Saint Theophan, the recluse of Vyshensky, on the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian

The article examines the views of the famous spiritual writer and theologian of the 19th century, St. Theophan, the Recluse of Vyshensky (1815–1894), on the problems of translating the Holy Scripture into Russian (1875) from the Masoretic text, and analyzes his publications in the journals “Soulful Reading”, “Home Conversation”, “Church Messenger”. The views of the saint, reflected in the articles, are an important page in the history of Russian biblical studies. In 1858, after the approval of Emperor Alexander II, under the leadership of the Holy Synod, work began on translating and printing the Russian translation of the books of the Holy Scriptures. It was decided to carefully prepare a new translation of all the books of the Old Testament. The translation of the Old Testament was carried out from the Masoretic text of the Bible, and the New Testament from Greek. The translators were also guided by the Greek text of the Septuagint, and used the Vulgate - the Latin translation of Jerome and the previously made Russian translation. In 1862, a translation of the New Testament into Russian was published, and in 1875 the Bible was published in Russian. The famous spiritual writer and theologian of the 19th century, St. Theophan the Recluse, noted: “That times are difficult for Orthodoxy is like two and two. The Church of God did not know any other word of God than the LXX sense, and when it said that Scripture was inspired by God, it meant Scripture in this translation. All rumors contrary to this are heretical” [7, p. 55]. In the summer of 1875, in a letter to Nikolai Vasilyevich Elagin (1817–1891), a spiritual writer and official of special assignments at the Main Directorate of Censorship, the saint pointed out the “discord” in society that would cause a new translation as incompatible with church tradition. “We have a translation of the Hebrew Bible and it is given to the faithful by the current ecclesiastical authority, in addition to the word of God that is in the Church. This last cannot be avoided without condemning it. If it is not genuine, it means that the Church has hitherto not fed us with the true word—bread and chaff. Through this, the reproach of the Bible LXX interpreters will fall on the church. The translators spat on this Bible, and splashes of spit fall on the face of the Church. This is a dishonorable thing! “The Orthodox will begin to read, and they will see one thing in the Russian Bible, another in the Church. What from here?! You cannot expect every good thing” [7, p. 61–62]. "Dispute", i.e. expressing any dissatisfaction or complaints, the saint advises not to start on this issue, because “discord may flare up such that it cannot be extinguished” [7, p. 62]. In the letter, the saint developed a whole program of actions, or rather counteractions, to disseminate the new translation. 1) Prepare an interpretation of the Slavic Bible according to the LXX text: “There is one condition - to interpret according to the LXX interpreters, i.e. the word of God, which is in the Church." 2) Make this publication mass: “interpret as simply and easily as possible for general understanding” [7, p. 64]. The saint even had the idea of ​​preparing his own translation of the Bible from Greek “with comments to justify the Greek text and condemn the Hebrew” [7, p. 81]. It is known that the saint himself prepared interpretations of Psalms 1, 2, 33, 51, 118. 3) Publish this interpretation in mass circulation: “Prepare an interpretation of the entire Slavic, or even teaching and prophetic books and publish it cheaper, so that it sells more widely. That’s the opposition.” To reduce the cost of the publication, “work either for nothing, or for an insignificant reward that is given upon sale.” 4) Involve other researchers and exegetes in this matter: “It takes 100 years for one to explain everything. Society needs it. I will take the Psalms, proverbs; another Prophet, and so on, and in one year we will prepare everything.” “Ten people are interpreters and that’s enough. Well, five. No, we need ten, and even more, to quickly interpret and publish.” 5) The organizer, or in the words of the saint, “the busybody and the producer of the whole business” - N.V. Elagin [7, p. 62–63]. Thus, according to the saint, “it turns out that, despite the existence of the Bible translated from Hebrew, everyone will know, understand and read it according to the LXX, because of this interpretation. For the translation from the Hebrew is also unclear in many places. And it requires interpretation. If we quickly offer an interpretation according to the LXX, then no one will read that translation, and everyone will rush to our interpretative Bible. In this way, the influence that the Bible in the Russian translation from the Hebrew may have will be prevented or suppressed” [7, p. 65]. Among the letters to N.V. An extensive note by the saint, “Responses to the opinions of the Right Reverend Agafangel (Soloviev), published in the VII edition of letters [7, p. 67–68], in defense of the translation of the LXX, which later became the basis for several articles. Saint Theophan outlined his opinion on the new translation of the Bible in 5 articles (2 of them were reprinted with different titles), published in 1875–1876. in the magazines “Soulful Reading”, “Home Conversation”, “Church Bulletin”: 1) “Concerning the publication of the Holy Books of the Old Testament in Russian translation” [13] (“Pravo-slovo about the publication of the Holy Books of the Old Testament in Russian translation”) [14, 15]; 2) “Which text of the Old Testament scriptures should we adhere to?” [9]; 3) “Resolving the issue of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of church practice” [16, 17]; 4) “The Bible according to the translation of seventy interpreters is our legitimate Bible” [8], with minor editorial changes: “On our duty to adhere to the translation of LXX interpreters” [10, 11]; 5) “On the use of a new translation of the Old Testament writings” [12], which was also published as a separate edition. Let us summarize the saint’s main views on the new translation, expressed by him in various articles. Relation to the Septuagint text Thanks to the literal method of translation, the LXX translation is “the most accurate, the truest representation of the authentic prophetic writings; what was there is also here, they replace themselves mutually. Anyone who accepts these writings in the LXX translation does not lose anything compared to someone who would have accepted them in the text from which the translation was made” [13, p. 344]. “Displeasure” towards this translation arose when “the Jews experienced strong convictions from Christians for their unbelief and stubbornness, borrowed from the prophetic writings,” then “to console themselves they came up with a twist: it cannot be that the prophets spoke like that; The Greek translation does not express prophetic thoughts; in the original, it’s true, it doesn’t read that way...” [13, p. 345]. Saint Philaret considers the LXX translation a “mirror of the Jewish text” as it was more than 200 years before the birth of Christ: “The text of the LXX interpreters is the oldest translation of the Jewish holy 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 holy books incorrect translation. Consequently, in it one can see a mirror of the Hebrew text as it was 200 or more years before the birth of Christ” [18, p. 2]. Saint Theophan does not reject the translation from the Hebrew test, but only points out the need for its correct use: “The Hebrew text is in a subordinate relationship to the LXX text. The latter dominates, and the latter serves. The matter of understanding Holy Scripture should be guided by the LXX text” [10, p. 5]. Relation to the Masoretic Text By the time of the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Hebrew text was damaged. As reasons, Saint Theophan names: “scribes who replaced some letters from those that were similar to each other with others, due to different readings of words; which was caused by the absence of vowels, the insertion of which, out of insight, changed the meaning of speeches and sentences. There is no need to suspect any malicious intent in this: everything was going according to the usual course of human affairs” [13, p. 346]. It was due to the change in the text that each translation from the Hebrew text was different from each other - “each read and understood the Hebrew Bible differently than the other, and each and every one of them read and understood it differently than how it was read and understood at the time it was translated by LXX interpreters” [13, p. 346]. According to the saint, “a lot of human things have been introduced into the current Jewish text, either accidentally squeezed into it, or resulting from the considerations of the persons who established its reading. He was doomed to such a fate by God’s permission, as if to punish the Jews for despising the will of God, revealed to them in the scriptures given to them in their language” [13, p. 349], nevertheless, this text contains “Old Testament truth” [13, p. 350], therefore the Fathers of the Church also turned to the Hebrew translation, trying to more fully interpret some biblical passages. The Psalter remains in the LXX translation among Western Christians to this day, and the “Vulgate,” in the saint’s words, “was squeezed” into the Church at a time when in the West there was “a loss of sound principles regarding the governance of the Church and a weakening of consciousness and sense of Orthodox truth did not allow the West to notice the illegality of the invasion of a Bible other than the LXX” [16, p. 3]. Moreover, the “Vulgate” “was not accepted at first, and then, having been accepted, together with the church that accepted it, it moved to a distant country” [16, p. 3]. Blessed Jerome at first intended to correct the Latin translation of Itala, but then “changed his intention and took on a new translation from the Hebrew. He was led astray by his teachers - the Jews, who conveyed to him their dislike for the translation of the LXX" [16, p. 2]. Saint Theophan draws attention to another important fact - the appeal to the Jewish text ends in the 4th century, thus, for more than 15 centuries, the Hebrew Bible turned out to be completely unknown to the sons of the Church - “St. The Church did not know and did not want to know the Hebrew Bible” [16, p. 3]. To the reproaches that the Church did not assert the superiority of the LXX and did not prohibit the use of the Hebrew text, Saint Theophan replied that although the Church had not decided anything about the exclusive use of the LXX text. However, “she did not decide this verbally, but decided with deeds” [16, p. 4]. “To be sure, she did not definitely express her attitude towards the Hebrew Bible, because when some of her children used it, she did not say yes or no about this use: but from here one cannot derive a decisive permission for the bold use of the Hebrew Bible. The place was already occupied by the LXX Bible, and this denied permission to plant another Bible, the Hebrew one. Moreover, the Church was silent until the unworthiness of the Hebrew text was recognized, and when it was recognized, then the use of the text ceased; there was no need to create a special definition. This definition should take place in our time, and it seems to me that it has already taken place” [16, p. 5]. Thus, in the opinion of the saint, “the authority for us of the LXX text is based not on how it took place - although it is very pleasant to see a ray of light descending on it from above - but on the fact that it was always held in the hands of the saint. Church and sanctified by its constant use. This is the basis of his dignity, and the basis of the obligation for us to reverently honor him and especially hold on to him” [16, p. 5]. To confirm his thoughts, the saint cites extensive extracts from the article of St. Philaret (Drozdov) “On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy interpreters and the Slavic translations of the Holy Scriptures” (1858) [18], as well as from the study of Konstantinos Economos “On the translation of the LXX interpreters” (1844–1849), who considered the LXX translation to be a divinely inspired translation and cited 238 quotations that confirmed the unconditional superiority of the Septuagint. The saint provided the extracts with his own comments, once again firmly expressing his position - “the Hebrew text is damaged; despite its damage, the original text of the Old Testament Scriptures in the LXX translation remains; However, the Jewish text should not be completely abandoned; it can be turned to, when interpreting Scripture, as a guide for considerations” [10, p. 3]. Saint Theophan, following Saint Philaret, lists the rules in accordance with which the Hebrew text should be used. 1) “If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament according to the Greek text” 18, p. 17. 2) “The LXX text must be firmly adhered to until an important reason presents itself to come under the leadership of the Hebrew text.” 3) “If the Hebrew text shows signs of damage.” 4) “A special sign of a true reading in the LXX text can be a consideration that reveals that a Hebrew reading that does not agree with the Greek gives a false meaning.” 5) “If any passage of the Old Testament, read according to the LXX, the meaning is determined by the agreed interpretation of St. fathers, as prophesying about Christ; and the current Jewish text of this place represents a different reading, unfavorable 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 text.” 6) “If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament from the Hebrew text, obviously these infallible witnesses must be followed.” 7) “If anyone from St. fathers interpreted any place of the Old Testament according to the Jewish text: it is fair and safe to follow this guidance” [18, p. 17–19]. Compliance with these simple rules, according to St. Philaret, “puts up a protective barrier against any arbitrariness of interpretation and against the infection of so-called neology and rationalism. They protect against the one-sidedness of the latest foreign Christian beliefs, which, clinging exclusively to the Jewish text and not recognizing the leadership in the writings of St. fathers, betray the Old Testament text of the Bible to the unbridled self-will of criticism; from which damaged passages of the Jewish text are easily accepted as genuine, others are reinterpreted, especially the prophetic meaning is eclipsed, the dignity of the Old Testament books is humiliated, and a wide path is given to neology and rationalism” [18, p. 20]. Saint Theophan regarded the preference for the Hebrew text as an alarming sign, in his apt expression, “everyone has completely become dishonest and has become unprotestant” [6, p. 536], in which he saw Western influence. Relation to the Synodal edition of the Bible “The pure revealed word of God is contained in the Old Testament writings of the LXX translation. The Hebrew Bible, in what it agrees with that translation, confirms it and gains weight for itself; and where she disagrees (especially in dark places), in that it represents the closest guess to the understanding of the dark” [13, p. 350]. Thus, from here follows the attitude of Saint Theophan to the new translation of the Bible, made from the Masoretic text; this translation is not denied, but it is proposed to use its unique “aid to the understanding of the true word of God, the contents of St. Church" [18, p. 351], “St. The Synod, which is the faithful guardian of all the contents of the Church, could not give us a translation of the Old Testament Scriptures in the sense that this is the authentic word of God. We shouldn’t attach such importance to it either” [18, p. 351]. Again and again the saint emphasizes that the new Russian translation is “only a aid to understanding the word of God, and not the most authentic word of God” [10, p. 20]. As an alternative, he suggests translating from the Greek text, pointing to the works of Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), a famous Byzantine scholar and archaeologist who translated a number of Old Testament books from Greek. The advantage of such a translation is its rootedness in church tradition. The use of the new translation should be very moderate, it can be used when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, but it should be completely excluded in sermons, in simple conversation, which, in the opinion of the saint, “is not only inappropriate, but also sinful” 12, p. 3. The saint sees a particular danger in gradually getting used to a new text - “the danger is to completely lose the habit of the Church Bible and, as a result, create a need, and then the need to replace it with something else that is in many ways different from it, as happened in the Western Church with the Jerome Bible. This replacement is unthinkable in the Orthodox Church (as long as it is Orthodox), according to the fundamental principles of Orthodoxy. If this misfortune happens to us, then we will move from the foundation on which we have been standing until now, we will separate from the Orthodox Church, as it has always been, we will break away from our roots, we will separate ourselves from all the Orthodox and become strangers to them” [12, p. 4]. The Slavic translation, unlike the new one, has a dogmatic-authoritative meaning. “The Bible in a new translation can be considered a book to read, much edifying and much useful, but not a Bible invested with dogmatic authority” [12, p. 7]. In addition, the new translation is not sufficiently philologically verified - “it does not represent either the Hebrew Bible or the LXX Bible, but is made up of a combination of both. The Hebrew text in many places is corrected in it, partly according to the LXX, partly for other reasons, and supplemented from the LXX with those parts that are missing in it. Thus, this is not any genuine Bible, but - how to say - a paraphrased Bible, - newly compiled, newly composed, the original of which - in the form in which it was published - is not in either Greek or Hebrew" [12, p. 6]. The saint's articles aroused sharp objections from Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Pavel Ivanovich Gorsky-Platonov (1835–1904), a Hebraist who participated in the work on translating the Psalter into Russian, as well as Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Ivan Stepanovich Yakimov (1847–1885), the author of interpretations of the books of the prophet Jeremiah, Isaiah, Psalms. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov presented the following articles: 1) “A few words about the article by the Right Reverend Bishop Theophan “Concerning the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in Russian translation”” [2], published in a separate edition [3]; 2) “On the perplexities caused by the Russian translation of St. books of the Old Testament" [4]. I.S. Yakimov presented the following articles: 1) “Concerning the opinion of one bishop about the significance of the Russian translation of the Old Testament biblical books, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod” [20]; 2) “Answer to His Eminence Theophan” [22]; 3) “On the extent of the Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, as indicated by church practice” [21]. However, time itself confirmed the correctness of St. Theophan’s views. N.N. Glubokovsky noted the undeniable “textual dignity of the LXX as an independent objective witness of the genuine hebraicae veritatis, superior to the Masoretic retouched text in its antiquity and indisputable authenticity of content, for example, in messianic prophecies. This conclusion is fully applicable to our Slavic Bible, which acquires special religious and scientific importance as a monument to the most ancient biblical tradition and as a venerable witness to the Byzantine-Greek original for the sacred Cyril and Methodius work” [1, p. 275–276]. This has found further confirmation in our time, after the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts. The LXX translation is rooted in church tradition. Exegetes turned mainly to the LXX text; they turned to the Hebrew text extremely rarely, and then only until the 4th century. The translation from the Masoretic text was not philologically verified, because it was based on different texts. This is confirmed by I.A. Chistovich – “one cannot help but desire a translation of the Bible separately from the Hebrew and Greek texts” [19, p. 340]. The measures that the saint proposes are not to argue, but to prepare an interpretation of the Slavic Bible according to the text of the LXX and make this publication mass, which will correspond to church tradition - in the words of the saint, “there will be an ecclesiastical Bible, not an extra-church one,” which corresponded to the main directions of the development of biblical studies in the 20th century. – study of the textual criticism of the Septuagint and preparation of critical editions with extensive use of patristic interpretations. From the history of the Russian Church it is known that at the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1918. in the Subdepartment on Liturgical Language, based on the proposals of the Pre-Conciliar Meeting, the theses of the report to the Council were compiled. The last 11th thesis read: “Publish a Russian translation of the Bible from the text of the godly LXX interpreters. The translation must be accompanied by an indication of discrepancies, obscure and figurative passages in the Russian Bible from the Hebrew language.” This point “was taken from the report of Bishop Methodius, who rightly believed that the Russian translation of the Septuagint may be more suitable for liturgical use than the Synodal translation of the Bible, which is based on the Jewish Masoretic text” [5, p. 9]. 1. Glubokovsky N.N. Slavic Bible [Electronic resource] // Tver diocese [website]. November 11, 2014. URL: http://goo.gl/QDbY0r (accessed December 25, 2014). 2. Gorsky-Platonov P.I. A few words about the article by the Right Reverend Bishop Theophan “Concerning the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in Russian translation” // Orthodox conversation. 1875. November. pp. 505–540. 3. Gorsky-Platonov P.I. A few words about the article by His Grace Bishop Theophan “Concerning the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in Russian translation.” [M.], 1875. 36 p. 4. Gorsky-Platonov P.I. About the perplexities caused by the Russian translation of St. books of the Old Testament // Orthodox Review. 1877. January. pp. 69–104. February. pp. 260–284. April. pp. 681–702. 5. Books of the Old Testament translated by P.A. Yungerova. Great prophets. M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2006. 291 p. 6. In memory of His Grace Bishop Feofan. His letters to a priest in Kyiv // Sunday reading. 1894. No. 33. P. 536. 7. Works like the saints of our father Theophan the Recluse: Collection. letters. Vol. VII–VIII. Ed. Holy Dormition Pskov-Pechersky Monastery and the Pilgrim Publishing House, 1994. 8. Feofan, bishop The Bible, according to the translation of seventy interpreters, is our legitimate Bible // Home Conversation. 1876. Issue. 20. May 15. pp. 499–503. Vol. 21. 22 May. pp. 527–529. Vol. 22. May 29. pp. 555–559. Vol. 23. June 5. pp. 579–582. 9 . Feofan, bishop Which text of the Old Testament Scriptures should we adhere to? // Church newsletter. 1876. No. 19. May 15. pp. 1–4. 10. Feofan, bishop About our duty to adhere to the translation of 70 interpreters // Soulful Reading. 1876. Part II. May. pp. 3–21. 11. Feofan, bishop About our duty to adhere to the translation of 70 interpreters. M., 1876. 19 p. 12. Feofan, bishop On the use of a new translation of the Old Testament writings. [M.], 1876. 8 p. 13. Feofan, bishop Regarding the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in Russian translation // Soulful Reading. 1875. Part III. November. pp. 342–352. 14. Feofan, bishop Pravo-slovo about the publication of the Holy Books of the Old Testament in Russian translation // Home conversation. 1875. Issue. 47. November 22. pp. 1212–1219. 15. Feofan, bishop Pravo-slovo about the publication of the Holy Books of the Old Testament in Russian translation // Soulful Reading. 1875. November. pp. 342–352. 16. Feofan, bishop Resolving the issue of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of church practice // Church Bulletin. 1876. No. 23. June 12. pp. 1–5. 17. Feofan, bishop Resolving the issue of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of church practice // Home conversation. 1876. Issue. 28. July 10. pp. 699–709. 18. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Moscow. On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek seventy commentators and Slavonic translations of the Holy Scriptures. M., 1858. 32 p. 19. Chistovich I.A. History of Bible translation into Russian. M.: Librocom, 2011. 347 p. 20. Yakimov I.P. Concerning the opinion of one bishop about the significance of the Russian translation of the Old Testament biblical books, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod // Church Bulletin. 1876. No. 13. March 27. pp. 1–3. 21. Yakimov I.S. On the measure of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of church practice // Church Bulletin. 1876. No. 35. September 4. pp. 1–4. 22. Yakimov I.S. Answer to His Eminence Theophan // Church Bulletin. 1876. No. 19. May 15. pp. 3–4. Kashirina Varvara Viktorovna – Doctor of Philology, member of the Scientific Editorial Council for the publication of the works of St. Theophan, the Recluse of Vyshensky (Moscow, Russia).