On the use of the new translation of the Old Testament Scriptures

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 The solution to the question of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of the church practice of 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 Someone asked me: is it really possible that when I write about something related to the matter of the Faith, it is impossible to cite evidence of Scripture according to the new Russian translation? I answered him: as for me, I never cite texts other than in Slavic, not only from the Old Testament Scriptures, but also from the New Testament; although I am sure that the Russian translation of the New Testament represents the original word of God, what are my convictions about the proposed translation of the Old Testament, St. Inspired by the Church, they do not allow me to say, But since my custom is not a decree to anyone, I suggested to the questioner to follow the instructions of the late Vladyka of Moscow in his famous article, which he would be ashamed not to follow. The thought of this revered Master is this: both in schools, when teaching the Law of God, and in writings on subjects of Faith, one should always cite the evidence of Scripture in Slavic; because the Slavic language is understandable to everyone. If you come across a place that is a little dark, then, having cited the text in Slavic, you must attach to it in Russian a feasible explanation or paraphrase. The last limitation also gives us an indication of where it may be appropriate to use a new Russian translation - namely: where it turns out to be necessary to present more clearly some Old Testament text given in Slavic, and the new translation provides a satisfactory aid for this, there it is possible, after the Slavic text, to cite the same text in the new Russian translation, as an explanation or paraphrase of the first. That's how I ended my answer. But then other thoughts began to come to me, other questions and their solutions, with which the proposed question was resolved with greater completeness and certainty. I present them here, considering such presentation not to be useless. It goes without saying that the proposed instruction determines the use of only that part of the Bible in the Russian translation that agrees with the Slavic Bible; But what to do with the one who doesn’t agree? Is it really possible to leave it without any use? To this, here is the answer that should be given: - St. the fathers, interpreters of the divine Scripture, had editions of the Bible in which, next to each text of the 70, other translations were placed in special boundaries. When they encountered a difficult passage, they, having offered him their explanation, sometimes turned to these other translations that stood opposite it before their eyes, saying: one translates this passage this way, and another translates this passage, or one word like that. Here is an indication for us to use our new translation of the Bible, in those cases where it does not agree with the Slavic: to have it before our eyes, as one of the facets that the saints had before them. fathers. Then, when need requires, we can turn to this translation, saying: and in the Russian translation this is how this passage is read, without giving this reading preference or a decisive vote, but offering it, as an opinion, as an aid to understanding the underlying passage of Scripture. To give more certainty to this rule, I consider it necessary to add: First . There is no need to remember the latter at every place in the Slavic Bible with which the new translation does not agree; because many places in the Slavic Bible (isn’t that the largest part?), with which the Russian translation does not agree, are clear and understandable in themselves and are more consistent with the flow of speech. To point to the Russian translation in these cases would mean to unnecessarily burden speech and confuse concepts. Second. You should not assume that when you have to say: and in the Russian translation they read like this..., then this means the same thing as: and in the Hebrew Bible it reads like this. Because our translation suspected many passages of the current Hebrew Bible to be damaged and translated them - some, following the 70, and others for other reasons - in disagreement with the Hebrew text. For example: Ps. 70 was translated. 21, 17: “they pierced my hands”, in Slavic: “they dug up my hands.” In Hebrew it stands instead of “plow”: “like a lion.” For other reasons translated - Gen. 2:2: “God finished his work on the seventh day.” The idea is the same as in Slavic: do it... on the sixth day... In Hebrew it is: on the seventh day. There are a lot of such places of both kinds. In these cases, you will have to, after: in the Russian translation it is so, - add: and in the Hebrew Bible it is so. This last addition will never be in praise of the Hebrew text. Third . And this such limited use of the new translation should be recognized as appropriate only when interpreting Scripture; in sermons, and simple conversation, and even in reasoning, citing passages from the Russian translation that do not agree with the Slavic text in support of one’s thoughts is not only inappropriate, but also sinful. And what to become?!.. I hear or read some place as evidence of the Divine Scripture, I look for it in my Bible 1, I find that it says something completely wrong there - and my hands are apart. Is it not a sin for you, scientists, to beat my conscience - you, whom the Church raised to build up her children, and not to destroy? – And the fact that others, even in addition to the new Russian translation, offer Old Testament passages directly from the Hebrew, according to their own translation, is not at all good. These gentlemen probably want us, following the example of the Germans, to create confusion in the use of the Old Testament Scriptures, similar to a confusion of languages: who goes where, This is the modest use of the new translation that I consider legitimate. May the Lord deliver us from using it without restraint! – What should especially keep us from doing this is the danger of completely weaning ourselves from the Church Bible and, as a result, creating a need for ourselves, and then the need to replace it with another, in many ways different from it, as happened in the Western Church with Jerome’s 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 stand hitherto, we will separate from the Orthodox Church, as it has existed at all times and as it will remain in all other private Eastern churches (for none of those there will follow our path), we will tear ourselves away from our roots, separate ourselves from all the Orthodox, and become strangers to them. Awareness of the danger of reaching such a situation is not enough only to dispose us to be cautious with the word of God, and not wave it from the shoulder, as anyone pleases? But what if self-will in this essential matter (the use of God’s word) creates in us a urge to have willful views on all points of Orthodoxy, and to interpret them at random and crookedly, as the Germans do? “Then goodbye completely, dear Orthodoxy.” But, someone might think, by limiting the use of the Russian translation of the Bible to such narrow limits, one might suggest that St. The Synod, by giving us this new translation, did something inappropriate, and even more - something sinful. I expressed my idea about the timeliness of the Russian translation of the Bible from the Hebrew in a previous article (See March. Book. Shower. Thursday, 1876). Now I’ll add: if only someone had thought that St. The Synod made a mistake, but even if it actually made a mistake, there would be nothing marvelous. For infallibility does not belong to him: it is an integral quality only of the universal church, and not of private individuals, and not of private churches. Not only seven or eight persons who always sit in St. Synod, but even all of our hierarchs together can decide something sinful. But in the present case, it is not the action of St. Synod, and the judgment about this action is the most perplexed. The Holy Synod, publishing a new translation of the Bible, did not give it the meaning that the Bible used in the Church has, that is, the meaning of dogmatic authority; therefore, he did not designate it for such widespread use that, in any case, they would replace the Slavic text. I deduce this from the following two considerations. If St. The Synod had in mind to give this translation in a dogmatically authoritative meaning, then, when starting it, it would consult about this with all the Russian hierarchs; and when all the Russian hierarchs agreed to this, he would communicate with all the Eastern patriarchs and with all the independent churches there, and proceed to the matter no other way than having already secured the approval of the entire Orthodox Church. If he did not do this, then through this he makes it clear that in the new translation he did not intend to give an authoritative Bible. Let no one think: why such a delay in the matter? - Because the text is God. There are no scriptures in the Church, such as, for example, the cutting of vestments or the way of compiling church canons and songs. God Scripture, along with the divine sacraments, constitute the essential elements of the life of the Church. Touching them, too, is like touching the brain with nerves and nutritional organs with muscles in the body. Nothing new can be decreed in relation to them without awarding the entire body to the Church. The Bible in the new translation, as for everyone, is obviously a new Bible in comparison with the one in the Church. This is the first consideration. Look at the very composition of the Bible in the new translation and also make sure that its publishers did not have the idea of ​​​​providing a dogmatically authoritative Bible in it. Such a Bible can only be the Bible of 70, or, if convictions and beliefs changed in this regard, the Hebrew Bible; and a Russian translation with such a meaning would be either a translation of the Bible according to 70, or a translation of the Hebrew Bible. But is this the intended translation? - No. It represents neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Bible of the 70s, but is composed of a combination of both. The Hebrew text in many places is corrected in it, partly for 70, partly for other reasons, and supplemented from the 70 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. But this kind of Bible cannot have dogmatic authority? Of course not. Why think that St. When publishing it, did the Synod intend to publish it in this sense? “Whoever thinks so, ascribes to St. The Synod has the power and authority to compose and publish new Bibles, something neither itself nor anyone else would even think of. This kind of thought is sinful, and not what was done by St. Synod. Yielding to certain needs of the time, the Holy Synod decided to translate the Bible from Hebrew; but so that no one would think that through this he was giving a special authority to the Hebrew Bible, during this translation he published the Bible in such a way that he clearly made it clear to everyone the inconsistency of the Hebrew text, correcting it and adding to it. By this, the need is satisfied to a certain extent, and the demands of Orthodoxy are not offended. This is wisdom! From here it goes without saying that the Bible in a new translation can be considered a book to read, edifying and useful, but not a Bible invested with dogmatic authority, After this, judge for yourself whether it is appropriate to cite texts from it when explaining or showing the objects of the Faith? The paraphrased or newly composed Bible does not rise above human authority, and although it should be placed first in a series of works of human authority, it should not be pushed out of the series and not elevated above them. So we will go straight to the Hebrew Bible, who will say. No one should do this after we have been given a translation of the Hebrew Bible that may be useful to us; but in the cases shown above and with the limitations stated above, passages from the Old Testament writings must be cited only according to this translation, leaving the Hebrew text alone. It is so necessary to curb arbitrariness and to maintain uniformity and order in a matter as important as the use of God. Scriptures. From the September book Soulful Reading of 1876 My Bible is the Church Bible. I speak on behalf of every Orthodox Christian.