Slavic Bible

Among the biblical publications in 900 languages, the Slavic Bible does not occupy a prominent position either in its antiquity or in its influence. But this is our Slavic Bible, and therefore it deserves our eternal memory and special remembrance - especially on such memorable occasions as the present one. The Slavic Bible is a monument to the pan-Slavic Christian resurrection, the basis, beginning and companion of the culture of all Slavic peoples. It would be more correct to say that here one is inseparable from the other and the second is conditioned by the first, because Christianity embodies the “true light”, calls everyone to pure enlightenment and obliges everyone to free progress. This means that the Slavic Bible is an unchanging and impressive call for religious-Christian civilization in the broadest, universal sense. On the other hand, “by its origin” “at its beginning (according to the words of the famous Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret “Drozdov”, f 1877, November 19, in his famous note “On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy interpreters and the Slavic translations of the Holy Scriptures”, Moscow 1858) is not a work ordinary learning, but the fruit of the apostolic zeal of Saints Cyril and Methodius,” is illuminated by the radiance of sacredness by its very origin, the original Christian missionary “application and constant church-liturgical use, as the most sacred book of the entire Christian Slavism.” What has been stated here decisively states the specific quality of the biblical content itself, and only the dignity of the latter accurately determines the degree of usefulness and beneficence of Christian enlightenment in the past, its salvific value in the tragic present and its vitality for the troubled future, which must certainly be regenerating and luminous, for without such invigorating confidence, everything past will become in vain, and the present meaningless. All these essential questions are resolved by the simple fact that our Slavic Bible provides an organic unification of the Old and New Testaments, where the first testifies to the historical preparation of the second, which already describes the whole, the divine completion of the universal process. Therefore, the entire Slavic Bible, in its ideological character, turns out to be a Christian book, although it varies in the strength of expression of this element according to the course of universal history. This undoubted property forces us to scientifically find out how true and legitimate such a complete Christianization of the Slavic Bible is, and whether there is a biased transfer of the later to the earlier, which is naturally depicted as a preparatory and justifying moment? It is clear that when In such a situation, the Christian crowning will not be immediately secured by its actual anticipation and, therefore, not indisputable in its normality in the historical development of mankind. Hence the whole matter acquires the deepest significance for our faith and culture and must be considered no less fundamentally. Here, in relation to the Slavic Bible, the whole solution lies in the fact that its Old Testament part is a reproduction of the Greek translation of the Hebrew original in the “translation of the LXX interpreters” and in its content is entirely dependent on the Greek prototype. This is how the old and almost hardly resolvable (previously Rom. 11, 25 et seq.) dispute about the comparative merits of the LXX and the current Jewish text, called the Masoretic, inevitably moves. They are very different from each other, and regarding the messianic-Christian element, they are most often completely opposite, which is why, with the same biblical foundation, such mutually exclusive and truly irreconcilable conclusions as Judaism and Christianity have emerged and continue to exist. Are not the LXX interpreters guilty of this, who gave an arbitrary, even anti-biblical interpretation of traditional biblical texts? After all, it has long been proclaimed that this translation is equal in its disastrous to the act of pouring the golden calf by the Israelites at Sinai, and that at the end of the work darkness covered the entire earth for three days, as the fast established for this occasion is also called darkness. Compared with this evil falsification, the Jewish Masoretic recension is recommended as divinely inviolable and humanly intact, for which the absolute dogma of Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (f about 132 A.D.) is valid, that in it every word, particle and letter has a meaning and serves a special purpose. In this case, the value of the Greek version will be determined by the extent to which the last statement, presented as a certain axiom, is factually correct and scientifically irresistible. The objective history of the formation of the Masoretic text should tell us exactly this. Its origin dates back to the post-exilic period and is associated with the name of Ezra (about half of the 5th century BC), who is even revered by the second Moses as the restorer of the sacred Jewish scriptures. It is also said that, due to the loss of the originals, he inspiredly “wrote” them from memory. Apparently, Ezra’s participation in the reconstruction of biblical writing was enormous, almost creative. We do not know the details of this work, but we can judge its nature with sufficient probability based on the entire restoration activity of Ezra. He sought to create pure Judaism, alien to all external influences and the slightest extraneous contact. His ideal was “the people of God according to the law of the Lord,” free from unrelated admixtures in the flesh and nomistically correct in spirit. In this direction, Ezra was adamant to the extreme and inexorable to the point of mercilessness, which was partly required by his irreconcilable nationalist task. In these interests, the new Moses dissolved hundreds (if not thousands) of legalized marriages of Jews with foreign women, forcing husbands to let such wives go - even with all their offspring (1Ezra 10:3). This cruel violence was committed in order to separate the seed of Israel from foreigners (Neh. 9:2) and so that this “holy seed” would not mix with disgusting nations (1 Ezra 9:2, 14), and henceforth the Israelites were forbidden from all marriages with foreign women (1 Ezra 9:12; Neh. X. 10), up to the present time. With such heavy concern for the carnal purification of Israel for the whole future, how could one not be even more concerned about the purest traditional legalism? On the other hand, even the most ruthless carnal cleansing could not have gone smoothly without the binding written authority in the divinely revealed law of ancient times, which therefore had to be presented in all its accuracy and severity. In all respects, the systematic revision of the sacred Jewish books turned out to be necessary and fundamental in the comprehensive reform work of Ezra. We agree that for the perfect execution of this important and difficult book work, he hardly had enough free time and concentrated calm, but this required only experienced assistants, which Ezra had in other parts of the ongoing reorganization. And Jewish tradition claims that then the so-called was formed and functioned. “Great Synagogue” with 120 members, following the example of the council of elders under Moses (Ex. 18, 21–26; 25, 1). Based on the totality of all the data, I consider this news to be completely reliable and in fact consistent with all historical conditions. It is further clear that book purification was in harmony with practical purification, and since the latter was nationalist-exclusive (Neh. 13:3: “they separated everything foreign from Israel”), then the first should be the same, divinely legitimizing nationalist exclusivism. Everything doubtful in this partisan sense was excluded and destroyed, or limited in its meaning and influence, such as, for example, even the book of the prophet Daniel, and the rest was included in the canon, inviolable either in merit or in quantity, for to these books “nothing can be added, or taken away from them, or reinterpreted” (Jos. Flavii Contra Apionem 1, 8). Any disrespectful touch on them “desecrated the hands,” that is, made them sacrilegiously nasty. In turn, increasing the canonical collection became virtually impossible due to the declared cessation of prophecy in Israel, which was replaced by some kind of dark surrogate in “batkol”, meaning the vague echoes of an unknown voice from above. Thus Ezra also created for himself the glory of the “seal of the covenant,” sealing the way for further canonical literature and sanctioning the final written authority in his only codex. The successors had to strictly guard it and apply it literally and punctually. A special mission fell on them (in the person of the men of the Great Synagogue) - to erect and strengthen a fence around the law in the Ezra edition, so that no one could penetrate there and everyone would be deprived of the slightest means of freely disposing there. On the contrary, the authorized guardians of nomism were invested with dogmatic grandeur and decisive autocracy. It was declared and accepted without question that the words of the scribes had greater meaning than the words of the Law of Moses. The practical implementation of the latter, designed for semi-patriarchal conditions of life, not at all similar to the later ones, turned out to be clearly impossible even in the literal sense of the nomistic commandments, but it was greatly facilitated by the fact that the new lawyers only had to find a certain “asmakhta”, or a point of support, and they had the right to draw all sorts of conclusions and all the theoretical and practical devices they needed. These were the lords and masters of faith and deed, uncontrollable and undisputed in the narrowly nationalistic custody of the law according to its specific understanding and close interpretation. And the results of this rabbinic absolutism are eloquently demonstrated by some clear and striking facts. The Hebrew Bible in its original was inaccessible to the majority of the Jewish people and, when read in synagogues, required the help of paraphrases and targums. It would seem that the latter serve the most good and reasonable purposes and should be widely disseminated, but it was strictly forbidden to write them down - of course, because there could be liberties and deviations from the rabbinic stencil, which is why even the (allegedly) liberal Gamaliel I ordered the targum on the book of Job to be withdrawn from use. True, all this hid the true biblical content from the religious Jewish masses, but this was how it was supposed to be for an ignorant of the law, a cursed people (John 7:49) on the part of those who took away the keys of understanding, who themselves did not enter and did not allow those entering (Luke 9:52; Matt. 23:23). They jealously blocked all independent trends and with fanatical severity eliminated “free” religious-mystical literature, as depriving even its simple bearer of the kingdom of heaven, although it grew and spread precisely under the influence of rabbinic terror, which destroyed without a trace all the originals of apocryphal-apocalyptic works. Moreover, completely correct religious and edifying literature was subjected to a similar unmerciful fate, since it did not contribute to nomistic chauvinism, but preached religious and humanitarian morality. An example of this is the pious Book of Sirach: soon after the Greek translation, it completely disappeared in the Hebrew text, which began to be found accidentally and fragmentarily only at the end of the last century. This means that Ezra’s narrowly nationalistic work continued and was strengthened by its invariably biblical justification. The law of the Lord of heaven and earth, the Creator and Creator of all things, the absolute light for the whole world and mankind, was declared and made the exclusive privilege of the chosen Israel. And suddenly, in the midst of such a condensed atmosphere, Christianity shone forth with its universalistic understanding and divine-human implementation of biblical plans. As the fanatics must have did the legalists react against this living and undeniable reality, which overturned their entire cause and the very religious doctrine? In the first respect, they responded by killing the “rebel” they hated, trying to blot out his very name (Acts 4:17-18; 5:28), and replaced the truth of the personal divine Redeemer of the Bible embodied by him with the nationalist idea of ​​the messianism of all Israel, as the people of God and the suffering redeemer for the entire sinful, rejected world of the goyim. The biblical text could not contradict this despotic activism, but was obliged to sanction it as a divinely established norm, and, therefore, must be completely consistent with this in its entire content. So the Masoretes actually have it to such close agreement that it cannot help but seem tendentious. And if the Greek interpretation of the LXX introduced disharmony, it was artificially discredited by fabricated defamations and weakened by the creation and encouragement of new Greek translations, unsatisfactory and crude, but more suitable for Jewish nationalist construction, literalistically - stupidly supporting its biblical basis. Even the most traditional order of biblical synagogue readings underwent some anti-Christian modifications (see Ludwig Venetianer. Ursprung und Bedeutung der Propheten-Lektionen. Leipzig, 1909), for it allowed for personal messianic applications and protections, as can be seen in the examples of Christ the Savior in the Nazareth Synagogue (Luke 4:16 and next) and the Apostle Paul in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13, 14 et seq.). Everything must imitate and conform to the stereotypical pattern under the strictest censorship of the Jewish lawyers. And we know from tradition that the spiritual revivalist of Judaism after the Roman defeat, Rabbi Akiba, destroyed all biblical manuscripts, legalizing only one textual type, which was multiplied and distributed only in certified copies after examination and permission by their elected nomistic makers, just as now all authentic Bibles of the Jewish publishing house exactly coincide with each other not just in the text, but also in its very distribution across the pages, lines, syllables and even letters. What has been said is now confirmed by the fact that the Jewish manuscripts that have survived to this day originated no earlier than the 10th century; - how did this happen when we have New Testaments from the end of the 4th century, and papyrus fragments are older? There are extremely few Jewish variants there, and the ancient marks keri and ketib are very few and insignificant, meanwhile, the immense number of New Testament discrepancies creates purely “volcanic” dangers for the reconstruction of the original form of the New Testament writings - how to explain this amazing oddity, when the Hebrew markings present immeasurably more reasons for all sorts of misunderstandings in comparison with Greek itacisms (during dictation)? And how can one reasonably comprehend that this feature is clearly directed against personalistic messianism, which is dogmatically rejected by both Jewish learning and Jewish faith? In recent years, the famous Berlin professor and academician Adolf von Harnack began searching for dogmatic corrections in the Greek New Testament text, in particular in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Zwei alte dogmatische Korrekturen im Hebraerbrief: Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche I. Berlin, 1931, S. 235–252). In specific cases, this attempt seems to me unfounded and unsuccessful, but if this very idea is possible for the New Testament, then why is it considered scientifically heretical for the Old? For what reasons and motives did Jewish and Judaic biblical scholars declare it fundamentally unthinkable? And we know too well that not a single intelligent criminal leaves documentary evidence of his act... And as soon as with religious conviction he finds the latter correct and necessary, then it is obligatory for him to present a justifying norm, which was the corresponding biblical code here. Here, for the desired editing, there were all the moral incentives and grounds, and in fact this work could be done easily and almost imperceptibly due to the Hebrew style, scriptio continue and the absence of punctuation and vocalization, where the slightest strokes can change the meaning. After this, in the future, unlimited scope opened up for all sorts of attacks and apologies in the necessary interests, for it is firmly evidenced that the rabbinical luminaries could hang entire mountains of laws on a single thread... Against the foregoing, they always refer to the extraordinary attentiveness of Judaism to literal scrupulousness and reverent preservation of textual biblical integrity. There are so many legends on this subject that one cannot help but doubt their objective correctness and actual impartiality. And historical information is such that sometimes even “the book of the law of the Lord, given by the hand of Moses,” disappeared for a long time, and it was necessary to acquaint the most pious king of Judah, Josiah, with it, for whom all the contents turned out to be new and amazing (2 Kings 22, 8-20; 2 Chronicles 34, 14-28). Doesn't this indicate extreme negligence, or - rather - deliberate premeditation? As for particulars, it is enough to recall how much Jews still value their genealogies and honor their “fathers” and ancestors, but in reality in this very area there is a striking confusion in the names of many historical persons, not excluding the high priests, for whom it is sometimes completely impossible to establish the true origin. Under these conditions, we should not forget that the patristic authorities, allowing for the textual hebraicam veritatem (Blessed Jerome), did not at all consider it absolute, but the relativity extended to the point that the famous Alexandrian Origen, a great expert on Scripture and textual critic, suggested the special removal from the originals by Jewish scholars of entire biblical sections (for example, about Susanna) that were unfavorable for Jewish reputation, but holy. John Chrysostom, who also had some access to the Hebrew Bible, often spoke of its deliberate distortions, especially in Messianic places, on the part of Jewish reference workers. The totality of all the data presented obliges us to allow for the systematic correction of the original biblical text by Jewish editors with the decisive elimination of all other varieties that were either directly destroyed or perished in the Genizah. And the less we know about the details of this “critical” work, the more unclear and specifically Jewish it turns out, but still some stages of this process are quite indisputable in essential features. The first - at the end of the 7th century BC under the Jewish king Josiah, when the high priest Hilkiah “found” in the church the book of the law of the Lord, where the Israelites’ apostasy from Jehovah to burn incense to other gods was highly exposed and the nomistically punishing severity of the commandments of Moses was restored. It is indisputable that this was not a new “book”, but the old Deuteronomy, or even the entire Pentateuch, in which a more definite meaning of the noted character was now “revealed”. This means that there was a revision in favor of ritual-nomistic rigorism, so that the legalized cult of worship was strictly and accurately observed in order to isolate Judaism from paganism. The second stage is the reform of Ezra, who directed the entire life of Jewry along the narrow channel of nationalist exclusivity and in this sense “wrote” (with the participation of members of the Great Synagogue) the entire Bible. This review was more extensive, covering all the Old Testament books and highlighting into the “canon” only those writings suitable for rabbinism, with an absolute prohibition against increasing its composition and reinterpreting the legalized biblical text. She continued and extended the previous revisionary policy towards the internal religious isolation of Israel, which now, naturally, becomes negative and then even hostile to any other movements, if the latter encroached on its “inalienable property” and made “Jewish property” publicly available outside the Israeli nomistic fence and, perhaps, with biblical permission. This inevitable conclusion had to be clearly formulated after the success of the Greek version of the LXX, which popularized personalistic universal messianism throughout the world at that time, and was decisively made around the time of Christ the Savior, and finally consolidated in the Masoretic edition (7-10 centuries AD), in which the Hebrew Bible became nationalistic-messianic and therefore anti-Christian. For all these three revisions there was the greatest vital need, and its satisfaction was a religious necessity, which morally facilitated and even encouraged editorial work. And what was she leaning towards, if not for the Bible to “fall silent” and speak messianically – Christianly? But we know and see that the sacred tetragram, which expressed the very essence of the deity (cf. Ex. 3, 13-14), post-exilic Judaism made “shem gammephorash” - an ineffable name, unknown to anyone, since the high priest himself remembered it and could pronounce it only once a year on the great day of purification (10th Tishri) and only in complete solitude in the darkness of the saint saints After this, what is surprising and wonderful if here the Hebrew Bible “silenced” in the Jewish way? Let us now turn to the Greek translation of the LXX interpreters. Its main difference lies in the personalistic-messianic nature of the prophecies, which later quite logically and normally received Christian application in relation to the personality of the Lord the Redeemer. Why did this happen and is there a chronologically determined bias here? But during the period of this translation (in Alexandria during the time from Ptolemy Philadelphus to Ptolemy III Euergetes between 285 and 221 BC), of course, there was no Christianity even in more or less clear foreknowledge and there were no special messianic tensions in the supposed producing circles, and tradition assures that the request came from Alexandria, but was motivated exclusively by bibliophilic motives and was satisfied with blessed success by the most competent authorities, on the basis of approved copies sent by the Jewish leaders from Palestine, together with authorized translators. And if partial messianic passions really prevailed in the Alexandrian spheres, then how can we explain the increase in time from the creation of the world to Christ in the LXX (5508 years) versus the Jewish account (4004 years) by almost a full third (1504 years) compared with the latter? Isn't it much more plausible that a special Jewish edition was accurately reproduced here? The same should be thought about other deviations of a textual-factual nature, for example, in the different distribution of chapters in the book of the prophet Jeremiah. Various other observations also lead to this conclusion. Thus, the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Polyglots of Paris (1645) and in the London Brian Walton (1657) has up to 6,000 variants compared to the Masoretic review, often adjacent to the LXX translation. Doesn't this provide documented evidence for the textual validity of the Greek version? To weaken its dignity, ancient disgraceful legends are cited, but they are more like malicious defamations based on party and religious prejudices. Indeed, in the same ancient legends, no less decisively it is reported about the impeccability and saving power of translation work, why its completion was a bright holiday for the whole world, which was solemnly celebrated every year on the island of Pharos (near Alexandria). And some facts confirm that the Greek translation of the LXX was not just a noteworthy book in Egypt, but also had liturgical use among the Jews there. Likewise, it was once quite valued in Palestine itself, where a text similar to it was widely circulated. They reproach that it contains various dubious apocrypha, unknown to Judaism and not postulating Jewish archetypes, and therefore the entire Greek biblical canon has not received either dissemination or authority. And this is all extremely exaggerated, for, for example, Sirach was familiar to Philo, who was so disparagingly treated by rabbinic Judaism, and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which is most Greek in language and concepts, allows for guesses (even from Jewish scholars) that there are ancient Jewish primary sources behind it. The comparison of the Hebrew Masoretic Bible and the Greek translation of the LXX in objective historical light and impartial interpretation scientifically forces me to formulate in the end that the Greek interpretation reproduces a Jewish textual type independent of the Masoretic. We know nothing exactly about him, but, obviously, this is one of those that was not subjected to the revisionary inspection of Jewish censors and did not experience proofreading from rabbinic orthodoxy, and in textual New Testament criticism the axiom dominates that “neutral” texts, not affected by the revisions of special reference books, contain readings that are more ancient and closest to the author’s originals. From this point of view, the Jewish fundamental principle of the LXX should be considered the least damaged textually and much more ancient in comparison with the Masoretic edition, which was formed under anti-Christian sentiments and completed already in late Christian times (10th century). All of the above directly exalts the textual dignity of the LXX as an independent objective witness to the genuine hebraicae veritatis, surpassing the Masoretic retouched text in its antiquity and the indisputable authenticity of its content, for example, in the 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. Firmly adhering to this position, Slavic science and confession never went to extremes in evaluating their Bible, as the Church of Constantinople tried to do, proclaiming the LXX as an authentic textual exponent of the original. I know of only one case of this kind, when the latinizing Chief Prosecutor of the Russian Holy Synod, the imperious Count N.A. Pratasov (January 16, 1855) submitted (to Emperor Nicholas I) the idea of declaring the Slavic translation of the Bible self-authentic, like the Latin Vulgate, but (according to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow) “The Holy Synod... did not declare the Slavic text exclusively independent and thus shrewdly blocked the path to those difficulties and intricacies that in this case would have been the same, or else greater than those in the Roman Church arose from the proclamation of the independent text of the Vulgate." It was accepted and applied only that the Slavic Bible represented a venerable interpretation of the word of God to the extent of its agreement with the Greek version of the LXX, and the latter was fully respected, but not at all exalted exclusively. On the contrary, the Russians had fluctuations in the exact dosage of its correctness in relation to the Masoretic reconstruction. In the history of Russian theology, there were hobbies in both directions, which found the most vivid expression in modern times (see Prof. I. N. Korsunsky. Proceedings of the Moscow Theological Academy on the translation of St. Scriptures and works of St. Fathers into Russian for seventy-five years (1814–1889) of its existence in the “Additions to the Works of St. Fathers." Part XLV for 1890, book. 2, ss. 341–405). Some resolutely extolled the Hebrew text, reducing all the differences in the LXX mainly to misunderstandings and reinterpretations of Greek translators (Prof. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov, f 1904, October 21: A few words about the article by His Grace Bishop Theophan “Concerning the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament” in “Orthodox Review”, 1875, no. 11, pp. 504–540; About the confusion caused by the Russian translation of the Holy Books of the Old Testament, ibid. 1877, Nos. 1, 2 and 4, pp. 69–104, 681–702; St. Fathers,” 1880, part 26, pp. 1070–1085, in the book “Annual Act at the Moscow Theological Academy on October 1, 1880,” M., 1880, pp. 7–22, and in “Orthodox Review,” 1880, no. 10, pp. 363–375). Others defended the Greek interpretation no less energetically and convincingly, considering the Masoretic review to be biased and corrected (Bishop Theophan Govorov, f 1894, January 6: Regarding the publication of the books of the Old Testament in Russian translation in “Soulful Reading”, 1875, No. 11, pp. 342–352, and also under the title “Right - a word about the publication of the books of the Old Testament in Russian translation” in “Home Conversation”, 1875, no. 47, ss. 1212–1219; About our duty to adhere to the translation of XXL interpreters in “Soulful Reading”, 1876, No. 5, pp. 3–21; On the use of a new translation of the Old Testament writings, ibid., 1876, No. 9, pp. 100–106; The Bible translated by XXL interpreters is our legitimate Bible in “Home Conversation”, 1876, vol. 20, 22 and 23, pp. 499–503, 527–529, 579–590; Resolution of the question of the extent of use of the current Jewish text according to the instructions of church practice, ibid., 1876, no. 28, pp. 699–709; Which text of the Old Testament scriptures should we adhere to? in the Church Bulletin, 1876, No. 19, pp. 1–2; On the measure of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text according to the instructions of church practice, ibid., 1876, No. 23, pp. 1–5, and related articles by Prof. I. S. Yakimova, 11885, in the “Church Bulletin”, 1876, Nos. 13, 19 and 35, pp. 1–3, 2–4, 1–4; Regarding the opinion of one bishop about the significance of the Russian translation of the Old Testament holy books, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod; Reply to His Eminence Theophan; On the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, as indicated by church practice. See also prof. O. I. N. Korolkova, Eminence Theophan, former Bishop of Vladimir and Colonel S. A. Pervukhin in their mutual correspondence... with the appendix of the article “Judgments of Bishop Theophan and Bishop Porfiry on the translation of Holy Scripture into Russian,” Kyiv, 1915, pp. 65–69, 96–139). Nevertheless, both of these scientific trends never reached mutually exclusive extremes in Russian science and, if possible, were reconciled - however, with a warning from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (in his “Note”); “so that when using the Hebrew text as a guide to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, there is no room for arbitrariness, to put a barrier in this matter against evading the accuracy of Orthodox dogmas, and to protect the sacred importance of the text of the seventy in its ancient purity those - for this purpose, in the teaching of Holy Scripture, or in sacred hermeneutics, protective rules must be proposed, extracted from the essence of the matter, and from church and paternal examples.” Under these inspirations, the Russian translation of the Bible was begun and, despite authoritative and justified protests (for example, Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret Amfitheatrov, f 1857, December 21), was completed (1858–1875) - with the participation of all Theological Academies and invited learned people - by the will and supervision of the Holy Synod, the Russian translation of the Bible, which served as the fundamental basis for the newest Bulgarian translation (Sofia, 1925). Russian science did not abandon the principle of the leadership supremacy of the LXX. Yes, Prof. V.N. Myshtsyn wrote that “one cannot unconditionally and in everything give preference to the Masoretic text, that in some cases the Greek translation preserved the reading better than the original - the reading is correct and original, as a result of which the LXX translation has not only the authority of the original translation used in the Christian Church, but also the authority of the best critical means when correcting the Masoretic text; its use is not only ecclesiastical, but also scientific" (in The Theological Bulletin, 1895, Nos. 2 and 3, pp. 214–288, 345–377: Do we need a Greek translation of the Bible given the existence of the Hebrew original?). In turn, Prof. IN original." Therefore, it was impossible to find a scientific biblical-exegetical work in Russia where this Greek text was not systematically utilized. But since it was at least considered equal to the Jewish one, then - along with the latter - it should have become publicly available for unhindered use by researchers and lovers of Scripture. For these reasons, attempts were made to translate Russian directly from the LXX, for example, by Bishop Porfiry Uspensky of Chigirin (f 1885, April 19), of whose similar works only the “Psalter” is in print (2nd ed., St. Petersburg, 1906); in modern times, this great scientific and church feat was raised and energetically carried out by the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy P. A. Yungerov (1922, March 27), who managed to release almost the entire biblical text in Russian processing according to the LXX (the Pentateuch of Moses in Greek-Slavic and Russian translations, the Book of Genesis. Kazan, 1917; The Book of Job in Russian translation from the Greek text LXX, with introduction and notes, Kazan, 1914; Psalter in Russian translation from the Greek text LXX, with introduction and notes, Kazan, 1908; The Book of Solomon's Proverbs in Russian translation from the Greek text LXX, with Slavic translation, introduction and notes, Kazan, 1908; The books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs in Russian translation from the Greek text LXX, with introduction and notes, Kazan, 1916; Books of the great prophets: Isaiah, Kazan, 1909, Jeremiah and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, Kazan, 1910; Ezekiel, Kazan, 1911, Daniel, Kazan, 1912; small prophets, Kazan, 1913; non-canonical books, Kazan, 1907). Due to their correspondence between the LXX and the Slavic translation, it receives high and widespread interest. This, of course, is a precious monument of Slavic literature and from this side it has been fairly and carefully studied in Russia by specialists in historical, literary and philological relations; Numerous textual publications actually served this purpose better. However, at the same time, bibliological requests were also sufficiently taken into account (see, for example, Prof. I. S. Yakimov. Critical studies of the text of the Slavic translation of the Old Testament in its dependence on the text of the translation of seventy interpreters in “Christian Reading”, 1878, part I, pp. 706–742; part II, pp. 235–250, 314–340, 536–562; V. K. Lebedev. Slavic translation of the book of Joshua from the preserved manuscripts and the Ostrozhnaya Bible. St. Petersburg, 1890; Prof. F. G. Eleonsky. On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Elizabethan Bible, 1902; text and ancient, except for 70, translations into the oldest Slavic translation of the Bible. St. Petersburg, 1905, Prof. A. V. Mikhailov. Experience of studying the text of the book of Genesis in the ancient Slavic translation. Warsaw, 1905), because the Slavic translation is military the work of a venerable Greek prototype and a traditionally authorized interpretation of biblical content, why here it should be subject to scientific study from the textual-exegetical side. Works of this kind in Russian science, which is better known to me, were aimed primarily at restoring the ancient Slavic text that existed before the 15th century in order to approach the Cyril and Methodius original (see Prof. G. A. Voskresensky. Cyril and Methodius translation of the Bible in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers,” 1885, part 36, pp. 229–252) and in it to acquire a faithful witness of its Greek prototype, which would then serve as an objective measure of the accuracy of the work of the Slavic first teachers, as well as the nature of the biblical-Christian enlightenment that they brought to the Slavs and permeated our entire culture even to this day. Most of all, the ever-memorable rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky (f October 11, 1875), who especially served this cause in (committed by him together with K.I.) contributed to this enterprise. Nevostruev) “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” (in 1855–1869 five books were published in Moscow, for which see the Index of names and subjects by E. M. Vitoshinsky, Warsaw, 1915, and the sixth, prepared back in 1863, was published only in 1921 under the editorship N.P. Popov), where he discovered, collected and reviewed enormous material and outlined new prospects for fruitful work on the genesis and restitution of the Slavic Bible. According to the fair and competent judgment of Prof. G. A. Voskresensky (f 1918, March 10/23), - this “is, one might say, an inexhaustible treasury of critically cleared facts for the history of the sacred biblical text” (Slavic). The work went much more intensively and systematically, focusing on achieving the final result. For the New Testament, the scholarly works and textual-critical publications of the above-mentioned prof. G. A. Voskresensky (Ancient Slavic translation of the Apostle and his fate until the 15th century. Moscow, 1879; Characteristic features of four editions of the Slavic translation of the Gospel of Mark according to one hundred and twenty manuscripts of the 11th–16th centuries, Moscow, 1898 [to this see “Amendments, additions and comments” by prof. M. D. Muretova in a special brochure, Sergiev Posad, 1897]; The Gospels of Mark according to the main lists of four editions of the handwritten Slavic Gospel text with discrepancies from one hundred and eight Gospel manuscripts of the 11th–16th centuries, Sergiev Posad, 1894; Ancient Slavic Apostle: Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul according to the main lists of four editions of the handwritten Slavic apostolic text with discrepancies from fifty-one [- seven -] manuscripts of the 1st century] 12–16 centuries; issue 1st – Epistle to the Romans, Sergiev Posad, 1892; issue 2nd – Epistle to the Corinthians 1st, Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1906; issue 3–5 – Epistle to the 2nd Corinthians, to the Galatians and Ephesians, Sergiev Posad, 1908, – with various guiding and informative treatises on this subject (for example, On the issue of the scientific publication of the Slavic translation of the Bible in the collection “In memory of the centenary of the Moscow Theological Academy”, part 1, Sergiev Posad, 1915). In his work, all handwritten texts are distributed into four successive stages according to their typical differences, and the entire development of the Slavic translation is presented in the historical and literary process without direct correlation with Greek reviews, although with random illustrations from Greek variant readings. Here the Slavic translation is described only as a scientifically verified and literary balanced special monument of Slavic writing. Prof. went further and more insightfully in relation to the Old Testament. I. E. Evseev (1921), who in two thorough dissertations (The Book of the Prophet Isaiah in the Old Slavic translation in two parts: 1 – Slavic translation based on manuscripts of the 12th–16th centuries; 2 – Greek original Slavic translation of the book of St. Isaiah, St. Petersburg, 1897. The Book of the Prophet Daniel in Old Slavic translation: introduction and texts - Slavic and Greek, Moscow, 1905) gave not only a reconstruction of the Slavic translation of the books of the prophets Isaiah and Daniel, but also a reconstruction of the Greek fundamental principle itself in the typical “edition” supposed for them. He later devoted all his work to this idea and used vigorous efforts to implement it (Manuscript Tradition of the Slavic Bible, St. Petersburg, 1911; Note on the scientific publication of the Slavic translation of the Bible and the draft of the said publication: for the 200th anniversary of the first royal decree on improving the Slavic translation of the Bible, St. Petersburg, 1912; Centenary anniversary of the Russian translation of the Bible, Petrograd, 1916 Essays on the history of the Slavic translation of the Bible, Petrograd, 1917), to ultimately ensure the publication of Holmes-Parsons' Slavic with equal scholarly excellence and documentary abundance. Thus, over the course of several centuries and with the participation of entire generations of numerous scientists, enormous material for this great pan-Slavic work has accumulated in Russia - over 4,000 lists of Slavic manuscripts of various types for Old Testament books and even more for New Testament books. There were also useful reference guides (for example, P. A. Hiltebrandt: Reference and Explanatory Dictionary for the New Testament, two volumes, St. Petersburg, 1883, 1885; Reference and Explanatory Dictionary for the Psalms, St. Petersburg, 1898), scientific preliminary notes, scientific works and material resources. The time has come to unite and implement, through joint efforts, all the most important results in the best Slavic text. To fully implement this grandiose plan, a Biblical Commission of authoritative scholars was formed and functioned (since 1915) at the Petrograd Theological Academy for the scientific-critical edition of the Slavic Bible, which was designed for approximately nine large volumes: 6 for the Old Testament and 3 for the New. The implementation of this colossal task would have been an extremely fruitful acquisition for the entire scientific bibliology, not to mention the exceptional value for our theology, pan-Slavic philology and literature, but everything was stopped by the frenzied and wild Bolshevism... However, has this very glorious task really perished? I don’t think so, because in that case it would be necessary agree that the entire Slavic centuries-old civilization has also disappeared, and what kind of Herostratus can be found among the true scientists all over the world?.. And here I am, an old man barely floating on the ocean of refugees, firmly believe that this holy work will be brought to a brilliant crown through the joint labors of the Slavic priests of science... We must all invariably remember that the Slavic Bible, which embraces all the Slavs according to its cultural-Christian birth and growth, is a life-giving source and organic center of pan-Slavic unity, which must be nurtured and nurtured in the biblical cradle and with biblical Slavic blessings. Therefore, one cannot sympathize, but must resist the displacement of this ancestor and our guardian angel from our Orthodox worship by various nationalistic surrogates, most often vulgarly rude, belittling divine pomp to the level of common folk ordinariness, mutually dividing the Slavic peoples even in public prayer, and thereby weakening all Slavic brothers and leading to external and spiritual subjugation. But our Slavic Bible, in golden letters, outlines its bright ideal before us and proclaims the sacred covenant to all Slavs: WE WILL BE UNITED AND WE WILL BE FREE! Sofia. 1932 10. 9 (10. 27.) – Wednesday You might be interested in: