting them to 39, according to the division of the canonical books in the text of seventy, they determined their number, according to the ancient division in the Hebrew Bible, to be 22; and, moreover, Saint Athanasius and Saint Gregory recognized the remark worthy of the attention of the Orthodox that this number corresponds to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Now imagine that we are looking for a church definition of the number of canonical books of the Old Testament. We find in the rules of Saint Athanasius and Saint Gregory the Theologian accepted by the universal Church that there are 22 of them. If we begin to check this number with the text of seventy interpreters: it will turn out to be dissimilar and incomprehensible; it will turn out to be understandable and accurate according to the Hebrew Bible. Thus, it is revealed that the church definition of the number of canonical books of the Old Testament cannot be understood and proven otherwise than with the help of the ancient Jewish text. 3. The way to the use of the Hebrew text is opened by the inspired writers of the New Testament, who sometimes cite sayings from the books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew text, and not according to the text of seventy interpreters. Thus, the holy Evangelist Matthew (Matthew 2:15) quotes the words of the prophet Hosea, “out of Egypt I cried my Son,” in agreement with the Hebrew text, and in disagreement with the text of the seventy (Hosea 11:1), which reads: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ, which means: “from Egypt I called his children.” Whoever would compare the text of the Evangelist with the text of the seventy would encounter doubt about the accuracy of the testimony given by the Evangelist, and would not be able to resolve this doubt. But upon comparison with the Hebrew text, the presentation of evidence turns out to be accurate; doubt disappears; and it remains to conclude that the Greek translators did not accurately translate the Hebrew text, trying to apply it closer to the Jewish people, because the mystery of Christ was not yet as revealed as it was revealed in the New Testament. So, without a doubt, those who worked on the Slavonic translation of the Old Testament reasoned; for in translating the above-mentioned saying they followed not the text of the seventy, but the Hebrew. – But here is another example of bringing the words of the Old Testament into the New according to the Hebrew text, different from the Greek, clearly visible in the Slavic Bible. The Holy Evangelist Matthew cites Isaiah's prophecy about Christ in the following words: “Behold My Servant, Whom I have willed, my chosen one” (Matthew 12:18), etc. But in the book of the prophet Isaiah the following is read: “Jacob is My servant, I will accept him, My beloved Israel” (Is. 42:1), etc. Names – “Jacob”, “Israel”, which obscure the relation of the Prophet’s words to the face of Christ, and give reason to attribute them to the Jewish people, are not found in the Jewish text, but were added by seventy interpreters, of course for the same reason that the mystery of Christ has not yet been fully revealed. 4. Christ the Savior Himself guides the use of the Hebrew text when he pronounces the beginning of Psalm 21 in the Hebrew-Syriac dialect, and with literal accuracy according to the Hebrew text: “My God, my God, where have you forsaken me,” and not according to the text of the seventy, which reads: “O God, my God, where have you forsaken me?” 5. How important it is for sacred dogmas to use the Hebrew text when explaining the Holy Scriptures, an example of this is the saying of the book of Proverbs about the Wisdom of God: “The Lord created me, the beginning of His ways” (Proverbs 8:22). It is known that from the word ἔκτισε, “created,” used here by seventy interpreters, the Arians extracted proof of their false teaching that the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, was created. But the false teaching with its imaginary proof falls, and the dogma remains unshakable, as soon as the Hebrew text is taken into account, and in it the word קָנָנִי “acquired me,” which also expresses what the holy Evangelist John depicted with the words: “The word was with God” (John 1:1). 6. The Holy Fathers set an example of the use of the Hebrew text in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. Saint Basil the Great in his second word against Eunomius, discussing the above saying of the book of Proverbs: “The Lord created me,” defends the Orthodox interpretation of it through the Hebrew text: “let us not remain silent that other interpreters, who showed the proper meaning of the Hebrew words, “acquired me,” instead of: “created me,” translated.” In the second conversation on the Sixth Day, he writes about the Spirit of God: “how He “walked on top of the waters” (Gen. 1: 2), I will tell you not my opinion, but a Syrian man, who, as much as he defended worldly wisdom, was so close to the true knowledge of things. He said that the Syriac language is clearer and, due to its proximity to the Hebrew language, better, in some way it approaches the reason of the scriptures, and therefore this is the reason of this saying: this, he said, the word “worn” is interpreted by them instead: “warmed” and “revived” the watery nature, in the likeness of cocoa, warming eggs, and emitting life-giving power to those who are warmed.” This is the essential interpretation of the Hebrew word מ:רַחֵפֵת. This example shows that Saint Basil did not stop at one text of the seventy, but, in agreement with the other holy man, sought the most perfect understanding of the words of Scripture in possible proximity to the Hebrew text. Another similar example is found in the fourth conversation of St. Basil on the Sixth Day, where he corrects the text of Genesis 1 according to the Hebrew text, and excludes the words: “and the waters under heaven were gathered into their assembly, and the dry land appeared” from the text, as not being in the Hebrew, but added in the translation of seventy interpreters. And St. Chrysostom, in the fourth conversation on the book of Genesis, writes: “You know, it is not in this language, that is, ours (Greek), but in Hebrew that these books were composed. Why do those who know this language well say that the name “heaven” is verb in the plural.” And further: “I pray that you hold this firmly, so that you may be able to stop the mouths of those who are trying to introduce contrary dogmas into the Church, and with reason know the power of the words laid down in Scripture.” So, Saint Chrysostom, in order to defend Orthodox dogmas, recognizes the need to delve into the exact power of the words of the Hebrew text, and instills this thought not only in theologians, but also in the people of believers, to whom he extends the conversation. 7. The holy martyr Lucian revised and corrected the Greek text of the entire Old Testament from the Hebrew, as this is written about in his life, in the October Menaea, number 15. “Rectify the Old and New Testaments in Greek by the craftiness of heretics, corrupted from the Hebrew tongue.” It is regrettable that the text of St. Lucian was not preserved in clear isolation, but was hidden in confusion with other differently translated texts. Thus, he left us not only an example, but also the need to renew the work he had done, and after him lost. 8. Saint Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the psalms, not content with the text of the seventy, often cites other translations from the Hebrew: and thereby proves that it is necessary to use the Hebrew text in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures. In his interpretation of Ps. 7:10–11 he writes the following: “God searches the hearts and bellies in righteousness. My help comes from God, who saves the right in heart.” Another: the tester of hearts, the righteous God, my protector. And another: God is righteous. Seventy interpreters said this: try the hearts and wombs, God. My help is righteous from God.” What is noteworthy here, by the way, is that although Saint Chrysostom in his Psalter read this verse as it is written at the beginning of this passage, and as this verse is read now in the Slavic Bible: but this reading does not belong to seventy interpreters, but to another unknown translator; for Saint Chrysostom finally cited a different saying of seventy interpreters, which is also read in the current editions of their text. With such a variety of translated texts, it is especially necessary to resort to the original. 9. In Psalm 11:3 Saint Chrysostom read and reads now: “a flattering mouth is in the heart, and evil words are in the heart.” The ambiguity of this composition of words is obvious. Saint Chrysostom explains them through another translation, consistent with the Hebrew text. "In the heart and in the heart". Another interpreter said: in the heart of another and another, teaching that greatness is duality in their heart.” Obviously, the current interpreter of the text read in the Psalter should do the same. 10. Above, under number 8, it was noted that Saint Chrysostom, in the ordinary text of the Psalter used by the Church, found the verse not laid down by seventy interpreters. Blessed Jerome found more. In the introduction to the prophecy of Daniel, he writes: Danielem juxta septuaginta interpretes, Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis versione - “The prophecy of Daniel in the churches of the Lord Savior is not read according to the translation of seventy interpreters, but the edition of Theodotion is used.” This testimony of Jerome can all the less be ignored since it is cited and accepted in the Greek Helmsman's Book, with the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Synod, published in Leipzig, 1800, under the title: Πηδάλιον. Moreover, the witness who gave it is not such that one can answer him with mere disdain. This is a learned man, recognized as a saint in the West, familiar with the East. His evidence is favored by the fact that the translation of Daniel by seventy interpreters, not in all respects similar to that used in the Church, taken from Origen’s quadruple text Bible (tetrapla), from an ancient manuscript, was published in Rome in 1772. If, therefore, we admit that in the text of the seventy interpreters used by the Church there are some, although not many, passages that on some occasion were introduced or changed by an outside hand, then to ward off doubt, to achieve clarity and reliability, prudent and careful reference to the Hebrew text turns out to be necessary. 11. The Holy Orthodox Ecumenical Church, at no Council, through any of the Holy Fathers, did not pronounce such a rule that in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures one should adhere exclusively to the text of the seventy interpreters, with the elimination of the Hebrew text. And in this case, her very silence, just as in other cases she ruled, is evidence of her infallible foresight and firmness, elevating her above the Western Church of modern times. This latter at the Council of Trent determined to recognize the Latin text of the Vulgate as self-reliable and self-authentic (autentica). How unfair this definition is in comparing the Vulgate with the text of seventy commentators, which far surpasses it in antiquity, dignity, and use in the Christian Church from its very beginning: just as much it reveals a lack of infallible insight inherent in a truly ecclesiastical definition. Pope Sixtus V, with the infallibility attributed to his title, declared the edition of the Vulgate of 1590 to be self-reliable and self-authentic; and after him Clement VIII, with the same advantage of infallibility, found this edition intolerably faulty, and replaced it with another, different from the previous edition, which he also declared self-reliable and self-authentic. Which of the contradictory infallibility should theologians, clergy and people follow, and how then can the conciliar decree be fulfilled? 1 This unfortunate Western experience shows what a wise precaution lies in the fact that the ancient Ecumenical Church for so many centuries, without drawing up a strict exclusive rule on this subject, to protect the inviolability of the sacred text, limited its explanation to the following rule: “if the word of Scripture is examined, then let it not be explained in any other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set forth in their writings” (VI Ecumenical Council rule nineteen). The teachers of the Church, as shown above, used the Hebrew text where necessary. And this is so necessary that Roman theologians do not reject this need, despite the above-mentioned definition of the Vulgate. For example, Kalmet's interpretation is usually based on an analysis of the Hebrew text. In German there is a new translation of the Bible from the Vulgate, "considered with the original text, and by short notes explained" by Dr. I. F. Allioli. The third edition of this translation, revised and corrected (Landshut, 1838.) was made “with the approval of the papal throne, and according to the approving reviews of many archbishops and bishops.” Of these, 24 are named, and added: “and others.” 12. Let it also be taken into account how the hierarchy of the Russian Church discussed the subject now being considered. In the preface of the Holy Synod to the publication of the Bible about the translation of the seventy it is said: “when then among the Jews the Hellenic language is often used in writing, and from the evil-hating Jews it is corrupted, with the translations of Aquila, Theodotsion, Symmachus, for about two hundred years we bear it, it is ridiculous.” This is a strong reason for using the Hebrew text as a reference, so that the interpreter of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament can establish his case on an unshakable basis and not subject to dispute. 13. Due to this real need, the Holy Synod, when correcting the Slavic translation of the Bible, verified it not only with the Greek, but also with the Hebrew text, as it informs about this in its preface: “afterwards, in the Synod itself, everything was examined, and in cases of any doubt with the Greek compositions, it was demolished by the Holy Fathers and the Hebrew text, and to the satisfaction of determined by reasoning." 14. At the same time, the thought may come that since the relationship with the Jewish text has already been carried out by the Holy Synod, then this satisfied need should no longer concern today’s theologians. This is not the case upon closer examination of this matter. Besides the fact that the comparison of all the words of all the texts of the Old Testament that were in mind constitutes an immense work, the Holy Synod by 1756 did not have in mind some editions of the Bible, which, based on the comparison of numerous manuscripts, were published later. So, for example, when examining the translation of Daniel’s prophecy, he had a Greek text, which, according to the testimony of Blessed Jerome, is not the exact text of the seventy; but did not mean the publication of the text of seventy interpreters, which was made later, in 1772. It is up to the current interpreter to use this text. Similarly, one should discuss the comparison of the Hebrew text. The discovery of ancient manuals that were previously unknown requires the continuation of work to use them in favor and in defense of the sacred truth, to expose false interpretations, which sometimes have a seductive appearance by the very fact that they refer to the original Jewish text, and which therefore cannot be refuted by mere silence about the Jewish text, but must be exposed by a thorough examination of it. But in order to not give room for arbitrariness when using the Hebrew text as an aid to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, to put a barrier in this matter against deviations from the accuracy of Orthodox dogmas, and to protect the sacred importance of the text of the seventy in its ancient purity, for this purpose, in the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, or in sacred hermeneutics, protective rules must be proposed, drawn from the essence of the matter, and from church and patristic examples. In this brief review of this subject it is impossible to present a whole system of such rules. But to make it clearer what we are talking about, here are some rules: 1. If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament from the Greek text: in this case, obviously, the Greek text should be adhered to preferably to the Hebrew: because the inspired writers could not have made a mistake in choosing the true text. According to this rule, the text of Ps.15:10 “let your saint see corruption”, given in Acts 2:27 according to the translation of the seventy, is an authentic and undoubted text, despite the controversial appearance of the Hebrew word חַ:סִיד:יכָ. 2. The text of the seventy must be firmly adhered to until an important reason presents itself to come under the guidance of the Hebrew text. So the above text about the Wisdom of God: “The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways,” provides a solid reason for the question: is the translation of seventy in the word “created” accurate when we are talking about the Uncreated! For this very reason, the correctors of the translation of the Slavic Bible turned to the Hebrew text, and against the word: “created”, they made a correction from the Hebrew: “acquisitive”. 3. If the Hebrew text shows signs of damage: obviously, one must adhere to the text of the seventy. According to this rule, the above words: “the Lord is faithful in His words and reverent in all His deeds,” constitute the true sacred text, although they are not in Hebrew. 4. A special sign of a true reading in the text of the seventy can be a consideration that reveals that the Hebrew reading, which does not agree with the Greek, gives a false meaning. An example of this is, according to the Greek reading, the translated text of 2 Chron. 22:2: “Twenty-two years Ahaziah began to reign.” The Jewish reading - “fourty-two years”, indicated in the Slavic Bible on the field, is false: because, according to this chronology, Ahaziah would have been two years older than his father, who began to reign for thirty-two years and reigned for 8 years (2 Chron. 21, 5). 5. If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament from the Hebrew text, and not from the Greek text: obviously, these infallible witnesses must be followed. An example of this is the above words: “Out of Egypt I called My son.” 6. If any of the holy fathers interpreted any place of the Old Testament according to the Jewish text: it is fair and safe to follow this guidance. An example of this is the above text: “and the Spirit of God was moving on top of the water,” interpreted by Saint Basil the Great according to the power of the Hebrew text. 7. If any place in the Old Testament, read according to the text of the seventy, the meaning is determined by the concordant interpretation of the holy fathers, as prophecy about Christ; and the current Jewish text of this place represents a different reading, not favorable to the prophetic meaning: then in this case, the consonant testimony of the ancient fathers gives reason not to trust the authenticity of the current Jewish reading. An example of this would be Psalm. 109 art. 3 “from the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee.” According to the ancient patristic interpretation of this saying in the prophetic sense, it is used in the Church as a prokemena. This text is the true one, translated by seventy interpreters in accordance with the contemporary Hebrew text, traces of which are noted here in Theodotion’s translation and in some manuscripts. And therefore we should not get carried away by the current ordinary reading, which should be recognized as a change in the ancient truth. The above protective provisions and rules for the use of sacred texts, when used prudently and well-intentioned, must satisfy the requirements of Orthodoxy in the most important respects. 1. They are the very rules that the Orthodox Church has constantly followed from the beginning, as was proven above by the examples of the saints and the actions of the Holy Synod in correcting the Slavic translation of the Bible. 2. They provide a protective barrier against the dangerous arbitrariness of interpretations and against the infection of so-called neology and rationalism. 3. They protect against the one-sidedness of the newest foreign Christian confessions, which, adhering exclusively to the Hebrew text, and not recognizing the guidance in the writings of the holy fathers, betray the Old Testament text of the Bible to the unbridled self-will of criticism, from which damaged parts of the Jewish text are easily accepted as genuine, others are reinterpreted, especially the prophetic meaning is eclipsed, dignity is humiliated Old Testament books, and a broad path is paved for neology and rationalism. 4. They also protect against the one-sidedness of the Western Church, which, having recognized the text of the Vulgate as self-authentic, has placed itself in contradiction both with the ancient universal Church and with itself; because the text of the Vulgate, approved by one pope, was rejected by another, and two popes published two different texts, each of which was declared to be self-authentic. The consequence of this contradiction was that the most enlightened theologians of the Western Church, despite the recognized self-authentic text of the Vulgate, which by this quality should have finally satisfied everyone, did not cease to look for another self-authentic text in the Hebrew Bible. Part 2 About the Slavonic translation of the Bible The ambiguity of the Slavic translation of the Bible in some places, especially the Old Testament, is a simple natural reason that encourages those who want to understand the Holy Scripture to turn, as far as possible, to other texts, original or translated in different languages. But if there is a lack of strict prudence, those who are satisfied with clarity easily become prejudiced in favor of the clear text over the unclear one; although it may happen that an unclear text is correct, and a clear one is only conjectural, or completely erroneous. Such prejudice can be harmful to Orthodox dogmas if it attaches itself to a translation of the Bible made outside the Orthodox confession under the influence of non-Orthodox opinions, or, in pursuit of clarity, wanders without guidance between different translations and critical studies, often very dangerous in the present state of foreign biblical criticism. One of the remedies against this for Orthodox Russia is knowledge of the dignity of the Slavic translation of the Bible and its use with fair respect. In Russian theological schools, in the teaching about the Holy Scriptures, it is necessary, among other things, to explain the dignity of the Slavic translation of the Bible and its ecclesiastical importance. These include the following considerations: 1. Particular dignity and importance belongs to the Slavic translation of the Bible due to its origin. At its beginning, it is not a work of ordinary scholarship, but the fruit of the apostolic zeal of Saints Cyril and Methodius. 2. The antiquity of this translation and its constant preservation are unusual among translations of sacred books into other living European languages. It began in the ninth century after the birth of Christ; and the language of this translation, for thousands of years, continues to be a living language in the Orthodox Church, although now no longer popular, but still quite understood by attentive visitors to churches and readers of sacred books, even those who do not have a college education. Part of this translation, namely, the Gospel, according to the copy made by Ostromir in the eleventh century, now, in the printed edition, is read exactly as it was for eight hundred years, and does not represent significant differences from the editions of the Slavic text made after correcting it under the supervision of the Holy Synod. 3. In those parts in which this translation presented imperfections and shortcomings, which occurred partly from the imperfection of the Slavic language during the compilation of the translation, partly from the infidelity of the copyists, and other reasons, its dignity was elevated through corrections made in the past century under the supervision of the Holy Synod. 4. As a translation, this translation follows the text of seventy interpreters in the Old Testament: what was said about the merits of the text of seventy mostly applies to the Slavic text. 5. The Slavonic text of the New Testament, due to its antiquity, purity and completeness, even outside the Orthodox Church, has acquired the respect of students of the Holy Scriptures, who use the evidence of this text to indicate various readings (variantes lectiones). 6. The great importance of the Slavic translation of the Bible is given by its use in Orthodox church services. The liturgical language in Russia is still understandable to diligent visitors to the churches of God; but the dialect that is now in the mouths of the people has already deviated far from it. Just as it is necessary for the faith and edification of the people that the language of worship be understandable, it is equally necessary to strive to ensure that the Slavic language, as a liturgical language, continues to be understandable to the people and does not become dead. And for this, the most effective means is that the Slavonic text of the Bible, constantly in circulation in the church, should not be alienated from popular use. The dignity, importance and ecclesiastical need of the Slavonic translation of the Bible must be consistent with the rules for maintaining it in constant respect. These are the essence of the following rules: 1. When teaching doctrine in theological schools, the evidence of the Holy Scriptures must be given accurately according to the existing Slavonic translation. 2. If the Slavic text requires explanation: then it should follow the text literally given. 3. The two previous rules must always be observed by students when they give an account of the accepted lessons. 4. In church teachings, the texts of the Holy Scriptures must also be cited according to the existing Slavic translation. Such a reduction may be accompanied by a presentation of the text in the Russian dialect, if this is necessary due to the nature of the text, or according to the level of education of the listeners. 5. Mainly according to the existing Slavic translation, the texts of the Holy Scriptures in other works should be cited, as long as the darkness of Slavic expressions does not require replacing them with clearer ones, consistent with the Greek or Hebrew text, and with the interpretations of the Holy Fathers. However, the use of the Slavic translation cannot be exclusive so that in the explanation of the Holy Scripture the use, according to the Old Testament, of the translation of seventy interpreters and the Hebrew text, and according to the New Testament of the original Greek text, is completely excluded. The following considerations are presented to explain and confirm this situation. 1. The Slavic translation of the Old Testament for the most part follows the Greek text of seventy interpreters. But just as in considerations about the text of the seventy from the writings of the Holy Fathers and from the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament itself, the need in certain cases to turn from the text of the seventy to the Hebrew is proven: then the need is equally proven in the same cases and from the Slavic text, similar to the text of the seventy, to turn to the Hebrew text. For example, in the Slavic translation of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 12:18) the prophecy of Isaiah about Christ is read: “behold my servant,” etc. But in the book of Isaiah itself in the same Slavic translation it reads differently: “Jacob is my servant,” etc. (Isaiah 42:1). This difference produces bewilderment. But it is resolved as soon as the Hebrew text is accepted into reasoning, containing the words of the Prophet, exactly those cited by the Evangelist. Saint Chrysostom, in his interpretation of Psalm 138:11, writes: ““and rekh: the food of darkness will trample me.” Another: or a river: maybe darkness will cover me.” And further: ““and the night is enlightened in my sweetness.” Another: the night is bright around me.” The expressions that Saint Chrysostom put here, as belonging to another translator, are the closest and clearest translation from Hebrew than the translation of seventy interpreters. Slavic expressions: “food darkness will trample me and night enlightenment in my sweetness” are similar to Greek expressions. Consequently, just as Saint Chrysostom found it proper and necessary to add a translation from the Hebrew to the expressions of the Greek text, it is equally proper and necessary for the Russian interpreter to add to the explanation the translation from the Hebrew used by Chrysostom to the Slavic expressions. 2. The two examples now given show that although the Holy Synod, when revising the Slavonic translation of the Bible, compared it, where necessary, with the Hebrew text; however, even now there are texts in the Slavonic translation in which this comparison is not only useful for clarity, but is also necessary to justify the accuracy of prophetic sayings. 3. Even in those places of the Old Testament that were corrected by the Holy Synod according to the Hebrew text, comparison of the Slavic text with the Hebrew and Greek is sometimes necessary. It is known that some corrections to the Slavic text by the Holy Synod were not included in it, but were placed on the breze, or on the field. From this comes the rule for the reader of the Slavic Bible that the reading placed on the Brez should be considered correct, preferably before the one in the text series. But if, with this rule, he begins to read the text of the 2nd book of Chronicles, “Ahaziah began to reign twenty-two years” (2 Chronicles 22:2), and recognizes this reading as erroneous, and the correct one put on the brez: “fourty-two”: then he will fall into a clear error. For here the reading placed on the brief is sinful, but the reading that is in line with the text is true. To confirm this latter, a certificate with a Greek text is needed. 4. The Gospel of Luke in the Slavic Bible in the genealogy of Christ the Savior reads: “Aramov, Joram, Esrom” (Luke 3:33). But in the Slavic Bible in the book of Ruth it reads: “And Hezrom begat Aram” (Ruth. 4:19), and Joram is not among them. Similarly, in the 1st book of Chronicles (1 Chronicles 2:9) Aram is made the son of Hezrom, and not Jehoram. This example of the contradiction of the Slavonic text with itself shows that it is not in all parts cleared of doubtful readings that require research and correction, and that for this it is necessary to compare the Slavonic text according to the Old Testament with the Hebrew and Greek of seventy interpreters, and according to the New with the original Greek text. 5. After the above, one should reverently discern in the Russian Orthodox Church the same wise caution in relation to the Slavic text of the Bible, which is seen in the ancient universal Church in relation to the Greek text. The Holy Synod, on the work of correcting the Slavic Bible, did not proclaim the Slavic text to be exclusively independent; and thus shrewdly blocked the path to difficulties and confusions, which in this case would have been the same, or even greater, than those that in the Roman Church arose from the proclamation of the independent text of the Vulgate. When using the texts of the Greek translation of the seventy commentators and the Hebrew text as a guide to the Slavic translation of the books of the Old Testament, those protective rules that limit the use of the Hebrew text as a guide to the Greek translation of the seventy commentators should serve as a protective guide, with decent application. The explanation and confirmation of this position lies in the considerations of the text of seventy interpreters. If you need to show the application of the rules in an example: let us take into consideration the above text of the Psalm: “and the night is enlightenment in my sweetness.” In applying the second protective rule [2], the question here is: is there a good reason to turn to the Greek text? The answer must be in the affirmative: because the text is not intelligible. But since the Greek text represents exactly the same words and is also not intelligible, then the same rule should be addressed to the Hebrew text, according to which the text takes the following form: “and the night is bright around me.” This type of text must be accepted with respect according to the sixth protective rule and represents a thought that is understandable, true and consistent with the content of the psalm, which speaks of the omnipresence and omniscience of God. “The night is bright around me,” before the omnipresent and all-seeing eye of God. According to the books of the New Testament, turning from the Slavic translation to the original Greek text is less subject to difficulties than according to the books of the Old Testament: and therefore should be allowed with greater freedom, however, also with thorough legibility, with respect for antiquity and with following the guidance of the holy fathers. For example, in the Epistle to the Romans it is read about Christ the Savior: “the betrothed Son of God” (Rom. 1:4). There is good reason to look for guidance in the original text; because the word “named” when applied to the Son of God has an unsatisfactory meaning for dogma. According to the usual use of this word: a betrothed son is opposed to a true, natural son. The Greek text reads ὁρισθέντος Yἱῦ Θεοῦ, which can be translated: “the known Son of God,” that is, about the Son of God, about whom at first people did not have exact knowledge, but finally, by His teaching and miracles, they definitely, definitely knew that He was true Son of God. This is how Saint Chrysostom explains this place: “What does ὁρισθὲις mean. Said revealed, investigated, confessed by the court and verdict of all.” To recognize in this case the Slavic text as completely immovable, and not to allow the word: “to be named” to be preferred in accordance with the strength of the original Greek text to the word: “to be known” - would not mean to firmly defend Orthodox dogmas; this would mean contradicting the interpretation of St. Chrysostom. This is how the path of the Orthodox theologian and reader and reader of the Holy Scriptures must be organized and directed, according to the laws of Orthodoxy itself and according to the rules of prudent caution. It is necessary to instill the apostolic warning: “do not become wise, any more than it is fitting to be wise” (Rom. 12:3). But it also should not pose obstacles to the fulfillment of the command of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: “test the Scriptures” (John 5:39). Finally, so that in the above considerations about the preservation of the text of the seventy interpreters, and the Slavic translation of the Bible, there is no noticeable lack of completeness, it is necessary to touch upon one more thing. The proposed protective rules can and should conveniently have an immediate effect on educators and those educated in theological academies and seminaries and on the clergy educated in these institutions, and in general can be used by educated people who are more or less familiar with the original languages ​​of the Holy Scriptures. But how can this protective effect be extended to those who cannot directly benefit from the original texts of Holy Scripture, such as people of secular rank in general, and even rural priests and deacons, in considerable numbers? – To this, the correct church answer is that one should make full use of the guidance and guidance of the interpretations of the holy fathers. But, unfortunately, only a few can take advantage of this, and even then with difficulty, and not completely. Although there are translations of the writings of the Holy Fathers in our native language, interpretations of many parts of the Holy Scriptures: but they constitute such a significant library that not many secular educated people have the zeal and time to collect it and actively use it, and most priests do not have sufficient means to acquire it. What is the most convenient way to provide the necessary assistance in this case? – This question requires special attention to promote the true enlightenment of the clergy and the Orthodox people. To see how difficult it is to evade this question, and how the way can be opened to its solution, we may here again point to the above-mentioned new German translation of the Bible with explanatory notes, approved by the papal see and many archbishops and bishops of the Roman church. Despite the special dogmatic direction of this church, according to which it keeps the Holy Scripture in the hands of the clergy, and reluctantly allows it into the hands of the people, its hierarchy nevertheless recognized the need to approve this short and convenient aid for the people to the understanding of the Holy Scripture. The Apostolic Church, by the eighty-fifth canon of saints, the Apostle offers the holy books of the Old and New Testaments “for all those belonging to the clergy and laity”; and with Saint Chrysostom 2 he says: “Listen, I pray, all the lives of people, and acquire books of spiritual healing. If you want anything else, obtain the New Testament.” If the laity, then even more so the ministers of the Church, who are obliged to guide the laity, how to study the Holy Scriptures, so they need to have the most convenient aids for understanding it. On the day of St. John the Evangelist. May 8, 1845. In 1856, on the blessed days of the sacred coronation of the Most Pious Sovereign, Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich, the Holy Synod entered into discussions about providing the Orthodox people with a way to read the Holy Scriptures, for home edification, with the most convenient understanding possible, and then, with the Highest permission, took active measures for this. The resolution of the fourth meeting of the Council of Trent says: pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesunmat; - “Regard the Vulgate as self-authentic, and let no one dare to reject this translation, under any pretext.” According to the strictness of this rule, as “no one”, even the pope should not have corrected this translation, especially after approval, another time, under the pretext of a malfunction. But as the pope did this, Western theologians, in order to somehow reconcile the matter with the rule, were forced to reinterpret the word: “to no one,” arguing that only a private person is not allowed to deviate from this translation, privato avsu non relinquendam. Dobmayer. Compend. Theol. Dogmat. T.I.P.IV. 240. Lieberman. Instit. Theol. T. II. de vers. S. scpipturae. Propos. 2. – They also found it necessary to turn to the original texts, according to the Old Testament to the Hebrew, and according to the New to the Greek, and since the text of the Trentian canon was not favorable to this thought: then, in order to reinforce it, they were forced to look for the denunciation of the Vulgate text in the same canon (non omne mendum ab ea excludit; the rule does not deny that there are errors in the Vulgate), and resort to verbal testimony of those who were at the Council of Trent, Salmeron and Andrei Vega. See the above-mentioned books in the indicated places, and also the book - Bibliothèque Sacrée, composed by the Dominicans, reprinted in Paris in 1827, by a society of clergy, in which in volume XXVI, under the word - Vulgata - it is said that the Latin Church recognizes as authentic (autentica) the edition of Clement's Vulgate of 1592, that this edition is more correct than Sixtus 1590, but that Klimentovo is not entirely free from errors, that Bellarmine recognizes many more errors in it. Thus, the consequence of a thoughtlessly decisive and strict rule was confusion, contradictions, reinterpretations, and the established rule was destructive. "beloved" – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” You might be interested in: