Послесловие К V т. Полного собрания творений св. Иоанна Златоуста *** .

Between the interpretations of the ancient Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the Conversation of St. John Chrysostom on the psalms, despite the incompleteness 9 in which they have been preserved, occupy an outstanding place for the high merits of their content and presentation. According to the judgment of ancient connoisseurs (Patriarch Photius and Svida 10), they belong to the best works of the saint. They are distinguished by a deep penetration into the content of the psalms, a clear, animated presentation of the truths and pious feelings expressed in them, especially by the inimitable moral application of the content of the psalms to the life of a Christian. Chrysostom does not extract only from the text of the psalms the truths of faith and morality contained in them, but reveals and convinces them of their immutability and obligation with his animated eloquence. In his conversations, the Psalter really takes on the character of a high prayerful appeal to God, corresponding not only to the Old Testament, but also to the New Testament. – In his interpretation of the psalms, Chrysostom adheres primarily to the literal, historical meaning, with the exception, of course, of those psalms or individual verses that are prophetic in nature (for example, Ps. 44, 46, 109, etc.). The basic rule regarding this is expressed when explaining the 9th Psalm: “when, says the saint, it is necessary to explain something in a figurative sense (κατ` αναγωγήν), then one should not leave it out. One thing in Scripture must be contemplated (θεωρῆσαι) or explained in a figurative sense,” as stated in the Russian translation of these words, “and the other must be understood as it is said only” (p. 115); in other places one must accept both what is said and what is signified by it” 11. Examples of this latter, dual explanation of the psalms are the interpretations on vv. 5–7. 9th Ps., which are explained first literally (p. 114), and then - figuratively - regarding the divine judgment of the Jews (p. 116), - on the 2nd-3rd art. 43 Ps. (pp. 168–169, 171), on the 9th–10th art. 45 Ps. (p. 212), – 2nd art. 46th Ps. (p. 215), etc. Chrysostom sometimes does not hinder the understanding of the words of some psalms in a figurative sense (for example, when explaining the 2nd article of the 47th Psalm, p. 225), and sometimes rejects such an understanding (for example, when explaining the 4th article of the 115th Psalm (p. 350). Along with a clear expression of the literal or figurative, prophetic, meaning, the saint paid special attention to the consistent train of thought in the content of the psalms and revealed it where this sequence might not be noticed at first glance (see pp. 142; 173–174; 234; 238; 463, etc.).” Particularly remarkable are Chrysostom’s interpretations of the psalms in the sense that they not only indicate, but actually apply that most perfect method of interpreting the sacred. Scripture, which consists of equal use of both the Greek translation of 70 interpreters, as well as the Hebrew text and other ancient translations made from it. We consider it necessary to focus the attention of readers on this methodological or guidance - regarding the method of interpretation - importance of Chrysostom's conversations on the psalms, since clarification of it can lead to the establishment of the way in which the most intelligible Slavic or Russian translation of the Psalter could be achieved. At the same time, as is self-evident, it is taken for granted that the method of interpretation, which Chrysostom used in his Discourses on the Psalms, who devoted most of his life to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, is the most appropriate method, bequeathed by paternal antiquity, free from any enthusiasm for new trends, and as a result, this method is such that without any fear, with confidence, it can be used by a modern Orthodox interpreter when explaining the Slavic text of the Psalter and correcting – in places – the text itself. A feasible clarification of the features of this method of interpretation is caused precisely by the ambiguity we are all aware of in many places in the Slavic Psalter, which, meanwhile, in accordance with the prayerful nature of this sacred book, is most used during Divine services, as a result of which this ambiguity is more often and more strongly felt. We think there is no need to prove the actual existence of ambiguity in many places in the Slavic Psalter. It is enough to recall what is said about this in the preface to the new Slavic translation of the Psalter, made by Moscow Archbishop Ambrose (Zertis Kamensky): “no one can argue that, reading the Psalter in the Slavic language, they can understand it with all accuracy; this solely stems from the imperfection of the translation” 12. The awareness of the insufficient intelligibility of the Slavic Psalter and the resulting need to eliminate, if possible, this ambiguity, and 13 in modern times, have led to the fact that several remarkable experiments have appeared in our theological writing aimed at facilitating the understanding of this sacred book through new translations or through correction of its Slavic text. Such experiments are: 1) The above-mentioned translation of the Psalter from Hebrew into Slavic, owned by Archbishop Ambrose. 2) “The Psalter in Russian translation from Greek” by Bishop Porfiry. 1893 3) Experience in correcting the Slavic Psalter based on the Greek translation and Hebrew text 14, owned by Archimandrite. Amphilochia. Each of these works serves as an expression of a special way 15 in which the above goal was achieved. The translation is based on Archbishop. Ambrose laid down the current, or so-called, Jewish-Masoretic text of the book of psalms, for the consideration that “the Psalter was originally written in Hebrew,” as a result of which “it is most necessary that its translation be accurately consistent with the Hebrew original itself” (Preface to the above-mentioned translation of the Psalter, Archbishop Ambrose, p. 21). Translation by Rev. Porphyry was made, according to his explanation in the preface, “from the Greek Psalter, written on glassine in 862 AD. deacon of the church of St. Resurrection in Jerusalem." In the Comparative Psalter, Fr. Amphilochius sought to achieve the most intelligible Slavic text of this holy book by comparing the sayings translated from the Greek text of the 70 with the corresponding sayings that make up the transmission of the Hebrew text, or, which is also the essence of the matter, the basis of the work of Fr. Amphilochius relies on a comparison of the translation of the 70 with the Hebrew text, although not directly. Which of these three methods should be followed in further work to improve the Slavic or Russian translation of the Psalter, and at the same time other Old Testament books? Should this holy work be based only on the Greek translation of the 70, or on the Hebrew-Masoretic text, or should both be used together, along with other translations? For the correct solution, in accordance with the spirit of the Orthodox Church, of this fundamental issue in the translation, as well as the interpretation of the sacred books of the Old Testament, Chrysostom's conversations on the psalms provide very important guidance. I. Features of Chrysostom’s interpretation of the psalms Chrysostom bases his interpretation of the Psalter on the Greek text of the 70; on it he constantly quotes the words of the psalmist. At the same time, he does not consider this text to be self-sufficient, completely sufficient for understanding the holy book. On the contrary, the saint is completely far from such a view of the ancient Greek translation, as is shown, firstly, by his repeated remarks about the obscurity of certain passages of the psalter in the translation of the 70. So, for example, citing this translation from the 16th Art. Ps. 138: “and in your book all will be written, in the days they will be created, and no one in them,” the saint notes: “these words are unclear, but their meaning must be reached by the connection of speech and by another translation,” and then, having revealed the sequence of the psalmist’s speech, he gives another translation (Symmachus) and explains this place in accordance with it (pp. 464–465). Chrysostom makes the same remark after the opening words of Art. 3. Ps. 47: replenishing with “the joy of the whole earth”: “these words, he says, are very unclear, so you need to be careful” (p. 225); and here for explanation are given two other translations (Aquila and Symmachus), according to which this passage is explained (pp. 224 and 226). The awareness of some advantage - in places - of other translations in clarity or expressiveness is expressed by Chrysostom and in his frequent approval of this translation. For example, explaining the 5th Art. Ps. 111th according to the translation of the 70: “he will arrange his words in court,” Chrysostom cites another translation (Symmachus): “arranging his affairs with the court” and, having expressed the meaning of this place in accordance, mainly with the latter (pp. 316–317), in conclusion he says: “This is expressed more clearly by another (translator) with the words: “arranging his affairs with the court, because the merciful disposes of his with property judiciously” (p. 317). In explaining v. 8. Ps. 181, according to the translation of the 70: “Arise, O Lord, into your rest, you are the ark of your shrine,” Chrysostom cites two other translations, in which the words: “thy shrine” correspond to the expression: “thy strength” and “thy power” 16, then he says: “both are fair, because from there” (i.e. from the Ark of the Covenant) was conferred holiness and the writings kept there conferred both holiness and power.” Expressing his agreement in these words with both the translation of the 70 and other translations, the saint in his further explanation clearly gives preference to the translator who, instead of “sacred things,” said “powers.” “Well, he said so,” continues Chrysostom. Indeed, through the Ark God demonstrated power not once, not twice, but many times” (p. 423). Further, when explaining the 9th Art. of the same psalm: “thy priests will be clothed with righteousness,” Chrysostom cites two other similar translations by unknown translators: “let them be clothed,” “let them be clothed,” and regarding them he notes: “this is much clearer, because he (the psalmist) prays, and does not prophesy” (p. 423). Likewise, explaining Art. 2. Ps. 133rd according to the transfer of 70; “in the night lift up your hands into the holy place,” Chrysostom cites two other translations in which the words “into the holy place” correspond to “holy” (this translation belongs to Symmachus, according to Field’s edition, and not “unknown,” as stated in 1 note on page 428) and “sanctified” and, explaining the meaning of the expression used by the 70, says: “it is well said: “holy”; this suggests that one should pray without vicious thoughts, without memory of malice”... (p. 428). The given reviews of Chrysostom on the translation of the 70 and other ancient Greek translations 17. In modern times (1867), a new, more thorough edition of this work of Origen, owned by Field, was published (see vol. 4th Works of Chrysostom, p. 882). Compared to this latest edition, the notes contain information about the authors of the translations into the demon. on the psalms often turn out to be inaccurate. So, for example, on page 78 the translation: “indignant every day” is added in the 2nd note. in this country, “an unknown translator,” meanwhile, it belongs, according to Field’s edition, to Aquila; further translation (here). “threatening”, attributed in the 3rd note. Akila, belongs to an unknown translator. The same is observed in many other notes. Then, in the latter, the translations of the 5th and 6th translators cited by Chrysostom are not noted; they are usually attributed to an “unknown translator.” So on page 102, the translation: “that every person” belongs to the 5th translator from those given in Origen’s Hexaplas, and not “unknown”; on page 101st translation: “I see heaven” belongs to the 6th translator, etc. In general it should be noted that what is said in the notes on this subject requires reference to the said edition of Field, until there is no better edition of the surviving readings of the ancient Greek translations. What makes us want such a publication, by the way, is that many of the ancient Greek translations cited by Chrysostom remain unknown regarding the names of their authors and their features. – Comparison of those given by Zlat. readings of other translations with Origen's Hexapla, according to Field's edition, shows that the saint retained in his conversations on the psalms such sayings from other translations that are only found here. And in this regard, his work is of great importance as a repository of ancient Greek translations. They allow us to partly notice the motive by which the saint, when explaining almost all (only in the conversation on Ps. 49 no other translations are given) psalms, conversations for which have been preserved, gives other Greek translations, except for the 70, and the method of using the latter. It is unfair to explain the motivation for this by the fact that the saint “through this satisfied the desire and zeal of some of his listeners” 18. This impulse was much more important and serious. If in a conversation on the 47th Psalm Chrysostom says that, when explaining the words: “ships of the Tarsians,” he cited the Hebrew word: “Tarshish” for the listeners (p. 227) 19, then this cannot be interpreted in the sense of indicating a special reason why the saint so often introduced other translations into his interpretation. This special reason should be discovered not in this expression, which has the general meaning of a reference to the already cited Hebrew word, but in the use that the saint makes of the other translations he cites. Some of the Western patrolologists and domestic biblical scholars have expressed the opinion that Chrysostom “smallly and rarely uses other translations given by him in his interpretation and does not indicate which of them is more correct, clearer and more consistent with the flow of speech, leaving this variety of translations to the reader’s judgment” 20 . This view of Chrysostom’s use of translations other than 70 when interpreting the psalms, considered in the sense of a general judgment about this, turns out to be one-sided and unfair. It applies only to one category of passages in these conversations, where the saint, citing sayings from other translations, does not really stop to explain their meaning and significance and does not indicate which of these translated expressions he recognizes as the most accurate and appropriate. There is undoubtedly a significant number of such passages in conversations on the psalms. Consideration of them leads, however, to the conclusion that the differences between the translation of the 70 and other translations in the transmission of individual passages of the psalms, left by Chrysostom without any special explanation, are such in their content that they do not require special explanations, since they concern only the method of expression, the essence of the matter, i.e. the thought or feeling of the psalmist, both in the translation of the 70 and in other translations, remains the same, being expressed in the latter only in different words, sometimes more understandable 21. In view of this, such sayings of other translations did not, of course, require special explanations on the part of the saint. Along with such places in which the saint does not accompany the other translations he cites with special explanations, the conversations on the psalms represent a much larger number of other places in which Chrysostom enters into consideration of the differences between the translation of the 70 and other translations, and the result of such consideration is his proposed interpretation of the passages in which these kinds of differences occur. He does not convey the internal, domestic, so to speak, work that the saint did during this time in his conversations; in them he expresses only the conclusions to which he came. These conclusions, expressed in the very interpretation of certain passages of the psalms, depending on the content of the latter and the nature of the differences between the translations, turn out to be not the same. In some places, Chrysostom uses other translations when understanding the true meaning of the psalms, gives them priority and bases his interpretation on them. On the contrary, in others, despite the disagreement of other translations with the text of the 70, he remains faithful to the latter in his interpretation. In other places, he evenly uses the translation of the 70 and other translations, combining the shades of thought expressed by both in transmitting the text of the psalms into one integral, versatile interpretation. Finally, in other places, not finding any reason to give complete preference to the translation of the 70 or other translations, he hesitates before this choice and allows for a double interpretation of some places. These various methods of interpretation observed in conversations on the psalms deserve, without a doubt, full attention from Orthodox people, as the methods or experiences of the famous Father of the Orthodox Church, which should serve as models for Orthodox interpreters. Familiarity with them is also useful in order to correctly judge the saint’s interpretation of the psalms and use it properly. Therefore, we consider it necessary to enter into a consideration of these techniques. a) Places in which Chrysostom uses other translations to understand the meaning of the psalms. To confirm this position, as especially important in the interpretation of Chrysostom on the psalms, we will give as many examples as possible of the positive use - on the part of the saint - of translations other than 70. In this case, at the beginning the Slavic text of the psalms will be given, corresponding to the Greek translation of the 70, as the latter is read in Chrysostom according to Min’s edition, and then, in accordance with it, readings of other translations will be given. Page 72. Explaining the words: “Arise, Lord... by command, you commanded them,” Chrysostom cites another translation, in which, instead of “by command,” it is said: “in court” (see typos. This translation belongs to Symmachus, and not to the “unknown translator”) and, in accordance with this, explains these words as follows: (Arise, Lord), “in order to provide help to those who are offended and not to leave those exposed to intrigues unattended. What You have commanded us, show us in practice.” Another interpretation that existed during the time of Chrysostom, that by “command” is meant a special divine promise to punish the enemies of the psalmist 22, the saint rejects. Close to the translation adopted here by Chrysostom, as clearer, this passage is conveyed in the Comparative Psalter by Fr. Amphilochia: “Arise to me (in) judgment.” Page 93. To the words: “From the mouth of a baby... you made praise,” Chrysostom cites two other translations (Aquila 23) and the 6th translator): “from the mouth of babies you founded a power” (or: established power) and: “formed a force.” In his explanation of this passage, the saint does not ignore the peculiarity of these translations, which consists in the fact that what was achieved through the mouths of infants is called “power, strength,” and not praise, when he says: “You showed your power especially by bringing into activity an inactive ability and making the babbling tongue clear for praise.” Similar to the interpretation of Chrysostom, this passage was translated, based on the Hebrew, in the Comparative Psalter by Fr. Amphilochia: “from the mouth of the child you founded (Your) power.” Page 94. The words: “for your enemy’s sake” are explained by Chrysostom by another translation: “for those who bind you” and are explained in the sense of the prophecy about the Jews who, “having bound Christ, led to the cross.” The saint compares the further expression: “to destroy the enemy” with another translation: “to stop the enemy” and recognizing the latter as clearer, he says: “to stop, i.e. stop their (the Jews) shamelessness, and not teach them, because they were terminally ill” (p. 95). Page 102. When interpreting the words: “what is man... as you visit him,” Chrysostom cites two other translations: “what is every man” and “visit 24 him” and, in accordance with this latter, explains these words of the psalm as depicting a special divine providence about man and pointing to the coming of Christ. “If,” says the saint, “before man was nothing, then how much more so is he after so many and great sins, when Christ came. Thus, he (the psalmist) shows that the coming of Christ was a matter not only of mercy, but also of great love for mankind” 25. Page 103. Explaining the words: “you made him a little less than an angel, you crowned him with glory and honor,” Chrysostom cites two other translations, in which instead of the words: “from an angel,” it is translated: “from God,” and instead of: “you crowned,” it is rendered: “you will crown.” In accordance with such translations, the saint gives the words of the psalm such an interpretation that expresses the meaning of not only the translation of the 70, but also other translations. “This,” he says, can be understood both historically and figuratively (κατα αναγωγήν). The Prophet also speaks about the power of man, which was given to him at creation; He also speaks about the subsequent benefits that he received after the coming of Christ. Greater glory and honor is what happened in the New Testament, when he has Christ as his head, when he becomes a partaker of His body (είς τὸ σῶμα αύτοῦ τελῆ), when he becomes a brother, a joint heir and like His body (σύμμορφος τοῦ σώματος αυτοῦ )... All this (the prophet) means “glory and honor.” That’s why (according to another translation) he said: “You will crown” him with “glory” and “honor,” foretelling the future” (p. 104). Page 115. To the words: “and the Lord abides forever,” Chrysostom gives another translation: “he will sit” and, explaining the meaning of this expression, which constitutes a literal rendering of the Hebrew word, says: “Sitting is often used in the sense of the immutability of God’s being”... Page 124. When explaining the words: “the patience of the poor will not perish until the end,” Chrysostom gives another translation: “the expectation of the meek will not be completely forgotten” and, using the latter, reveals the meaning of the word: “the poor” in the sense of poverty combined with humility. “Look,” he says, what honor the poor are given, not just the poor, but the humble in heart.” Page 125. “Put a lawgiver under them.” Explaining these words in the sense of the psalmist’s prayer that for the pagans there would be “punishment instead of suggestion” (η τιμωρία αντὶ νουθεσίας or - according to other lists - νομοθεσίας), after this the saint pours out, as if in support of his interpretation, another translation: “bring fear, O Lord, upon them.” This is translated in a similar way in the Comparative Psalter: “Put fear on them, O Lord.” Page 127. When interpreting Art. 24–25 Ps. On the 9th, Chrysostom uses other translations, in which he especially finds an explanation for the words: “because of the multitude of his wrath he will not seek,” which consists in the fact that by the multitude of wrath is meant the arrogance of the wicked. “The other (translator), says the saint, refers this to the wicked, speaking of his arrogance, that is, madness, pride” (these words of Chrysostom in the translation, p. 127, are not expressed clearly). “Well further,” the saint continues, (another translator) said: “There is no God in all his thoughts” 26. Page 129. Words: “He will squat in fishing with the rich” Zlat. explains to others per. “sitting in ambush outside the yard”; the expression “in his fence” - translation: “in his lair”; words: “he will bow down and fall, never having had power over the poor” - translation: “bent over and hide, attacking the weak with his strong” 27 . Page 140. Words: “flattering lips into hearts and evil words into hearts” Zlat. explains to others the translation: “He speaks in another and another heart.” “This means,” says the saint, that there is great duplicity in their hearts. This is worse than any enemy." See here for explanations from other translations to Art. 4 and 5 of the same psalm. Page 141. To the words: “I will not be offended about him,” Chrysostom gives another translation: “I will arrange a clear salvation” and, in accordance with this, explains: “I will boldly, openly and clearly defend so that everyone knows” (p. 142). Page 175. The words: “and thou shalt not go forth, O God, in our strength,” Chrysostom explains by translation: “and thou shalt not go forth in our armies,” and in accordance with this he says: “Here he calls their army forces (αυτῶν), because in them is the strength of the king” (p. 176). Page 178. To the words: “and” 28 “thou hast turned away our paths from thy way,” Chrysostom gives two translations: “and that which supporteth us did not turn away” and: “and our feet did not turn away” and explains this passage in accordance with these translations. “Here (the prophet) says the same as before, that is, that in such a storm of evil they did not waver in the least. He said it well” (p. 179). Having expressed his agreement with other translations, Chrysostom, however, considers it useful to explain the meaning of the translation of the 70, which is why he says: “If anyone wants to interpret them according to the 70, and not according to other (translations), then the words: “Thou hast turned our paths away from thy path” mean: Thou hast removed us from Thy church and allowed us to be in a foreign country, which hindered the performance of Divine services” (p. 179). Page 376. Explaining the words: “to him is his communion together” in the sense that in Jerusalem “the buildings were united, solid and continuous, that there was nothing empty between them, but in all places it was built up often, completely,” Chrysostom after this gives another translation of the same words: “having a connection,” which serves as a confirmation of this interpretation. The number of such passages in the discourses on the psalms, in which Chrysostom uses other translations to explain the not entirely intelligible expressions of the translation of the 70, could be doubled or tripled. But the examples given, we hope, are enough to convince us that he did not give these translations only for some of his listeners, that he needed them for the purposes of his pastoral sermon, that he did not leave it to his listeners to understand the meaning of the translations given and their relationship to the text of the 70, but did it in the necessary cases himself, drawing from them explanations for the readings of the latter or confirmation for his interpretation. And not only did Chrysostom turn to other Greek translations from Hebrew, which conveyed his words more closely, more literally, in these conversations, but not rarely to this text itself, as is shown by a large number of expressions quoted from it 29 . The sayings of the Hebrew text are believed to have been borrowed 30 from Origen's Hexapla and are rendered in Greek letters. In this style, Hebrew words, with some peculiarities in their pronunciation, turn out to be so consistent with those sayings that are read in the current Jewish text that modern Hebraists use the Hebrew words cited in Chrysostom to confirm the correctness of reading some words in the current Jewish text 31 . Introducing the utterances of the Hebrew text into the interpretation of the psalms, the saint does not enter into a philological analysis of them and for the most part 32 leaves them without translation on his part; does not speak about the purpose for which these sayings are given. The lack of translations is explained, however, in some places by the fact that these sayings are given immediately after other translations representing their literal transmission 33, as a result of which a new translation was not needed. Bringing the words of the Hebrew text directly after other translations, representing a close translation of them into Greek, makes it appropriate to assume the purpose of this kind of reference by the saint; it consists, as one might think, in indicating the basis for these other translations, which are served by the original words of the Hebrew text, as having the meaning expressed in the other translations. However, such an explanation does not extend to all places in these conversations where the sayings of the Hebrew text are given. There are places in the psalms in which the Jewish saying cited by the saint is more accurately conveyed by the 70; than other translators; for example, (on p. 231) the word: “old” (or “heled”), meaning: “time, world”, is translated by 70 with the word: “universe” (οικουμένη), by other translators with the word: “sunset” or “west”; or (on page 233) the word “uagif” (vegagut, which means “meditation”) 34 is more correctly understood by the 70 who translated it with the word: (μελέτη (“teaching”) than by other translators who translated it with the verb: “whisper” or “announce” 35. In places of this kind, Jewish expressions are given by Chrysostom, one might think, for confirmation of the predominantly accurate translation of the 70. There are, further, such passages of the discourses on the psalms in which Chrysostom gives expressions of the Hebrew text without a corresponding Greek translation of them, although such a translation is not given by either the 70 interpreters or the other translators cited here; translation: “we compared” (or “meditated”)... Your Church” 36, although 70 and other translators say “people” instead of “church.” Is it possible to see in the presentation of the sayings of the Hebrew text in such places an indication on the part of the saint of some inaccuracy in their transmission in the translations he cited? Finally, there are places in the text of the Psalms where between the translation of the 70 and other ancient translations there are greater or lesser differences in the understanding of the text of the psalms; in similar places the saint also cites the sayings of the Hebrew text, without adding his own translation to them. So in the 7th Art. Ps. On the 7th, according to the text of the 70, it says: “in the ends is the enemy; instead, according to other translations: “in anger at enemies,” “in the rage of those who grieve” (p. 71). Having conveyed these unequal translations, the saint in conclusion cites the corresponding expression of the Hebrew text: “webarof” or, according to other lists, “vegavroth” 37, which corresponds to the Hebrew word read here: “beavrot” The saint does not give a literal translation of this word, meaning: “to fury” or “against fury”, but the thought contained in it is partially expressed when he says: “exalt yourself before our enemies, take revenge and show Your power” (p. 71). The idea suggested by the translation of the 70 (“at the end is the enemy”) of punishing enemies within their limits or borders is absent from Chrysostom. – Likewise, there is a noticeable difference between the ancient translations when conveying the last words of Psalm 11: in the 70 they are translated: “thou hast multiplied the sons of men according to thy height”; according to another translation: “when the lowliest of the sons of men are exalted.” Having indicated these differences in translations and explained their meaning, Chrysostom ends his research on the translation of this passage of the psalm by citing the corresponding expression of the Hebrew text (p. 143). Thus, here, as in some similar places 38, the saint turns to the Hebrew text as the last data on which the translation should be based. No matter how one explains the motives for which Chrysostom cited the words of the Hebrew text in each individual place, 39 his appeal to this text in conversations on the psalms is a significant and instructive phenomenon. Its importance lies precisely in the fact that the famous Father of the Orthodox Eastern Church, who used the translation of the 70, addresses the Jewish text - alien to any hobbies in his theological views, and quotes his sayings from the church pulpit 40. The possibility of this phenomenon, first of all, lies in the fact that some or many of the Antiochian Christians contemporary to Chrysostom, before whom conversations on psalms were delivered, knew more or less the Hebrew language, which is explained by the large number of Jews in this city and the need to know their language when communicating about them 41 . Such an explanation not only does not exclude, but requires another necessary condition so that in a Christian sermon the utterances of another text, the Hebrew, can be cited along with the text of the Holy Scripture used by the Church. This necessary condition lies in the church's view, which gives the right to use the Hebrew text along with the Greek - 70. If Chrysostom from the church pulpit repeatedly brought to his listeners the sayings of the Jewish text of the book. psalms, then this serves as an undoubted expression and evidence that he had a view of this text as sacred, which Christians can use not only in their private studies of the Holy Scriptures, but also in the Christian church, during church teachings. The Hebrew text of the Psalter, and, consequently, other Old Testament books, is in conversations on the psalms not only permitted for Christians, but also equal to the Greek translation of the 70. Together with other Greek translations, it is a useful tool in explaining difficult passages of Scripture, even from the pulpit. In this regard, conversations on the psalms can serve as good reassurance or admonition for those who extend their zeal too far for the Greek translation of the 70 and look at the current Hebrew text in its entirety as damaged, alien to the Christian Church, which does not know it 42 . In Chrysostom's conversations on the psalms, the Hebrew text is sacred, read in a Christian church. b) Places of the psalms in which Chrysostom gives preference to the translation of the 70. In many other places in the Psalter, comparison of translations with each other leads the saint to the fact that he rejects other translations and instead takes the translation of the 70 as the basis of interpretation. And in these places, Chrysostom, as a church preacher, and not a school teacher, did not introduce listeners to his rough work, did not explain the particular reasons that placed him in favor of this and not other translations; instead, he expressed only his final conclusion, which was the interpretation itself. There are also a very significant number of such places of conversation on the psalms. Of the many, here are a few. – Explaining (on page 47) the last words of Ps. On the 6th, Chrysostom gives a translation of the 70: “as thou hast crowned us with the weapon of blessing,” followed by another: “thou shalt crown him” (of course, the righteous). Having outlined the meaning of both translations, which differ from each other in that divine protection, according to the translation of the 70, is a completed deed, moreover, over those on whose behalf the psalmist speaks, and according to another translation, it is a deed that is to be accomplished in the future, namely over the righteous, Chrysostom, at the conclusion of his interpretation, says: “You surrounded us with security and glory” (p. 48), which obviously expresses the meaning of the translation 70. – In the rendering of the last words of Psalm 122 (p. 381), the ancient Greek translations present the dissimilarity that according to 70, confidence in the humiliation of the rich and proud is expressed (“Reproach to the kissers and humiliation to the proud”), 43 are translated from 70), and according to other translations, with which, as well as with the Hebrew text, the current Slavic Psalm 44 is consistent in this place, the psalmist points to the humiliation suffered by his people at the hands of the rich and proud. In explaining this passage, the saint clearly gives preference to the translation of the 70 and, having expressed its meaning, says: “this often happens; God usually does this by humbling the arrogant and humiliating the proud, to turn them away from the path that leads to destruction” (pp. 381–382). – Likewise, regarding the 3rd Art. Ps. 143 There is a discrepancy between the ancient Greek translations in that the high dignity of a person is indicated - according to 70 in the fact that God revealed Himself to him (“thou art known to him”), and according to other translations - in the fact that God knows a person or pays attention to him. Chrysostom does not deny the consistency of the meaning expressed by other translations, but he gives the greatest approval to the translation of the 70 when he says: “Great must be the one who knows God, or better - will be known from Him, and not only this one, but also the one to whom God reveals Himself. Therefore, the seventy interpreters said very well: “You were known to him,” expressing that it was not we who revealed Him, but He Himself revealed Himself to us” (p. 513) 45 . c) Places in which Chrysostom evenly uses the translation of the 70s and others. The following examples can serve as an explanation of this method of interpretation of the saint. Explaining (on page 27) 6th Art. Ps. 4th, Chrysostom cites the translation of the 70: “and trust” (ελπίσατε, literally - hope “in the Lord”, and then another: “believe” (or: be confident - πεποίθατε 46), and on the basis of both translations gives the following interpretation: “and this is not an unimportant virtue - to hope in Him and to be confident in Him. Along with truth, (the prophet) demands from us this virtue - to be confident in God, to rely on nothing worldly." Further: the 9th article of the 43rd Psalm is translated - from 70: “in God, let us boast”, from another translator: “Combining together the meaning expressed by both translations, Chrysostom.” says: “we will not cease to sing and boast of Your help”... (p. 175). The verse of the 11th 45th Psalm is translated - in the 70th: “become still and understand”, in another translator: “be healed and understand”, in the third: “be still, so that you may understand.” In his interpretation of these words, Chrysostom brings together the features of understanding expressed by each of the translations. “Know,” he says, His strength and power, which appears throughout the entire universe, but for this you must be calm, you must have a sound soul. The word: “calm down” means this very thing: leave delusions, leave behind your old way of life” (p. 213). d) Places in which Chrysostom allows for double interpretation - according to the translation of the 70 and according to other translations. Places of this kind in discourses on the psalms are comparatively less numerous. In them, the saint confines himself to explaining the meaning expressed both by the Greek translation of the 70 and by other translations and, finding both of them in agreement with the dogma or moral teaching of the Psalms and other Old Testament books, he does not insist on the exclusive fidelity of one of these translations. This is the explanation of Art. 9. The 5th Psalm from Chrysostom is as follows: “straighten my path before You,” that is, make it known, clear, familiar to me; make it straight for me. Another translator says: “level your path before me,” that is, make it convenient, easy” (p. 44). The saint does not make any indication of the predominant correctness of one of these translations, and, of course, not without serious reasons, which, weighed by the modern Orthodox interpreter, in the essence of the matter, goes a little further than the assumption of a double translation of this place 47. – When explaining the 7th Art. Psalm 9 (p. 115), Chrysostom cites a translation of the 70: “the enemy is running out of weapons,” and another, in which instead of “weapons” it is said: “ruins,” and when asked what this means, he answers: “Having destroyed the machinations and plans of the wicked, You deprived him of his own weapons... Or, as another interpreter teaches, who said: deserts, You not only destroyed their cities, but also destroyed the deserts and destroyed the cities.” Chrysostom does not make a final choice between the two translations here, but through this he opens up for us the possibility of accepting the second translation as being consistent with the Hebrew text 48 . The same method of interpretation was used by Chrysostom when explaining the 8th art. Psalm 9, where it says according to the 70: “his throne is prepared for judgment,” and according to another translation: “he established it for judgment” or closer, “he set it up for judgment” (p. 116). Here the saint explains first in accordance with the second translation, saying: “having mentioned the throne, he depicts the properties of this throne, which is not made of wood or any other substance, but of truth. It is based, he says, on the truth.” To this interpretation Chrysostom then adds another, in accordance with the translation of the 70. “He will not sin,” he says, who will understand the word “prepared” as it is said, because with God everything is ready, punishments, crowns, and sentences” (p. 117). An example of the same interpretation is partly the explanation of Art. 27. Psalm 117 (p. 364), differing only in that the indication of the unequal meaning of the three translations given is followed by an expression of their common thought. The methods of interpretation that Chrysostom used in his conversations on the psalms are remarkable both in their totality and individually. Considered in the first respect, they represent the application of what is called the comparative method or method of interpreting the sacred books of the Old Testament. This method generally consists in the fact that when interpreting, not just one text is taken into account - Greek or Hebrew, but both together with other ancient translations, as witnesses of the first readings. The internal basis for this method is the high theological view that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament books, as far as it has been preserved in the Maoretic Bible, and the Greek translation of the 70, as far as its original text has been preserved in its various copies, together with other witnesses to the readings belonging to both, are of equal importance in the matter of interpreting the Old Testament books. This view has always existed in the Orthodox Church, as the works of Origen and the holy martyr show. Luciana et al. It was also clearly expressed in Chrysostom’s conversations on the psalms. Serving as a manifestation of this view, Chrysostom’s private techniques in interpreting the psalms are important in the sense that they can serve as models for the Orthodox interpreter of Old Testament books. Following these methods, applied to the matter by such a great interpreter of the Holy Scriptures as Chrysostom, the Orthodox interpreter has the right not to limit himself to one Slavic and Greek text, but also to turn to the Hebrew text, to compare them with each other and in this comparative way to achieve the clearest and generally consistent meaning of the Holy Scriptures. These methods of Chrysostom oblige the interpreter to use all methods and efforts for this, just as Chrysostom, in interpreting the psalms, used all the best that theological writing had at its disposal at that time. They provide - further - the basis in places that are especially difficult to interpret to refrain from a definite, positive explanation and limit ourselves to the conjectural or ambiguous - in accordance with the translation of the 70 or the Hebrew text. From everything that has been said about the peculiarities of Chrysostom’s interpretation of the psalms, it follows by itself that of the three above-mentioned experiments in improving the Slavic-Russian translation of the Psalter, the work of Fr. archim. Amphilochia. It only lacks, in our opinion, justification on the interpretations of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, which should take the place of references to translations of Jewish scholars and at the same time influence the choice of the most appropriate Slavic expressions. II. The Greek text of the Psalter, which Chrysostom used, and its relationship to the existing lists of translations of 70 interpreters It is known that the lists of the translation of the 70, which Chrysostom used in his conversations on the psalms, already presented in his time some features (see Preface to the 4th volume of this edition), which continue to exist in the numerous copies of this translation that have survived to this day (see ibid., p. 874). That the list according to which Chrysostom read the Psalter differed from the commonly used text of the 70 at that time, this is clear from its interpretation on the 10th art. 7th Psalm. Having quoted from his list the words: “Search the hearts and bellies, O God,” “righteous,” and then the other two translations of this passage, the saint says: “And the seventy said this: “Search the hearts and bellies, O God,” “Your help is righteous” (p. 77). This last reading of the words of the psalm indeed turns out to be literally similar to that given in Origen's Hexaples, as representing the usual reading of the translation of the 70 49 . From this it is obvious that the list of this translation, which the saint used, differed more or less from the usual text of the 70. Which of the currently known lists of this translation is most similar to the list according to which Chrysostom read the Psalter? As aids for answering this question, we have 1. already indicated (in the 4th volume of this edition, pp. VIII and 880 - 882): “The Old Testament in Greek with various readings”, published by Golmes and Parsons, - “The Old Testament in Greek”, published in Cambridge, and “Hexaples of Origen”, published by Field, and, 2. "Ancient Slavic Psalter", Fr. archim. Amphilochia, which contains, on the one hand, readings of the Old Slavic Psalter according to various lists, of which the publication is based on a list of the Psalms, XIII century, called by the publisher the Simonov Psalter, on the other hand, the Greek text of 70 according to the list of the Theodorite Psalter, X century, collated with 4 copies: Sinai, IV century 50, the Greek Psalter of 862 from the collection of His Grace Porfiry, the Nora Psalter, 10th century, and the Psalter of the 10th-11th century, from the Synodal Library. From the given Fr. Amphilochium readings of the ancient Slavic Psalter are of greatest importance, of course, those that serve as a transmission of the Greek text of the 70 and have not experienced the influence of other biblical texts, such as the Psalter: Chudovskaya XI century - Metropolitan. Cyprian, XIV century, - Sevastyanovsky Assembly, also XIV century, - Maximus the Greek, XVI century, etc. Unfortunately, Fr. Amphilochius does not always cite from these Slavic lists a sufficient number of readings necessary to compare them with the readings of Chrysostom, while the readings of the Brunonian Psalter, 14th century, corrected according to the Vulgate, and the Firsovian Psalter, 17th century, translated from German, therefore reflecting the influence of the Jewish text, are mostly given in full. The fully printed Simonov Psalter, being comparatively the latest, does not always serve as an accurate reproduction of the ancient Slavic psalter readings. With these aids, a comparison of the psalter readings of Chrysostom with the corresponding readings of the Greek and Slavic lists led us to the following. conclusions. a) The readings of the ancient Slavic Psalter, partly preserved in the current Slavic Bible, most correspond to the psalter readings of Chrysostom. To confirm this, we present several readings of Chrysostom - for greater clarity - in the Slavic-Russian translation, indicating the pages of this publication on which they are found, and with the names or numbers of the Slavic or Greek lists with which the readings of Chrysostom are consistent in the first column, and in the second column - lists that deviate from the readings of Chrysostom. Page 41. Ps.5:4. Golden: “and I will see”; This word is also read in Ps. Metropolitan Cyprian: (I will outline), - Maximus the Greek, - Sebastian Assembly, according to the Vatican, ancient. sp., Ps. 862 Ps. X-XI centuries, sp. No. 27 and 55 (according to Parsons’ edition), as well as with Hebrew. text. In Sinai, Alex., Theodore, Verona 51 and very many other lists - “see” or “see me” (επόψη, επόφη με or επόψει με). This reading is accepted in Simonov. Ps. and the current Slavic: “and see me.” Reading: “and I will see,” as in Zlata. and Athanasius Alexander, and as being completely similar to the Hebrew text, they rightly give preference: Rev. Porfiry in his translation of the Psalms (“and I will look” or “with open eyes”), Archimandrite. Amphilochius in “Slicit. Psalms" (“and I will wait”) and St. N. Vishnyakov (in interpretation of the Psalter). With this translation, by the way, we note that the connection between Art. 4 becomes especially clear. with the 5th, for the following sequence of thoughts results: “and I will see that You are God, not desiring iniquity.” Page 71. Ps.7Golden: “Thy enemies are exalted in the ends,” as in the Psalter of Simon, (and Thy enemies are exalted in the ends) and the current Slavic, according to Veron., Theodore. and many other lists. sk. Vatican, Alexander, Sinai, according to the Hebrew text, reads: “my enemy.” Page 77. Ps.7:10. Zlat.: “test the hearts and bellies of the righteous God” (ο θεὸς δίκαιος), as in Simonovskaya (“testing the hearts and bellies of the righteous God”) and the Synod. typographic (“righteous”), according to 8 Greek. sp., not particularly ancient 52, Hebrew text. and given by Zlat. translations of Theodotion and the 6th translator in Origen's Hexapla. In Theodore. and many other Greek sp. (81 according to Parsons’ edition, the last word reads: “righteous” (δικαῖως), as in Ps. 1295, Cetinje, Serbian and our current Slavic Psalter. In the Vatican., Sinaisk., Alex, and some others, the last of the given words of the psalm is attributed to the beginning of the next verse and reads: “righteous” (δικαία), as an addition to the further word: “help.” Thus the reading is obtained: “test” the hearts and wombs, O God, righteous. Although on the side of readings different from the one Chrysostom follows here, there is the vast majority and high antiquity of the Greek. lists, with all this, these latter should give way here, in our opinion, their place to the reading of a minority of lists in view of the fact that this is the reading of Chrysostom, that it is consistent with Jewish. text and at the same time it is one of the ancient readings of the Slavic Psalter. Therefore, the translation adopted in the Comparative Psalter: “And search the hearts and bellies (Thou art a righteous God)” is not completely without foundation, although it is unnecessarily burdened with additions, without which these words can be translated thus: “Righteous God, search the hearts and bellies.” Page 114. Ps.9:6. Zlat.: “thou hast taken the name of it,” as in Simon: “and” This “and,” which is unnecessary against the reading of Zlat., cannot serve as a sign of the difference between the two, since in other sp. Old Slavic Ps. this “and” is not readable here. 53 his name will be consumed,” in Ps. Max. Greek: “you have made amends,” according to Sinai, Feod, and most Greek. sp., in which it reads: “his name,” as in the current glory. Ps. To Vatik. sp., Ps. 862, according to Jewish. t., reads: “their name,” in Alex. - “your name.” Page 136. Ps.10:7. Zlat.: “the sight of righteousness in His face”, as in Simon.: “the right sight” or “righteousness” in Ps. Sevast. Collections, according to Sinaisk., Alex., Theodore. and most other Greek. sp. To Vatik. and some other sp.: “rightness in the form.” Page 140. Ps.11:3. Zlat.: “evil verb” (κακά), as in Simon, and now. Slav. Ps., according to Sinaisk. (κακά added by a later hand), Alex. (πονηρά - “thin”), Theodore, and most other Greek. lists. To Vatik. and some other sp, not readable, according to Hebrew. t., word: “evil”. Art. 4. Zlat.: “The Lord will require,” as in Simon. “The Lord will consume” and now. Slav. Ps., according to Alex., Veron. and other sp. and ev. T. In Vatic., Theodore. and some other sp.: may the Lord consume (εξολοθρύσαι). Page 141. – art. 6. Zlat.: “For the sake of passion” (ενεκεν τῆς ταλαιπωρίας), as in Simon. Ps. and – Max. The Greek “for the sake of bitterness,” according to Sinaisk., Veron. and most Greek sp. To Vatik. sp.: “from passion” (απὸ τῆς ταλαιπωρίας). Page 145. Ps.12:3. Zlat.: “sickness in my heart is day and night,” as in Simon. “sickness is in my heart day and night,” in Ps. Sevast. Collection, Cetinskaya and other “diseases”, according to Sinaisk. (later hand), Alex., Theodore. and most Greek sp. To Vatik. and some other sp., according to Heb. i.e., the word: “night” or “at night” is not readable. Page 323. Ps.112:3. Zlat.: “Praise be the name of the Lord,” as in Simon, and now. Slav. Ps., according to Sinaisk. (late hand), Alex, sp., Turikhsk. 54 Ps. and Jewish t. To Vatik. sp.: “boasts” (αινεῖται) “the name of the Lord”, in Feod. Ps.: “praise” (αινεῖτε). b) In some places, however, the ancient glory does not agree with the psalter readings of Chrysostom. Psalter. For example, in Ps.11:35, Zlat. (p. 131) reads: "...sir You" "were" 55 "helper", according to Vatik. and many other Greek. sp., whereas in Simonov. Ps.: “Thou shalt be a helper to Sir,” in Ps. Max. Greek: “You are a helper.” When considering this difference, one must, however, take into account the fact that in the known Greek, sp. there is no word that exactly corresponds to the Slavic: “wake up” or “thou shalt”. In Greek sp. instead, the following expressions were used: “You were” (except for ησθα, as in Zlat., also εγένου), - “You will be” (σύ εση) or incorrect sayings (συ εσθαι, σα οισθα), representing probably a distortion ησθα. In view of this in ours: “wake up” or “are you,” shouldn’t we see a peculiar Slavic deviation from the letter of the Greek text, which appeared under the influence of the idea that the Lord not only “was,” but is also a constant protector of the poor and that one must turn to Him for help, as a result of which “was” was replaced by the word “wake,” as is read in the current Slav. Psalms? It is fair therefore Fr. Amphilochius in the Comparative Ps. left this “wudi” unchanged, although it does not correspond to the letter Heb. text in which the verb “to be” is used here in the past. time. If this assumption about a special internal impulse to change “was” to “wake up” is not without foundation, then this Slavic reading cannot, of course, serve as evidence that the Slavs. the translators had a text of the Psalter that was different from the one used by Chrysostom. There is, however, other, clearer evidence of such a difference. So in Ps.9:36, Zlat. (p. 131) reads: “his sin will be exacted and will not be found through it” (δι αυτήν, i.e. άμαρτίαν - “sin”), according to sp. Vatik., Alex., partly – Verona Ps. 56 and No. 55. In Simon. Ps. 57 words: “through him” is not readable, according to Sinaisk. sp. 58, Theodore. Ps. and ev. t. An even more remarkable dissimilarity between the ancient glories. Ps. with reading from Zlat. found in Ps.43:13. Here (p. 177) Zlat. reads: “and there is not a multitude in the exchange of 59 us” (εν τοῖς αλλάγμασιν ημῶν), according to the 5th book. IX-XIII centuries. 60 regarding the word αλλάγμασιν and with most lists regarding ημῶν - “us”, as well as in Heb. 61. Meanwhile in Simon. Ps. it reads: “and there is no multitude in our exclamations”; in the Chudovskaya Psalm, (11th century), the oldest Slavic Psalm, it also says: “in an exclamation,” according to the book. Sinaisk., Alex., Feodor. Ps. and most Greek sp., in which it reads: εν τοῖς αλαάγμασιν αυτῶν - “in their exclamations.” And in this place of the Psalter, despite the disagreement of the majority of the Greeks. lists with reading from Chrysostom, the latter is very important, as attested by this Father of the Church and in agreement with the Jewish. text. At the same time, it deserves mention that Rev. Porphyry, in his translation of the Psalms, makes a remarkable attempt to harmonize the reading of most Greek. reading lists Zlat. and – Heb. text; he translates this passage like this. image: “and there was no increase in calling us (at the auction).” Other examples of the dissimilarity between ancient glories. Ps. with the text Zlat. represent readings in Ps.9:37, where (p. 132) in Zlat. “The Lord will reign,” according to Simon. Ps.: “The Lord is king.” Ps.112:4, where Zlat. (p. 315): “and the Lord God is righteous,” and in Simon. only: “truthful.” c) Less similarity is noticed between the text of Zlat. and Theodorite Greek. The Psalter, as can be seen in part from some of the above examples. Another confirmation of this is: Ps.7:12, where Zlat. (p. 78): “God is a judge, righteous, and strong, and slow to anger, and do not bring wrath on every day,” according to most Greek. sp., and in Theodore. Ps. the words: “long-suffering day” cannot be read; they are borrowed from. Amphilohiem, in his words, “from the Greek Psalter of the 10th-11th centuries. No. 356 of the Synodal Library." Ps.9:23, where Zlat. (p. 126): “they get bogged down in the Soviets,” and in Theodore. Ps.: “gets bogged down,” according to few lists. Ps.11:8, where Zlat. (p. 142): “You, Lord, will preserve us and keep us,” according to Vatik., Alex, and other sp., and in – Theodore: “would preserve... would observe” according to many. other sp. Ps.109:26, where Zlat. (p. 280): “help me, O Lord my God,” according to Vatik. and other sp., and in – Theodore. the words “Oh my God” are not readable. d) the readings of Chrysostom have even less similarity with the ancient Vatican list. This is evident in part from some of the above examples, and may be confirmed in a considerable number of other places. So, in Ps.9u Zlat. (p. 130): “Rise up, Lord my God” according to. about Sinaisk., Alex., Veron., Theodore. and many more other sp., and in Vatik., according to Heb. i.e., “my” is missing. In Ps.9u Zlat. (p. 131): “betray him” 62 (τοῦ παραδῦναι αυτόν) according to Sinaisk., Theodore. and many more other Greek and Slavs. sp., and in Vatik: “betray them.” In Ps.43, Zlat. (p. 174) 8th art. reads as in Sinaisk., Alex, and other Greek. sp., and in Vatik. absent. In Ps.43:14, in Zlat. (p. 177): “thou hast laid reproach upon us” (κλευασμομον), according to Sinaisk., Alex., Theodore. and other Greek and glory sp., and in Vatican: “mockery” (καταγέλωτα). In Ps.44u Zlat. (p. 203): “and will desire”, according to Sinaisk., Alex, and other Greek. and slav.: (“to desire”, “to desire”) sp., and in Vatik.: “desired.” Art. 18 at Zlat. (p. 207): “I will remember Your name,” according to from Sinaisk., Veron., Theodore. and many more other Greek and slav, sp., and in Vatik: “remembered.” In Ps.45, in Zlat. (p. 211): “give your voice from the Most High,” according to Sinaisk. (word: “Highest” of a later hand), Alex. Veron. and many more other Greek and slav, sp., and in Vatik. the word: “Highest” is not readable. In Ps.59:14, in Zlat. (p. 246): “they are pleased in their mouths” (ευδοκήσουσιν), according to Sinaisk., Alex., Veron., Theodore. and many more other Greek and glory (“deign”) sp., and in Vatik. "to bless" (εύλογησουσιν). And the number of such examples could be significantly increased. The comparison of the psalter readings of Chrysostom with the readings of other copies convinces that the text of the Greek Psalter, which was with the saint, really has some characteristic features that deserve attention, and that the news of Blessed Jerome about the use of different types of Greek text of the Old Testament books in various Eastern Churches is completely correct regarding the Psalter. This comparison further shows that the ancient Slavic translators chose the text of the translation of the 70s, which was used in Antioch and Constantinople, as a result of which the readings of the Old Slavic. The Psalms are most similar to the text of Chrysostom, although the loyalty of the first to the second is not maintained everywhere, as can be seen from the second category of the above examples (under the letter b); the successors of the first Slavic translators deviated even more from the original source of the Slavic translation under the influence of other Greek copies, as shown by the changes in the translation of the 10th AD. 7th Psalm according to various lists of the Old Slavic Psalter. From this comparison it is also clear that among the most ancient Greek lists, the Sinai and Alexandrian lists are more similar to the Psalter of Chrysostom than the ancient Vatican copy, but this similarity is far from complete, from which it is natural to conclude that the list closest to the text of the Psalter of Chrysostom must be sought among other, later in origin, lists, familiarity with which is currently still insignificant and is drawn mainly from the publication Golmes-Parsons. Some of these later lists, which bear a remarkable resemblance to the readings of Chrysostom, have already been indicated (see note on pp. 970 and 973). In confirmation of this, we cite another reading of Chrysostom, which was preserved only in three copies of the translation of the 70. According to the text by Zlat. Ps.9 says: (καὶ ο αδικῶν ευλογεῖται) “and he who offends will bless.” The expression: (ευλογεῖται) “let us bless there” is found only in sp. No. 21, 39 and 210, from the Fathers of the Church - from Blessed Theodoret 63; in all other sp. instead it reads: “and offend” (ενευλογεῖται) “we please eat.” – When the readings of these later lists become better known, then the similarity of the psalter and other biblical readings of Chrysostom with some of these lists will, no doubt, be revealed with complete clarity. At the present time, we have to be content with recognizing the general similarity between the Old Slavic Psalter and the text of Chrysostom with the ensuing consequence that the primary source for the original Slavic. The translation of the Psalter was a list close to the psalter text of Chrysostom 64. The highest significance of Chrysostom’s conversations on the psalms lies, as has already been said, in the fact that in them the great saint of Christ’s Church not only indicated, but also traversed that undoubtedly very difficult, “narrow” path of interpretation of the Psalms, which consists in sharing both the text of the translation of the 70 and other translations together with the Hebrew text. In our conviction, this is the only true path, which, with God’s help, under the guidance of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, can lead to the establishment of the clearest possible, alien to differences, Slavic or Russian translation of the sacred books of the Old Testament, which we have such an urgent need for. Creations attributed to St. John Chrysostom and in the Patrology of Min, classified as Spuria The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Note to the online edition: in addition to the discussion about translations, we will add that in our edition we used the text of the translation of the psalms by Prof. Yungerov, which was sometimes replaced by our translation, consistent with the interpretation of Chrysostom. In translations of quotations from the New Testament, the synodal text was used (with rare exceptions), and in translations from the Old Testament it was often necessary to use an independent translation from Greek, consistent with the interpretation of Chrysostom and the Slavic Elizabethan translation. – I.N. There are currently 58 known interpretive conversations of Chrysostom on the psalms, which undoubtedly belong to him; to them in this edition, in accordance with the Patrology of Min, two more conversations are added: on Psalms 3 and 41, which are somewhat different from other conversations, namely, in that they present an explanation not of the entire content of these psalms, like conversations on other psalms, but only the initial verses, why some of the publishers of Chrysostom’s works were classified as conversations on various places of St. Scriptures. The conversation on Psalm 8 also arouses bewilderment due to some of the expressions used in it, which are not found in other works of the saint. These perplexities, however, are not so strong that one can confidently attribute this conversation to his inauthentic creations; at least, Western publishers who know these perplexities, such as: Fronton Dutsey and Min, conversation on 3rd Ps. placed among the authentic conversations of Chrysostom on the psalms. The conversation on Ps. 41, regarding its authenticity, does not raise any doubts. Thus, all of Chrysostom’s conversations on Psalms 60; There are not enough interpretations for 90 psalms. – That Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Psalter was not limited to the 60 psalms, but extended to others, this is clearly seen from the conversation on the 140th psalm, where the saint, explaining to the listeners the importance of this psalm as read during the evening service, also touches on the morning psalm (62), which is similar in content, and then, recalling the initial words of the latter, says: “But so that we, leaving what is at hand, and not engage with outsiders, we refer the listener to what is said about this psalm” (p. 477). The interpretation of the 62nd Psalm has not been preserved, but from the words given it is clear that this interpretation of Chrysostom existed, as, consequently, there were interpretations of other psalms. Patriarch Photius ranked Chrysostom's conversations on the psalms above his interpretations of the Acts of the Apostles in terms of elegance of speech, abundance of examples, conclusions and sublimity of presentation; The lack of explanation or deepening into the text of the psalms, noticed in places, was explained by the saint’s adaptation to the listeners and his primary concern for their benefit and salvation. Svida, for his part, considered conversations on the psalms to be among the saint’s most excellent creations, on a par with his book on the priesthood. According to the publishers of Min's patrolology, Chrysostom, in conversations on psalms, outlined the entirety of Christian virtues and exposed all vices. Migne Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T.LV. Praefatio, p.15–16. Αλλαχοῦ δέ δεῖ καί τό κείμενον δέχεσθαι καὶ τὸ έξ αυτοῦ δηλούμενον, what in Russian. translation corresponds to the words: “and in other places it is necessary to accept both the words themselves and the implied other meaning expressed by them.” The saint’s thought here is that in other places of Scripture it is necessary to combine the higher, figurative meaning with the literal meaning. “The Psalter in the new Slavic translation of Ambrose, Archbishop of Moscow. Published by the editorial office of "Orthodox Review". 1878, p. 22. In ancient times, the Slavic text of the Psalter was subjected to multiple corrections, as can be seen from the unequal readings in the different time copies of the ancient Slavic Psalter, given in the major work of Archimandrite. Amphilochia: “The Ancient Slavic Psalter of Simonov before 1280.” T. I-IV. Second edition. 1880–1881 Here is the true title of this work, which makes up the 4th volume of the “Ancient Slavic Psalter”: “The Ancient Slavic Psalter of Simonov before 1280, collated from Church Slavonic and Russian translations with Greek and Hebrew texts, with notes. Archimandrite's work. Amphilochia." T. IV. 1881 Because these three experiments exhaust the main ways to achieve the most accurate and clear text of the Psalter, as well as other sacred books of the Old Testament in Slavic or Russian, we do not consider it necessary here to touch upon other translations of the Psalter, about which readers will find information in op. priest N.P. Vishnyakova: “On the origin of the Psalter”, p. 11 et al. or in interpretations of the Old Curtain (published by St. Petersburg Academy). Vol. 3, p. 67 et al. this translation is due to Aquila and Symmachus, according to Field. Origens Hexapla. t. II, f. 1. p. 288, and not “unknown”, as the saying goes. on page 423 Citing the words of these translations, Chrysostom nowhere calls their authors by name, denoting them only with the words: “different, different.” A comparison of the sayings cited by Chrysostom from other translations with those collected by Origen in his work, generally known as “Hexaplus,” shows that the saint most often used the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in his conversations on the psalms, then two unknown translators by name - the 5th and 6th, as the latter are called according to the place they occupied in Origen’s work. Based on this comparison of the readings from other translations with the readings known from the Hexapla, the names of the translators or the unknownness of their names are indicated in the footnotes of this edition. This designation, however, does not entirely correspond to the current state of knowledge regarding this subject. The notes are reprinted from the previous edition of Chrysostom's conversations on the psalms in the Russian translation, which meant the edition of the Hexaples made by Montfaucon Migne Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T.LV. Praefatio, p. 17–18. Here are the words of Chrysostom in an interlinear translation: “For this is what the Hebrew (of course the text) showed in the word that we offered for you (or - for you υμῶν χάριν) when reading the words.” Migne Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T.LV. Praefatio, p. 17–18. A similar statement is made in op. priest N. Vishnyakova “On the origin of the Psalter”, page 6: “St. Chrysostom, in his conversations on the psalms, although he often gives various translations..., but, not knowing the Hebrew language sufficiently, uses them to understand the text without any critical evaluation, leaving his listeners themselves to judge.” For example on the page for the translation of 70 and other translations. Ps. 21: and “you will see” - but take away. Ps. 41: “And I will look” - and I will see. Ps. 73: “in righteousness” _ according to righteousness. Ps. - may “the malice of sinners come to an end” - may bitterness be filled with the wicked. Ps.77: “Test the hearts and bellies” - Tester of hearts and bellies. Ps. 80: “He will cleanse his weapon, he will sharpen his sword; “burnable” – for burning. Ps. 83: “a disease is conceived” – and having conceived; “And give birth to iniquity” - and lies. Ps.91: “How wonderful” - how great. Ps. 93: For “thy splendor will be taken away” _ You who laid down praise. And there are a lot of sayings from other translations similar to those given here in conversations on the psalms on the subsequent pages of this edition. Τινὲς δέ , says Zlat. εκθροῖς αυτου, which literally means: “some understand something else, that he promised to punish his enemies”; here, when promised, one must mean, in the meaning of the subject, “God”, and not “prophet”, as it is said in Russian. translation on page 72, the pronoun “him” refers to the Psalmist, and not to God (“His” in the printed translation). The prophet’s promise to “resist the enemies of God,” as Zlat’s words are conveyed. in Russian translation is incomprehensible. And not Symmachus and not an unknown translator, as stated in 3 notes. on page 93; Symmachus translated συνεστήοω κράτσς, and not – ίσχύν, as Zlat reads. The typed: “will visit” has a typo. Or closer in the words of Zlata: “The coming of Christ was not only not alien to mercy, but also took place out of great love for mankind.” This translation belongs to Aquila and Symmachus, and not to an “unknown translator”, like the tale. at 3 approx. on 127 pages This translation is due to Symmachus, not Aquila. In Russian The translation of these words reads: “and you did not turn aside...”. according to the Patrology of Min (καὶ ουκ εζεκλινας...); but the particle ουκ “not” was added here erroneously, as can be seen from what follows, where the saint gives the reading of this passage according to the translation. 70, this particle is not readable (see page 179); Likewise, it is not found in these words and according to the ancient Greek lists; Parsons (see Works of Gold. vol. 4, pp. VIII and 880) lists only three Greek. lists in which ουκ is read here. In total, in the conversations on the psalms, according to our count, more than 30 Hebrew individual words or expressions (including one Syrian, according to Zlat.) are given. countries: 71; 72; 83; 103; 115; 124; 138; 142; 143; 175; 177; 179; 183; 197; 211; 213; 223; 226; 227; 228; 231; 233; 234; 236 (Sirsk); 364; 391.538.557. Migne. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca. T.LV. Praefatio, p. 17–18. Franz Dtlitsch. Biblischer Commentur uber die Psalmen. 1883. S. 356. Chrysostom gives his explanation of the Hebrew words only, as far as we could notice, in two places, namely: on page 142, where the expression: “Baalil laares” is explained with the words: “that is, molten, flowing in the earth,” and on 197, where the translation of the divine name is made: “Eloim Eloah” with the words: “God, your God.” Regarding the expression on page 78; “in Hebrew: throughout life,” which in Min’s edition, as well as in the present Russian translation, is attributed to Chrysostom, then it, in the form it is read, does not belong, one must think, to the saint, but appeared in the text of his works later on. In Chrysostom, in all likelihood, the word “zooni” was originally read here instead of the words: (κατὰ πᾶσαν ζωήν) “for all life,” as indeed it is read in this place of the psalm according to some Greek copies (Field. Orgenis Hexapla. T. II, fasc. 1, p. 95). This “zooni”, corresponding to the Hebrew word “zoem” - “angry” read here, was probably taken by the copyist for the Greek word: “zoin” - “life” and, believing that “zoin” corresponds to the Hebrew word meaning “day” (in Hebrew). after “zoem” it reads “bekol iom - “for every day”), added πᾶσαν - “all”, thus the above expression appeared in Chrysostom’s conversation. What encourages us to recognize the words: “for all our life” as not belonging to Chrysostom himself is that the saint in other places in these conversations always cites Hebrew words, and not their translation. In view of this, we cannot agree with the point of the footnote in the Patrology of Min to this place that “Chrysostom or some copyist thought that zooni is the Greek zoe.” The possibility of the first of these assumptions about the confusion of the Hebrew word with the Greek on the part of Chrysostom himself is completely incredible because, by the way, in all other places in his conversations on the psalms the saint cites Hebrew words, and not the Greek translation of them. Based on this, in this place, instead of the printed words: “in Hebrew: throughout life,” you need to read: “in Hebrew: zooni.” – Then the translations into Russian of the Hebrew words cited by Chrysostom found in this edition of the talks on the psalms do not actually belong to him, but to the Russian translator, who sought to help readers through this in understanding these words, although it would be better to do this in footnotes, and not to introduce into the text the works of the saint as not belonging to him. Compared with the Greek text of the discourses on the psalms, the translations of the Hebrew words do not belong to Chrysostom, and at the same time some of them are incorrect, as a result. pages: 71 (at the ends to the word: wevarof); 72 (about “that” by the word: ualea); – 103 (“you humiliated him a little before God” before the words: ufasriu mat mi eloim); – 116 (“with him” before em); 210 (“streams” before the felagav), – 225 (- “Mount Zion, in the northern country” before ar Zion yerkhfi safun); 228 (“in your church they confessed” before ihalah demminu); – 231 (“in the universe” before old); – 233 (“will pronounce” before uagif); – 234 (“to the parable” before lamasal); – 236 (“disasters” before ra; “the malice of my persecutors surrounds me” before aon akuvvi isuvvuni); – 391 (“like those who dream in a dream” before haolemim). Thus, on page 103, the Hebrew words: ufasriu mat mi eloim, read now: vattehasseregu meat meelogim and meaning (in interlinear translation): “You made him a little less than God,” are given after two other, very similar translations, conveying the name: “Elohim” with the word: “God”, and not “angels”, as in the 70. Also on page 115, where the saying: arvof (haravot), meaning: “deserts, destruction, ruins,” is prefaced by Chrysostom with another translation: “ruins” instead of “weapons,” as in the 70s; in the same countries, the word: “em” (gemma, which means; “they” or “with them”, if we identify this word with “megemma”) is preceded by another translation: “with them”; further, in the same country, the word “yisiv” (yeshev, which means: “will sit”) is also preceded by another translation that is quite consistent with this: “will sit.” The same must be said regarding the words: “Yeggaon sat down” on page 124, – “asseminif” on 138, “wafet asurenu” on 179 and some. etc. The translation of this word on page 233 of this edition in the meaning: “will pronounce” is not correct. In the Patrology of Min, a remark was made to this place of Chrysostom’s conversations that in some copies it is read here μινυρίσει, in others – μηνύσει. The first reading is given priority. Here Chrysostom abbreviates the text of the psalm, reading only the last and first words of the 10th art. Psalm 47 and omitting the words between them, “O God, thy mercy is in the midst,” as such, in the rendering of which there is no difference in translation. Field. Orgenis Hexapla to decree. verse of the psalm. For example when explaining Art. 27. Psalm 117 (page 364). We say this, keeping in mind the difficulty of properly explaining the purpose of the saint’s unfounded references to the Hebrew text in each individual place. Proof that these conversations were not intended for home reading only, but were delivered in church, are both the conclusions of the interpretations of individual psalms, characteristic of church sermons (see, for example, 36, 48 and many other pages), and many expressions in the interpretation itself, with which the saint could only address listeners, and not readers. For example: “Listen carefully”... (pp. 59–60). “Listen, you who are lazy to give alms” (p. 167). “Recently, when I talked with you about Melchizedek, you were surprised at the length of my speech, and I was surprised at your diligence in listening and prudence”... (pp. 150–151). See similar appeals on pages 258, 280, 453, 477, etc. The rapprochement of Christians with Jews in Antioch was so significant that some of the Christians visited Jewish synagogues and participated in Jewish holidays, for which Chrysostom denounced them in conversations against the Jews (Works of Chrysostom, vol. I, p. 636 et seq.). “These Christians, when visiting synagogues, says the Patrology of Min (T. LV. Praf. p. 13–14), undoubtedly listened to Jews speaking Hebrew and probably understood this language.” And if the listeners of the conversations on psalms understood the Hebrew language, if “some of them even wanted to hear Jewish sayings,” as the publishers of these conversations put it (Min’s Patrology ibid.), then this naturally leads to the conclusion that Chrysostom himself, as a native and long-time resident of Antioch, knew more or less this language, although not perfectly, which is why, when explaining Hebrew words, he spoke not on his own behalf, but on behalf of those “who knew well” this language (Works of Chrysostom, vol. 4, p. 898, note 68). With Chrysostom’s complete unfamiliarity with the Hebrews. a language that is little understood, of course, is how the saint could read before his listeners not only individual words, but also entire expressions of the Hebrew text, without himself understanding their meaning. What is not clear with this presentation is the way he speaks in ps. The 44th could safely utter these words: “I wish that all Jews and Gentiles were here now; in their presence, having taken the book of psalms from the Jews, I would read this psalm” (p. 183). If, on the contrary, we admit that Chrysostom was familiar with the Hebrew language and could read Hebrew, then the indicated phenomena become completely understandable; At the same time, the previously noticed phenomenon (see ibid.) also finds an explanation, that in conversations in the book. Genesis there are such translations of the text of this sacred. books that do not fully correspond to the hitherto known Greek copies, while at the same time representing a close rendering of the words of the Hebrew text. Based on all this, it turns out to be more plausible that Chrysostom knew the Hebrew language, although not enough to consider himself an expert in it and always correctly explain his own Hebrew names. The explanation of ancient names is, as we know, extremely difficult even today, which is why their explanations among different Hebraists are so different. See, for example, the expression of such a view in the letters of Bishop Theophan, published in St. Petersburg. Spiritual Bulletin" 1898 No. 35, 36. See errata on page 381. This is how these words were read in the ancient Slavic Psalter. See in the “Ancient Slavic Psalter” archim. Amphilochia, vol. II, p. 411. “Our soul is especially filled with the reproach of the goblins and the humiliation of the proud.” Other interpretations are in accordance with the translation. 70 see page 78; 80–81; 115; 136; 138–139; 143 (to article 8 of Ps. 11); 195–196. This is how Filde corrects (in Orgenis Hexapla) the outline of this word, printed in Min in the form: πεποίθετε. See the above-mentioned “Interpretation of the Psalter” by St. N. Vishnyakova. Vol. I, p. 116. However, in the Comparative Psalter, Archimandrite. Amphilochius translated this passage: “Order Thy path before me,” according to the Hebrew. text. In the Comparative Psalter it is actually translated: “ruin” instead of “weapon”. Field. Orgenis Hexapla. T. II, fasc. 1, p. 95. The Sinai Psalter, which is in the Sinai copy of the Bible, is for some reason attributed to Fr. Amphilochia in the VI-VII centuries. Other modern biblical scholars usually date this list to the 4th century. The instructions for readings according to the atomic list from Father Amphilochius do not differ, it must be said, in general in accuracy compared to the Cambridge edition, the accuracy of which is not questioned. Verona Psalter of the 6th century, Greco-Latin; The Greek text is written in Latin letters and has a Latin translation. Greek numbers The lists with which the reading of Zlat. is consistent here are as follows: Golmes-Parsons: 141 (XIV century); 152 (X century) 167 (unknown century); 185 (XI century); 211 (13th century); 226 (c. XI century) 278 (XII-XIII century) and 283 (c. XII century). See “Drevleslav. Archimandrite Psalter. Amphilochia, vol. I, p. 88. Turicense (Turicense Psalterium) the so-called “purple” Psalm, 7th century, written in silver, gold and cinnabar and uncial letters; her readings are similar to those of Aleksandr, and partly to Sinaisk. lists (The Old Testament in Greek. Vol. II, p. 10). To Veron. Ps. reads properly: δι αυτόν; but this probably amounts to a typo instead of δι αυτήν. Is “through him” read in other sp. ancient glory Ps., not specified, unfortunately, Fr. Amphilohiem. What was said in “Drevle-Slav. Ps." (Vol. I, p. 51) that “in Sinaisk. Bib. after ευρεθῆ added: δι αυτὴν, inaccurate; in the Cambridge edition of the Greek. The text is shown opposite that in Sinaisk. sp. the words are omitted: δι αυτὴν - “through him.” In Russian translation. (p. 177) the saying: εν τοῖς αλλάγμασιν is conveyed in the words of the Slavic Ps.: “in exclamations.” But this Slavic translation constitutes a transmission of another of the indicated readings: εν τοῖς αλαλαγμασιν. And λάλαγμα means: “exclamation”, and αλλάγμα means “exchange, sale, trade deal”. Of these Greek words, only the second serves as a close rendering of the corresponding Hebrew. expression (“bimhireigem”), meaning literally: “at their price.” When translating the saying: αλλάγμα with the word “exclamation,” Zlat’s explanation of this place becomes completely incomprehensible. According to ed. Golmes-Parsons, εν τοῖς αλλάγμασιν, read in book: No. 21 (XIII-XIV centuries); 39 (St. Dorothea, 9th century); 173 (century unknown); 175 (c. XI century) and 292 (XI century). Corresponding words of Heb. the text means: “and You have not raised their prices.” Bearing in mind the meaning expressed by the Hebrew text and the Greek word: αλλαγμκ, the saint says: ΄ Ν γαρ τιμὴ αλλαγμά εστι, for “the price (in the Russian translation on page 177: sale) is an exchange.” In Russian In translation, these words are conveyed by the words of the Slavic Ps., as having the same meaning: “let him be betrayed.” About the time of origin of sp. No. 21 and 39 are stated in the note. 5 on page 973, list No. 210 dates back to the 13th-14th centuries. according to the publication "Holmes-Parsons". Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectionibus. t. IV. Praefatio ad librtm Psalmorum. Regarding the primary source for the ancient Slavic Psalm and the domestic researcher of the ancient Slavic text of the Bible I. E. Evseev in the report of the Academy of Sciences (published in the “Izvestia of the Emperor. Academy of Sciences. 1898, vol. VIII, No. 6, pp. 329–344) a different opinion was expressed. In general, it consists in the fact that the Lukian or - which is the same - the Zlatoust text of Ps-i corresponds to the Simonovskaya Ps-i, while the oldest - Chudovskaya serves as a transmission of the Psychic text. In support of this, five passages of Psalm 70 are cited (for which Chrysostom’s interpretation has not survived). The essence of the proof is that the readings of the Simonovskaya Psalm are more extensive than those of the Chudovskaya Psalm. So in the 4th Art. this dog after the words: “My God” is read in Simon. Ps-i: “from the hands of a sinner,” but in the Chudovskaya Ps-i these words are not present; in the 13th Art. in the first - after the words: “let them be ashamed and destroyed” it reads: “all”, which is absent again in the second, etc. In the greater completeness of the text of the Simonovskaya Ps-i, the author sees a distinctive feature of the Lukian review, in the brevity of the readings of the Chudovskaya Ps-i - a sign of the Psychic review. – Such a conclusion, however, seems to be sufficiently unfounded, because the indicated differences in the text of both Psalms did not depend, as one might think, on Greek translators or correctors of the Greek text. So in the 4th Art. unnecessary in Simov. Ps-and compared to Chudovskaya, the words actually belong not to the Greek translator, but to the main biblical text; in the Hebrew text they are read, as well as in all, as far as is known, Greek copies; and if the author cites the Greek reading without the specified words, then at least we remain completely unknown to the source from which this reading was borrowed. And if the words: “from the hand of a sinner” belong to the main biblical text, then from their location in Simonov. Ps-and it is fair to draw a conclusion only about its fidelity to the original and nothing else, and from their absence in Chudovskaya - about the incompleteness of the Slavic translation in the latter. That is equal to that in the 13th Art. read in Simon. Ps-and “all”, but in Chudovskaya this word is missing, it does not give reason to think about special Greek. texts for both, because between the Greek lists there are no known ones in which it would be read here (πᾶντες) “all”; this “all” (not readable in the current Slavic Bible) therefore belongs to one or more of the lists of the ancient Slavic Ps-i, and not to a special Greek. text, why the presence or absence of this word in the lists of the ancient Slavic Ps-i cannot, understandably, serve as a basis for the assumption of differences in the Greek text or editions - Lukian and Psyche, which supposedly served as a source for the lists of the Slavic Ps-i. The same needs to be said about the other three examples given by the author. You might be interested in: