Resolving the issue of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of church practice

Which text of the Old Testament Scriptures should we adhere to? prof. I.S. Yakimov Regarding 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, prof. I.S. Yakimov On the use of the new translation of the Old Testament writings by St. Feofan the Recluse Regarding the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in the Russian translation of St. Feofan the Recluse About our duty to adhere to the translation of 70 interpreters of St. Feofan the Recluse About the perplexities caused by the Russian translation of St. books of the Old Testament by prof. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov 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” by prof. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov I am back to Mr. Yakimov 1 with my word, all about the same thing and all in the same sense, not starting an argument, but seeking clarification of the truth about the subject that interests us. In his response to my previous word, he expressed provisions that, I think, can lead everyone to agreement. He says: I did not and do not claim that the Hebrew text has an unconditional advantage in all respects over the LXX text and over the translations of the Old Testament. But I did not and do not claim that the Hebrew text should be completely abandoned. These are the two extreme points. The middle between them, although very large, is, one hopes, not an impassable gulf. A bridge can be built across it, across which people will fearlessly agree to cross from one side to the other. From these two provisions it follows that the use of the Hebrew text has its rightful place in the matter of understanding the revealed word of God. It remains to determine which one. I define it this way: 2: both in church and in home use among Orthodox Christians the Bible LXX should be used; but the pastors of the Church (or others, under their direction and supervision), when interpreting Scripture, may sometimes turn to the Hebrew Bible for considerations. And I am convinced that such a definition is given by the constant practice of the Orthodox Church. In the point that in judging our subject we must rely on the practice of St. Churches, Mr. Yakimov and I agree. He has previously pointed out, and now he additionally points out, several cases from which it is clear that Orthodox Christian writers sometimes also referred to the Hebrew Bible. We must now determine how far this went and in what sense it was allowed. I suggested that Mr. Yakimov turn all his attention to clarifying this, which was the main goal of my previous lines. He did not bother to do this or misunderstood my proposal, and again limited himself to one simple indication of the facts. I am making an experience of such clarification on my part. Here are the facts he points out: the Syriac translation, the translation of the blessed one. Jerome, the publication of the Bible by Hesychius, the holy martyr Lucian and Pamphilus with Eusebius, the use of the Hebrew Bible by some fathers and writers of the Church and the appeal to it of our correctors and publishers of the Slavic Bible. I have already discussed some of these points elsewhere 3 . I will also retell my thoughts about them, especially with the intention of deducing from them a definition of the measure of the legal use of the Hebrew text for us. Syriac translation. Let us remember in advance that in the hands of St. the apostles had the Bible LXX, and that they passed it on to their immediate successors for use in the Church. Through this they incorporated her into the saint. The Church and it began to dominate it both in the east and in the west, where Christians hastened to make a translation of it for themselves, known under the name Itala. In Syria, of which Antioch was the metropolis, the Bible LXX, Greek, was used from the time of the apostles. Simple Christians, actually the Sirians, who did not know the Greek language, were probably satisfied with the oral presentation of the content of the Old Testament writings. When Christianity established itself in Syria, the Christians there, who did not understand the Greek language, translated the Bible into Syriac and translated it from Hebrew, since it was easier for them due to the similarity of the languages. Economos says that at the same time or shortly thereafter, the Western Syrians also translated the Bible into Syriac for those who did not know Greek, but translated it not from Hebrew, but from Greek, according to LXX. Both Bibles came into use, but the latter soon began to supplant the first. And we see that St. Ephraim the Syrian uses the Bible more according to LXX; at the blessed Theodoret, this Bible dominates and that one, in Hebrew, is found here and there, to a very small extent; at St. There seems to be no trace of Isaac the Syrian. So the Syriac Bible according to the LXX finally completely replaced the same Bible from the Hebrew. Now the Sirians use one bible according to the LXX. So, we see that in one corner of the vast area of ​​the Church, embracing East and West, the Hebrew Bible accidentally came into use, but was soon superseded by the force of universal practice in the Church. What from here? Here's what: the experiment was made to introduce the Hebrew Bible into the Church, or to replace the LXX Bible with it, and it was not a success: there is no point in repeating such experiments. The spirit of the Church does not accept such a Bible. Let us remember that all other translations of the Bible among Christian peoples were made from the LXX. These are: Armenian, Georgian, Abyssinian, Coptic, Gothic. Is it not obvious that the LXX Bible reigned supreme throughout Christendom? Thus, the significance of this first fact, the translation of the Syriac, for our subject completely evaporates. Let us add to this that this translation was formed at a time when the practice of the Church was just being established, when the Hebrew text was not as far from its prototype as the current one, but its beginning deviation from it was not yet realized. If then the Bible could not stand up to this text and could not replace the LXX Bible, much less can such honor follow it now. Translation of the blessed Jerome. Here in St. The Church is dominated by the Bible LXX: but here comes the blessed one. Jerome and his translation violates the general agreement of all in this regard. It does not violate, but expresses: for it was not favorably received in the West, and in the East it remained completely unknown. What made Blessed. Jerome to undertake a new translation? It is not the unsatisfactoriness of the LXX translation, but the shortcomings of its Latin translation Italá. At first he intended to correct only this last one; but then he changed this intention and took on a new translation from the Hebrew. He was led astray by his Jewish teachers, who conveyed to him their dislike for the translation of the LXX. And we see that when he was subject to the evil influence of these latter, he spoke disapprovingly of the Bible LXX, and when he was freed from under it, he spoke approvingly of it. Such a beginning to work is blessed. Jerome, and moreover the way it was received in the West, shows that at that time the LXX Bible enjoyed inviolable sacred authority. This work did not meet with a favorable reception. Blazh. Augustine reproached the blessed one. For this, Jerome asked to return to his previous intention, that is, to correct only the Latin translation of Ital. Rufinus also spoke disapprovingly of him. These reviews can be taken as an expression of the general mood of Christians at that time. Because the translation is blessed. Jerome, at first had no move. It began to come into use later, little by little, and was squeezed into church use much later, after its domestic use had spread significantly. This, as Economos says, became noticeable after Gregory the Great, in the seventh century. But even then, not all of it came into use. The Psalter remains with Westerners to this day in its ancient translation according to the LXX. What comes out of this case? The fact that in the West until the seventh century the Bible LXX prevailed. The appearance of a Bible not according to the LXX by the fifth century was received unfavorably by those among whom it appeared. Blazh. Jerome with his work stands isolated, apart. The general spirit of the Church did not recognize the Bible he proposed, which was different from the LXX. They will say: however, over time, she was nevertheless accepted into the local Church. Not accepted, but squeezed in. Crowded in, that would be a real expression. And all the deviations of the West from Orthodoxy were suppressed, I don’t know how; spread slowly and then were publicly recognized as the truth. So it is here. In addition, let us remember the coincidence of other things with the displacement of this new Bible into the Western Church. At that time, Orthodox truth began to darken in the West, as can be seen from the filioque and from the spread of an incorrect understanding of the teachings of the blessed. Augustine on the relationship between grace and freedom. The heads of the supreme shepherds there, the popes, also began to become clouded with feelings of superiority and quests for dominance. It can be concluded that the loss of sound principles regarding the management of the Church and the weakening of the 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, and it invaded. This matter, it turns out, stands on the slope along which the Western Church began to move towards deviating from the Orthodox Church. And we see that soon, together with this Bible and other innovations, the Western Church was driven away from the Universal Church like a wave. After this, one cannot help but realize that the example of the Bible is blessed. Jerome does not prove the conformity of the Hebrew Bible with the spirit and practice of the Church, and the way it entered and what it was accompanied by does not encourage imitation, but rather deviates from it. After bliss. Jerome, we no longer see any attempt to make new translations of the Bible from Hebrew. So to this day. Recalling that the Bibles of all other Christian nations were translated from the LXX and are still in exclusive use, we conclude: the universal practice of St. The Church resolutely confirms that in St. The Church has always been dominated by the Bible according to the LXX and the appearance of translations of Syriac and Blessed. Jerome does not weaken this position at all. Edition of the Greek Bible. They point to Hesychius, Eusebius with Pamphilus and St. Lucian, in defense of the special importance of the Hebrew Bible. But the works of these Church leaders were not aimed at a new translation of the Bible from Hebrew into Greek, but at correcting the existing Greek Bible according to the LXX. The readings of this Bible have diversified; it was necessary to establish and choose one for everyone. This is what their full attention was focused on. Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected and published the Bible; the holy martyr Lucian corrected and published the Bible; Hesychius corrected and published the Bible. But what came out of this labor laboratory of theirs? The entire Bible is LXX, the same one that is still in use and whose oldest copies are kept in the most noble libraries in Rome, England, and Russia. What does the Hebrew Bible have to do with it? And how can these cases be placed among the indicators of the supposedly predominant importance of this Bible in the Church? Nothing is visible; one can only assume that, judging by the works of Origen, the Hebrew Bible somehow participated in the establishment of the Greek text of the LXX in these editions. But history definitely doesn’t say how. Is it not better, therefore, to refrain from any of these cases of guidance about the value of the ancient Hebrew Bible? I think, however, that it is possible to establish this: the aforementioned publishers, when publishing the Bible according to the LXX, mainly established the reading by comparing the manuscripts of the LXX translation, but at the same time they also took into account the Jewish text of that time, and in those cases when the manuscripts hesitantly indicated which reading to lean towards, they turned to him and, according to his instructions, decided the matter. This text did not decide on its own, according to its supposed authority, but joined one side of the manuscripts and helped solve it. That is, this text was attached to the case indirectly, by the side, for considerations; The protagonist here too was the LXX text in different copies. So, these cases either do not give anything to the solution of our question, or if they give something, it is very insignificant, not allowing the Jewish text into the composition of the church Bible. Thus the text of LXX was established, and then consecrated by church use. And he dominated the entire breadth of St. Church and throughout its existence. What appeared in one corner of the church region, similar to some parish or deanery of the vast Russian Church, the use of the Bible translated from Hebrew was soon supplanted; the bible is blessed Jerome was not accepted at first, and then, having been accepted, together with the Church that accepted her, she moved to a distant country. Only after this the blind man will not see that St. The Church did not want to know any other Bible than the LXX. When St. The enlighteners of the Slavs began to translate the Old Testament writings into the Slavic language; it did not occur to them in any case to turn to the Hebrew text. He completely fell out of the memory of the sons of the Church. So it is to this day. Well, whether this is true, someone else will say. Our correctors and publishers of the Slavic Bible under Empress Elizabeth turned to the Hebrew text. Contacted; but what happened to them? Bible LXX. In this case they imitated the most ancient publishers, and used the Hebrew text only to determine certain sayings and readings. The Greek Bible LXX was mistress and over them as over them; the Hebrew Bible only served, and only sometimes. The dominance of the LXX Bible in this case is evidenced by the entire course of this matter. The Empress directs that the Slavic Bible be corrected and published in accordance with the Greek LXX; The Holy Synod, having appointed a commission for this matter, gives him instructions to correct everything according to Greek LXX; the commission, having completed the matter, presents the Bible to the Holy Synod, with certification that it has been translated into complete agreement with the Greek LXX. There is no mention of the Jewish one. What is this from? It is true because there was nothing to remember her with, that she had such an insignificant participation in this matter that there was no need to remember it. In addition, this corrected Bible was then introduced into general use, both church and home, and still rules among us legally. New proof that this correction and publication of the Slavic Bible was in complete agreement with the practice of the entire Orthodox Church and Old Russian. So this case is not in favor of the Hebrew text. It still remains to determine the extent to which church writers use the Hebrew Bible when interpreting divine scripture. The interpreters of scripture looked precisely to the Hebrew text; but how many were there?! Five to ten. And this is for almost the 19th century, if we take into account the entire period of the Church’s existence. And these five or ten were not holding a Hebrew Bible in their hands; they had the LXX Bible in their hands, and they interpreted it, while they turned to the Hebrew Bible only sometimes, in extremely rare cases. At St. Chrysostom, for example, in his 13 volumes one can find no more than three or five dozen such cases; Basil the Great has five to ten such cases; others have almost none at all. St. Ephraim the Syrian and Theodoret stand in the way of the disappearance of the Syriac translation from the Hebrew, and they should not be included under this point. So little was the participation of the Hebrew text in the interpretation of the scriptures. If we survey the entire period of the Church’s existence and take into account the insignificance of the number of writers who used the Hebrew text, and the rarity of these writers’ references to it, then, I think, the following conclusion can be more likely to be drawn: is it worth remembering all this? than by illegally increasing the significance of these cases, they will allow themselves to use the Hebrew Bible comprehensively, as we have now begun to do with everything indiscriminately. But if we pay attention to the particular circumstance that the writers who turned to the Hebrew text end in the fourth century and after that they are almost invisible, then from here we get a conclusion even more unfavorable for the Hebrew Bible. From this it follows either that the writers of the Church tried to turn to the Hebrew text and, noticing that nothing particularly useful came out of this in understanding the word of God, abandoned this method so as not to further divide the attention of Orthodox Christians - or that they sometimes used the Hebrew Bible until they realized its deviations from the original; her appearance, as soon as they noticed some damage and some omissions in her, they became cautious in this regard, and finally completely recoiled from her. And in the course of almost the 15th century after that, the Hebrew Bible turns out to be completely unknown to the sons of the Church. It is enough, I think, on this basis to assert that St. The Church did not know and did not want to know the Hebrew Bible. Let's sum it all up. In the first two and a half centuries there was no mention of the Hebrew text (excluding the minor case of the Syriac translation); in the second half of the third century, with the spread of Origen's tetrapla, exaplo and octapla, others began to look at what was proposed as a Hebrew text (Origen rarely used the Hebrew text, and then only in scholarly treatises; in church conversations he exclusively used the LXX text); Others looked at this occasionally even in the fourth century; after that you will not find such observers. What follows from this? It’s not at all like the Church of God valued the Hebrew Bible in any way. This Bible caught the eye of others, but the Church of God did not pay any attention to it, of course because it had no value for it. Both the Church and her sons. And the Hebrew Bible is forgotten. This is what the practice of St. gives. Churches! So what measure of the use of the Hebrew text does this practice indicate?! It’s so insignificant that it doesn’t seem worth mentioning. It does not justify new translations of the Bible from Hebrew. When publishing the LXX Bible or when revising translations, it allows very little participation in the Hebrew text; the same with the interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. But in both cases, in such a small proportion that the Hebrew text does not catch the eye, as if it did not exist. Compare now, I will add in passing, with this what our learning does. Someone else will undertake to interpret some book of the Old Testament and conduct the business with only the Hebrew Bible in his hands; LXX turns to the Bible from time to time, and mostly in order to blaspheme it. Is this legal and can you look at it without embarrassment? This is the general measure. If it were necessary to define it at that time, then, according to the leadership of the late Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, the following can be assumed: 1) The passages of Old Testament scripture cited in the New Testament in disagreement with the LXX, read as they are read in the New; 2) Scriptures of the Old Testament, interpreted according to the Hebrew text of St. fathers, can also be interpreted today (It should be noted that the places of the first paragraph are 3–4, or all 10; the second is also five to ten); 3) Then, stick to the LXX bible to the last extreme. The disagreement of the LXX text with the Jewish present is not at all extreme; for the present Hebrew text is not the same as it was originally. The obscurity of the LXX text compared to the Hebrew is not the last extreme; for there could have been ambiguity in the original Hebrew text, but the (comparative) clarity of the current Hebrew text may be erroneous and conjectural. Any inconsistency in the LXX text that appears at first glance or a demand for a different reading from the side of the current of thoughts is also not an indicator of the last extreme; for the incongruity can only be apparent and the requirement for the flow of thoughts can be the requirement of the interpreter (subjective), and not the scripture itself of the interpreted. It is true that all these cases cannot be ignored; but it is no less true that the current Jewish text can be considered a reliable solution to the questions that arise regarding them. It makes it difficult to agree to this deviation of this text from what it was originally. It is impossible to distract one’s thoughts from this latter when there are clear accusers before one’s eyes. And with them, indiscriminately rushing at the Hebrew text means deliberately entering a road that may not lead to the truth - a road on which there is a danger of recognizing as truth what is given not by the original writers, but by subsequent perverters of scripture - the Masorettes. It is not appropriate for Orthodox Christians to bow to the side of these latter. It has become a custom among us that, more or less, any of the bewilderments will arise, in the cases listed above, immediately for the Hebrew Bible. Meanwhile, some of these perplexities can be averted by the choice of suitable readings of the text of LXX, others by the meaning of the passages analyzed, which church writers give it when interpreting, or in addition to it (see Σειραι των πατερων); other considerations from the demolition of parallels of the LXX text and from the secondary meanings of Greek sayings. Okay, who will say; and then what? And then maybe there won’t be any confusion left. And if they remain, then, I think, it is better to endure them than to expose yourself to the obvious danger of accepting a lie as the truth. They will say: but an error is also possible with LXX? Possible; but where it actually exists should have been indicated by the Hebrew text, but it itself deviated from its prototype. The preponderance of the LXX text in this case is given by its constant use in the Church. It is better for us to be with the Church in the face of the above-mentioned perplexities, than to follow the trail of the masorets, for the sake of the apparent elimination of them. What is this? persecution of the Jewish text? No, it’s not persecution, but a matter of precaution, and even more so of following what has always been in the Church. The indicated difficulties in the text of LXX existed throughout the entire existence of the Church, and yet we do not see that its shepherds and teachers indiscriminately rushed to the Hebrew text to eliminate it. The latter was never put forward as an infallible teacher and solver of all perplexities, although sometimes he was accepted as an advisor. So how? So throw away the Hebrew text? And I don’t mind quitting. But if you use it, then in such an insignificant proportion that it is almost unnoticeable, as the practice of St. Churches. This I repeat in application to the difficulties shown in the text LXX. Of course, to say this does not mean to say anything definite. Lovers of the Hebrew text, having received such permission, will want to seize this entire area into their own hands and confuse St. the bible. And admirers of the LXX will be ready to give nothing to the Hebrew text. I don’t know how to solve things. One thing I firmly assert is that the solution to this should not be left to our Jewish scholars. For this would mean surrendering to the arbitrariness of St. the Bible and in many cases almost the same as allowing one Bible to be replaced by another. And this is a sin. Babylonian confusion will come out of here. This is confirmed by experience in Protestant literature. There, every interpreter is a writer of a new Bible according to his own ingenuity, which, however, he defends with all the weapons of his linguistic arsenal. To prevent us from falling into the same category, it is better for us to avoid such methods. So, they will say, he undertook to determine the measure of the use of the Hebrew text, but at the most important point requiring this definition, he began. This is true and not true. Who will take a look? I think that I have said everything that is necessary on the proposed issue. These are the angles from which I proposed to Mr. Yakimov to examine the subject that occupies us. He gave this honor to me. I did this, and I ask him to humbly see in what I wrote the answer to everything that he wrote in response to me. I’ll just add two more words. First. It is impossible to say: the Church has not decided anything about the exclusive use of the LXX text. She didn’t decide it verbally, but she decided it with deeds. When some opinion circulates among Christians or is even expressed by some who know a good Christian deed, but the Church does not express its attitude towards this opinion in any way, then they legitimately say: I am free in relation to this opinion, I can accept it or not accept it, because I do not see how the Church relates to it. It is absolutely fair to speak and act this way, and this is how it has always been done in the Church. But this law is not applicable to our subject. For the attitude towards him is St. The Church was definitely expressed by its practice. The Church has always held in its hands exclusively the LXX Bible. The constant practice of the Church is also the spoken word of God himself, an urgent law for us. Let's take another similar example. Where is the essence of the grace-filled sacraments publicly defined? Meanwhile, their matter and form are sealed by dogmatic authority. Where did this come from? From church practice. This is also the use of the Bible according to LXX. To this you, what else can be added: when in the apostolic canons and in the conciliar definitions the books of Divine Scripture are indicated with the title inspired by God, did they indicate which Bible they were holding in their hands, the Hebrew, or LXX, the Greek? Of course the last one. Is it possible that after this the power of those apostolic and conciliar definitions also attacks this Bible? This cannot be denied. Therefore, it cannot be said decisively that the Church did not express its attitude towards the LXX Bible. 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 this 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 place another Bible on it, the Hebrew one; Moreover, the Church was silent until the worthlessness of the Jewish text was realized; and when it was realized, then the use of the text stopped; there was no need to create a special definition. This determination should take place in our time. And it seems to me (see “Soulful Reading”, May), it has already taken place. Second. G. Yakimov casually mentioned the history of the LXX translation, obviously not agreeing to acknowledge its truth. I will also say this in passing. This story, historically confirmed and preserved by the tradition of the Jewish Church, was accepted by the Christian Church and is still maintained by the Orthodox Church; is also contained in the Western one, despite the content of the Bible in a different translation. Protestants began to deny it, who, having mastered the Masoretic Bible, needed to undermine the authority of the LXX translation. And they collected a whole heap of objections; but this is a heap of dust - a light breeze of sound criticism dispels it. This experience was presented by Economos, who devoted an entire book to the analysis of Protestant intricacies. This is the state of affairs. With all their ingenuity, the Protestants did not come up with reasons that could decisively shake the belief in the truth of the aforementioned legend. But please listen: 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 emanating from above - but on the fact that it was always held in the hands of St. He sanctified the Church and its constant use. This is the basis of his dignity, and it is our duty to reverently honor him and especially hold on to him. G. Yakimov is currently abroad; the editors will inform him of the real issue of the Church Bulletin. – Approx. Ed. Please keep in mind that we are talking directly about the Hebrew text, in addition to our new translation of the Bible, about which another time. Now I will only say that he, having appeared in good time, takes the LXX Bible under his protection, and denounces the Jewish one for being damaged and incomplete. “Soulful Reading”, May.