О тексте главы

The text of the book of St. Ezekiel is considered the most damaged in the entire Old Testament (Cor. 4). They find that in this sad respect the book of Ezekiel is not inferior only to the 1st and 2nd books of Kings (See XXLX). This, of course, significantly increases the already exorbitant difficulty that is the explanation of the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel. The interpreter of this chapter cannot begin his hard work with the full confidence that he is reading what the prophet wrote. The main sign of damage to any biblical book in the text is the discrepancy in its transmission by various surviving copies, editions, translations of the Bible, the so-called. biblical codes. The extent to which the book of Ezekiel is conveyed inconsistently by various codes can be judged by the following circumstance: one researcher of its text says that while he was reading the book of Ezekiel in the Hebrew text, this prophet made a heavy impression on him and he could not study it; when he began to read it in the Greek text, “the fog that shrouded the meaning of the book began to clear, and a text of peculiar rare beauty and majesty with a powerfully fascinating originality appeared to the amazed gaze” (Cor. 3). But if we begin to read not the entire book of St. Ezekiel, but only its first chapter in all existing codes, then the difference between the latter will not seem so significant to us, and in any case, the sacred darkness enveloping this chapter will not be dispelled by any of these editions. Nevertheless, explanatory work on the 1st chapter of Ezekiel cannot begin until the question is resolved of how well the text of this great chapter has been preserved, whether it has suffered significant damage or has come to us in a more or less pure form. Western biblical criticism is inclined to believe that the book of Ezekiel has reached us in an unrecognizably corrupted form. The book of Ezekiel, says Hitzig, as bearing the imprint of a unique individuality and having adopted a foreign language and ideas, should have sounded strange and already during the living language was very difficult to understand (XVI). This obscurity of the language, which in a particularly difficult chapter and in difficult places is even stronger, Western criticism thinks, could not help but prompt many, almost from the very appearance of the book, even before the translation of LXX, to make explanatory notes in the margins to various words and expressions of the prophet, explanations similar to those that were made to the works of ancient Roman and Byzantine writers and to which scholasticism adopted the name gloss. These marginal glosses could have been inserted into the text itself by ignorant copyists. Needless to say, with such a way of thinking it is difficult to put a limit on the arbitrariness of interpreters. Anything that, in the opinion of one or another interpreter, could not have been said by the prophet or simply does not fit the style and worldview attributed to this prophet without further consideration is considered a later insertion into the text. In the generally accepted text of Ezekiel 1, various commentators indicate many glosses. The entire chapter is covered with glosses to such an extent as if special work of glossators was carried out on it, similar to what the medieval professors of the University of Bologna experienced on the Justinian Codex. If similar work on Chapter 1. Ezek. ever took place, its results would have reached us in the form in which the mentioned work of the Bologna professors has reached us, i.e. in the form of comments strictly distinguished from the sacred text, which is what the work represents, for example. Targum. But to assume that these remarks and whole rows of them found their way into the text and over time became the sacred text itself means to have a very offensive opinion about the ancient readers and copyists of the sacred books. Those persons in whose hands in ancient times the high and respected task of copying sacred books, interpreting and storing them were in their hands, were distinguished by perhaps even a more thorough knowledge of their text than modern scientists. They amazed everyone with their knowledge of the sacred. text down to the last subtleties and details. And respect for this text and the view of it as divinely inspired sufficiently protected it from introducing anything alien into it. When they allow the possibility of penetration into the sacred. text gloss, then they talk about the biblical text by analogy with the texts of the ancient Greek classics - Homer, Hesiod, etc. Indeed, the study of the classics. The text showed that it suffered significantly from the zeal of the Alexandrian grammarians, who tried to explain it with their remarks, some of which ended up in the text over time. In ancient classical works, which, as is now recognized by most of their researchers, were created by additions and amendments from one singer to another, such an encroachment on the text was possible and natural. But for a biblical text to suffer such a fate, it first had to lose its sacred and divinely inspired character in the eyes of its guardians, which has never happened to it. Being incredible in itself, the assumption that the text of Chapter 1. Ezekiel is greatly damaged by glosses; this assumption is not confirmed in each individual case. Most of those words and expressions that are counted in Chapter 1. Ezek. by one or another researcher for glosses, not only do not themselves explain anything in the text, but are darker than the text itself. This is for example Art. 14, which is considered a gloss to Art. 13, but is itself much darker than it. In general, the internal necessity of each of the supposed glosses is not visible, so to speak. Often, an imaginary gloss explains an expression that is clear to everyone (for example, in v. 23, a number of sentences are considered to be a gloss to the expression; “the sound of the wings was like the voice of God”). Or, even worse, the gloss sometimes obscures an expression that is quite clear without it (for example, “the thirtieth year,” about which it is unknown where the prophet comes from, is recognized as a gloss for such a clear designation of time as “the 4th year of Jeconiah”). Now Western biblical criticism is already coming to the conclusion that in order to explain all the difficult passages of the book of Ezekiel and especially 1 ch. its assumptions of gloss are far from sufficient. The author of the newest interpretation of the book of Ezekiel, Kretschmar, finds in the text a different kind of damage, more radical. He suggests that the book was originally circulated in two very dissimilar texts or reviews, of which the shorter one, which probably preserved the original text of the prophet, was subsequently replenished in places from the extensive one. But this connection was made rather clumsily, in places simply mechanically; hence the book contains frequent repetitions and additions to previous thoughts. “As a text of the book of Jeremiah, there were two reviews that deviated from each other, but were in significant agreement, one of which came down to us in the Masoret. t., and the other in LXX, so there were two types for the text of the book of Ezekiel. But while in that book (Jer.) the reviews existed next to each other, incompatible, in this (Ezek.) an equation of both was undertaken in the form of a revised combination of them. And this was already done when LXX began their translation (Kr. on art. 1). Kretschmar finds confirmation of his assumption at the very beginning of Chapter 1: Art. 1st and 2nd represent two beginnings of the book, simply placed side by side, each with its own chronological date; in Art. By the 3rd, two types of text are already combined into one: in the preserved LXX text of this verse, Ezekiel speaks on his own behalf; in wt. i.e. it is spoken of in the 3rd person. Against this “two-text hypothesis” of the book of Ezekiel, one must say what is generally said by defenders of the integrity of biblical books against various theories of their corruption. Without repeating these objections, we will note regarding the 1st chapter of the prophet Ezekiel that such significant damage to the text as the theory presented suggests can be less expected on this mysterious page of the Bible than in any other place in the Old Testament. In the first chapter of the book of Ezekiel we are dealing with a description of the appearance of God to the prophet. Thus, this is one of the rare pages of the Bible, just as rare as the cases of God’s direct appearance to people have been in humanity. Naturally, these cases should have been especially clearly imprinted in the historical memory of humanity, or more precisely, in that part of humanity in which they were possible (in the Israeli people). And we see that, for example, the appearances of God to Abraham before the time of Moses, i.e. for 400 years, have been preserved in legend with the slightest detail. Could, in this case, the authentic record of an eyewitness about one of the most wonderful and most remarkable appearances of God be significantly damaged? If among the contemporaries and later compatriots of the prophet Ezekiel there were people who believed him, who believed that God appeared to him and that he saw Him with his own eyes (and there could not but be such, for otherwise there would be no one for whom the prophet would speak; cf. 1 Kings. 19:14), then the prophet’s record of this vision could count on better preservation in posterity than the other part of his book. Could only the extraordinary strangeness of this appearance of God have prompted someone to make some alterations and explanatory insertions (glosses) in the text of the original entry. But the whole vision is so filled with such extraordinary things and oddities, it is all so mysterious and incomprehensible, that if anyone decided to redo it for greater clarity, they would have to redo everything. All this explains the remarkable and beneficial phenomenon for the researcher of the first chapter of St. Ezekiel that this chapter, belonging to rare passages of the Old Testament in its difficulty and obscurity, does not share the common fate of such passages in relation to their text: its text is transmitted by various monuments not as inconsistently as other difficult passages of the Bible. In the whole chapter, only two verses can be indicated (14 and 25), not particularly important, in the transmission of which the surviving copies differ significantly. This agreement will seem amazing if you get a rough idea of ​​the number of ancient biblical copies. Scientist Englishman Kennicott and Italian. Professor de Rossi collated and noted variants of more than 1400 (581 Kennick., and 825 de Rossi) manuscripts of one Hebrew text (the first in its edition; Vetus testamendum hebraice, Oxford, 1776-1780, the second in Clavis seu descriptio coll. editorumque codicum sacri textus. Variae, lectiones Veteris Testamenti, Parma, 1784–1788; Suppelmentum 1798 an.). How consistently the first chapter of the book is conveyed in all these Jewish manuscripts. Ezekiel, can be judged by the results of a curious comparison made by Cornelius. He compared the oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts of the book of Ezekiel with the text of it now published and in the entire book he found only 16 valid (influencing the meaning) options; for the first chapter there was not a single option and only one minor discrepancy (precisely in the 13th century, instead of מראיהם מראיהן, i.e., the feminine gender in the pronominal suffix instead of the masculine. Cor. 8). It should be noted, however, that the oldest surviving Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament is no older than the 10th century (the so-called codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, dated 916 and belonging to the St. Petersburg Public Library 14. In view of such a relatively shallow antiquity of the Hebrew manuscripts of the biblical text, more important than these manuscripts are as monuments of the biblical text, have ancient translations of the Bible, what are the Greek translations: 70, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Targum, Syriac translation Peshito, Vulgate, etc. The most important among them for us, of course, is the LXX translation, both because it is the oldest translation and is separated from the appearance of the book of Ezekiel itself by only a few centuries, and because it is represented by many very ancient manuscripts. Some between 70 manuscripts date back to the 4th century. according to R. X.; such are the codes of Alexandria, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (in which the book of Ezekiel is not present). Of all such ancient (IV–XIII centuries) manuscripts, or so-called translation codes, 70 to 30 have been discovered. A set of their variants is made in the work of Holmes-Parsons: Vetus Testamentum graecum cum variis lectonibus, 1798–1827. There are 70 translation manuscripts, as in other ancient translations, 1 ch. book Ezekiel is no longer transmitted with the same agreement with which it is transmitted by the surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew text; there are quite significant discrepancies with the Hebrew. text and among themselves (vv. 4, 7, 13, 14, 18, 24). But between these options there are barely two or three throughout the entire chapter that affect the meaning of the narrative (vv. 7 and 13). In general, all ancient translations convey this chapter with remarkable, compared to other difficult sections of the Bible, agreement both among themselves and with the text of the Hebrew manuscripts. Therefore, anyone looking for edification in this chapter can read it from any Bible without any particular damage to the matter. Comparison of texts, which sometimes provides such services to exegesis, provides little for the first chapter of St. Ezekiel. Some disagreement in the transmission of the text of the first chapter of St. Ezekiel by Hebrew manuscripts and ancient translations, especially the translation of such venerable antiquity as translation 70, does not allow the researcher of this chapter to completely avoid the question of where its text is transmitted more accurately. The solution to this question is necessary simply because some text needs to be used as the basis for interpretation, to be made the starting point for explanation. It would be most desirable, of course, to read this great chapter in Hebrew and use the Hebrew text as the basis for interpretation. This has long been accepted among Western interpreters: the basis for exegetical works is the Jewish so-called Masoretic text, which, of course, was carefully verified according to all surviving Jewish manuscripts. Although it was possible that errors could have crept into this text over the centuries, until very recently all learned researchers of the Old Testament agreed that it is most natural to make the Jewish Masoretic text the original and fundamental one for interpretation based on the fact that the sacred author himself wrote and thought in it and that every translation, even such an ancient one as the translation of the LXX, is not able to convey all the shades of Jewish thought as the Hebrew text, at least in places and damaged. On the other hand, nothing can compare with the charm that comes from reading biblical books, in a language that, more than others, perhaps deserves the name majestic and sacred. At least with regard to such sections of the Old Testament as the 1st chapter of Ezekiel, there is no doubt that they make all their truly amazing impressions only when reading them in Hebrew; every other language, especially one as different and directly opposite to Hebrew as any of the newest languages, necessarily puts its alien flavor on sacred and ancient lines. And of the biblical authors, perhaps no one loses as much by transmitting it in another language as St. Ezekiel. It is known that Schiller wanted to study Hebrew only in order to read Ezekiel in the original (Bert. XX; Tr. 10). This would be the case if the Hebrew Masoretic text had survived intact or more intact than other texts. This is what they thought about this text until recently, and it was forced to think so, both by the remarkable agreement among themselves of all the surviving Jewish manuscripts, and by the reverence with which ancient Judaism treated every letter of the law. But it was precisely the agreement of the Jewish manuscripts, the agreement in all the details, that seemed suspicious to one scientist de Lagarde. He found that this agreement extended even to the occasional shortcomings of the text, that all Hebrew manuscripts repeated the most obvious errors with amazing agreement. From this it followed the conclusion that all Jewish manuscripts, among which, as was said, there are no manuscripts older than the 10th century, slavishly copy one copy. De Lagarde thinks that during some widespread destruction of the sacred Jewish books (which happened, for example, under Hadrian), only one or two copies of the Bible could have been preserved, which formed the basis for all later copies of the Old Testament. The Arabs have a tradition that during one persecution of the Jews, only one list of sacred books was preserved (Cor. 10.15). After such revelations about the Hebrew text, it is natural that it has lost its former value in the eyes of scientific researchers and now they are beginning to give preference to the text 70. But unfortunately, the translation is far from being the same as the original text, especially a free translation. Meanwhile, this is precisely the translation of 70, at least some biblical books. A translation, even one as ancient as 70, could only replace the original text if it had been proven that it completely accurately conveys the original text, sacrificing smoothness and beauty for this, conveys not only the thought, but also the syllable, every word, every turn of the original text, even to the detriment of the grammatical properties of its language. And now, fortunately for the researcher of the book of Ezekiel, it turns out that this is exactly the translation of this book in 70. Major shortcomings in the accepted Hebrew text of the book of Ezekiel prompted one German scholar, Cornille, to undertake a special study of the text of this book with the aim of restoring and critically studying it. He studied all the ancient translations of this book: all the Greek translations, both in individual codices and manuscripts, and in quotations from the fathers and teachers of the church, the Chaldean Targum, Peshito, the ancient Latin (Vetus Latina II), Coptic, Ethiopic and Arabic translations 16. This study led Cornille to the conviction that we have the most accurate rendering of the ancient Hebrew text of the book of Ezekiel in 70. “There is a widespread prejudice,” says Cornille, that the translation of 70 reproduces its original with complete arbitrariness and even renders it “at random.” That the Alexandrian translator of the prophet Ezekiel in no way deserves such a charge can be proven. Who writes sentences like the following; “A man cannot be strengthened by the scraping of his life” (7:13), “not having set foot in the firmament and gathered the flocks to the house of Israel” (13:5; cf. 47:15, etc.); who simply rewrites words that he cannot explain in Greek letters βεζεχ, θαρσις (in Chapter 1), χορχορ, θεε, αιλευ. (Ezek. 40–42) and this countless times, he did not translate “at random.” What was it worth, instead of the last words, to find some Greek word approximately suitable for the connection, or instead of the above completely incomprehensible expressions, put something more readable? In terms of word arrangement and the entire structure, it is hardly possible to imagine two languages ​​as unique and different from each other as Hebrew and Greek. Meanwhile, the Greek translator (i.e., Prince Ezekiel) even follows the word arrangement of his original with unwavering fidelity” (96–97). In the entire book of Ezekiel, Cornille finds only one place where the arrangement of words is changed, and then in the most insignificant way. Unusual closeness to the original translation of the book. Ezekiel in LXX, is then proven by the use of conjunctions, particles, pronouns, verb forms, various phrases, etc. The conjunction “ו”, meaning in Hebrew the most diverse types of connection of thoughts, sometimes even their opposite, often a condition, goal, reason, division (==ἢ), is translated only 3 times throughout the entire book through ὅτι, once through διότι, once through ἢ, once through ἵυα, once through ὃμως, once through ὃπως (18:10), once through καὶ ἐάυ (5:7), in all other countless cases it is transmitted through the Greek καὶ. The oath particle אם and אם-לא, by the nature of the Hebrew language, contains a negative expression, although it literally means “if”, it is always translated through “if” (εἰ ἐὰυ, with the exception of 33:11, where οὐ), etc. Favorite Greek conjunctions and particles, which have no corresponding in the Hebrew language, are used very rarely: δε occurs only 35 times, ἄυ - 26, οὐδε - 34, μηδὲ - 4, even γάρ (which, Cornille says, is simply hard to believe) only three times, τέ and οὒτε only once each, γέ and πέρ not once. Favorite Greek phrase - genitive independent - is used only 4 times in the whole book. The two verb tenses that the Hebrew language distinguishes are conveyed with an invariable sequence. The active voice is expressed in the passive form only 26 times, and in the reverse form only 4 times. Contrary to the property of the Greek language, the subject pronoun of the verb is not placed where it is not in the Hebrew original 17; only in two cases was a concession made for ἐγώ and in two for οὗτος). In a word, Cornille notes, the Greek language in the book of Ezekiel has, thanks to all this, some highly unique physiognomy - completely non-Greek (Prol., 97-100). But with all the accuracy of the translation of LXX, it cannot be called slavish, such as, for example, the translation of Aquila. Where the Hebrew expression in its literal rendering would completely obscure the meaning, there the Alexandrian translator of Ezekiel does not hesitate to replace it with a descriptive and clearer expression; for example, in 16:55 he translates the Hebrew לְקַדְמָתָן literally “something former”, “former state”, (“will return to the previous state”) with a whole subordinate clause: καθὼς ἦσαν ἀπ᾿ἀρχῆς). But Cornille counts barely 14–15 such cases in the entire book. In the first chapter of the book, as examples of such free translation, one can point to the translation in Art. 7 words רֶגֶל “leg” through σκέλος (shin), קָלָל through ἐξαστράπτου (“brilliant”); as well as the names חַשְׁמַל art. 4 and 27 through ἠλέκτρου. Art. 22 through κρυστάλλος; the meaning of the last 2 words (as we will see later) had been lost by this time, but due to their extraordinary importance for the meaning where they were used, 70 did not decide to simply rewrite them, as usual, in Greek letters, but by guesswork translated the first through ήλεκτρου, and the second through κρύσταλλος, “believing that it is better to say something than to give riddles to the reader” (bl. Jer. on Ezek. 3:15). In the most extreme cases, when this is most urgently required by clarity of speech, the Alexandrian translator of the book. Ezekiel allows himself to add a whole word to the original; Thus, the prophet Ezekiel’s designation of the month and date was made, for example, in 1:1 like this: “in the fourth to fifth month”; in a literal translation into Greek, as well as into any other language, this expression would be completely incomprehensible, and the translator should have added μηνὶ after τετάρτῳ. Given such accuracy and conscientiousness of the translation of the book of Ezekiel in 70, this translation can well serve for us as a representative of the text of this book that existed at the time of translation, i.e. in IV BC. Meanwhile, the Masoretic text took on its present form (it was punctuated) no earlier than the 6th century. (since Blessed Jerome and the Talmud only know the unpunctuated text). And text 70 has reached us, as we have seen, in much more ancient manuscripts than the Hebrew ones: the oldest Greek codices belong to the 4th century. BC, and the oldest Hebrew manuscript of the 10th century. Being a worthy rival of the Masoretic, the text 70 for the first chapter of Ezekiel cannot, however, claim such trust that all its disputes are with the Masor. decide in his favor. In cases of disagreement between these two most important texts, one must turn to other ancient texts, such as the Targum, Peshito, Greek. translations of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus and ancient Latin ones. The first in antiquity and importance of these texts is the text given by the Targum. Being generally of great value, independent of the Masorah and an earlier monument of the Jewish text, often denouncing the Masoretes for deviating from the original text, the targum on the prophets is even more important than other targums due to its venerable antiquity. It belongs to Jonathan ben Uziel, who is considered in Jewish tradition to be the main student of the famous Hillel the Elder, whose student was also the teacher of St. Paul Gamaliel. Thus, this targum is older than the famous targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch. It can be considered a representative of the Jewish text that was used in Palestinian synagogues of the 1st century. BC Transmitted orally, the text of the targum did not share the fate of the Jewish priests. books to persecute them. But when using the targum, you must always keep in mind that it is not an exact translation of the biblical text, but a paraphrase of it; and the Targum on the prophets is freer than others in its periphrasis. As for Ch. 1. Ezekiel, the Targum for the most part agrees with the Masoretic text and only once (v. 13) deviates from it and once indirectly confirms reading 70 (v. 7). In general, a comparison of the Targum with 70 shows that already at the time of its composition all major disagreements were Masor. text from 70 existed in 1 chapter. Ezekiel (in vv. 9, 11, 13). But this circumstance can be explained not necessarily by the fact that even then the two texts differed, but also by the fact that the Targum could subsequently be agreed upon with the Masor. i.e. in places of greatest deviation from the latter (while the smallest deviations are untouched by the ruler). It must be remembered that the oldest certainly dated manuscript of the Targum dates back only to the twelfth century 18 . From the Hebrew text, before the compilation of the Masorah, a Syriac translation was made, known as Peshito. The time of its appearance is not established precisely: Syrian tradition dates it back to the time of the Edessa king Abgar, but undoubted evidence of its existence begins only in the 4th century, when it is quoted by the Syrian bishop. Aphraates and St. Ephraim the Syrian. Typically, the origin of Pescito dates back to the 2nd century. based on the mention of Melito of Sardis about some translation of ὁ Σύρος, and also because the significant spread of Christianity in Syria around this time required the replacement of the Greek Bible, which was incomprehensible to the population, with the Syriac. The Peshito was undoubtedly based on a Jewish text, close to the Masoretic, but not entirely identical with it. Peshito often evades the Masoret. t. and approaches 70 (so in Chapter 1 of Ezekiel, partly in Art. 13). Regarding these disagreements with the Masorah. i.e., of course, one can think that they are indebted to the later correction of Peshito according to 70. But one can with no less right conclude that Peshito is based on a Jewish text that is not entirely similar to the current Masorah. etc. Its author in places reveals familiarity with Palestinian-Jewish traditions, from which one can conclude that he was a Jew, but his Christian views are reflected in the understanding of messianic places. The fact that the translation belongs to a Christian is evidenced by the silence of the Talmud about it, which mentions translation 70, Aquila and the Targum. In the transmission of the Hebrew text, chapter 1. Ezek. Pescito is not particularly accurate: this is how he destroys inf. abs Ezek. 1:3, omits what seems to him superfluous - one of two adjacent forms of one word: 1:17, cf. Art. 6; adds, for example. denial at 1:14. Therefore, when reconstructing the Hebrew text from it, one must be careful 19. From the Hebrew text, before the compilation of the Masorah, translations were made of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Little of these translations has reached us. This little is given by those excerpts from Origen's exapla (where these translations were placed), which scientists were able to extract from various quotations of ancient writers and which were collected by Field in a work that cost him 10 years of work: Originis hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford 1845. In relation to the book of Ezekiel, some additions to this work were made by Cornille from the Greek hexaplar codex he studied. (62 Pars., in Cor.). The few lines that survive from these translations for the first chapter of Ezekiel once again confirm that at the time of these translators (Aquila lived in the first half of the 2nd century AD, Theodotion made his translation soon after Aquila, and Symmachus shortly after Theodotion), the Hebrew text of Ezek. Chapter 1 already had almost the same form in which the Masoretes read it. All the current disagreements between the Hebrew text and 70 existed then. These three ancient translations are important for ch. and in exegetical terms: from them we learn how the difficult words of Chapter 1, incomprehensible even for 70 (chaschmal, kalal, kerech, tharschisch), were understood at that time. Being generally more reliable than Masor. That is, the translation of LXX has the disadvantageous difference from this text that its various manuscripts are not transmitted with such agreement as the Masor. t. We can say that there are no two codes 70 that would not have several major discrepancies in the chapter under study. There are manuscripts that do not have chapter 1. Ezekiel whole verses (v. 14) and sentences (v. 24 and 25). And to the interpreter who decides to read Chapter 1. Ezekiel Ave. 70, you have to establish the reading itself earlier. It is no exaggeration to say that the 70 surviving monuments represent more than 30 readings of the first chapter of Ezekiel. It goes without saying that disagreements between different codes 70 cannot be resolved by a simple majority of votes. A number of monuments can repeat the same mistake one after another if these monuments stand in relation to each other or in some kind of proximity. And the antiquity of a well-known monument, compared with others, does not yet guarantee the correctness of the reading it gives: in some later codex, a more correct reading could by chance have been preserved. By a strange coincidence, for the chapter we are studying, it turns out that the codes 70 competing with each other in antiquity are most inconsistent in difficult places in the chapter. Dozens of years of hard work on the comparison of various translation monuments 70 made it possible for De Lagarde to navigate them. The results of his work were taken advantage of by applying them to the book of Ezekiel, mentioned by Cornille. They both managed to show a certain dependence and connection between these monuments and, according to this dependence, divide them into several groups. When establishing the text 70, it is very important to take into account which group the monument that gives this or that reading belongs to. A consistent reading of a famous place by monuments belonging to the same group counts as one vote in favor of this reading, no matter how many monuments of this group give the same reading. All surviving monuments of the LXX translation are classified into 3 groups or so-called reviews. In the III and IV centuries. the disagreement between the lists of the LXX prompted some educated pastors of the Christian church to undertake a comparison and correction of the translation of the LXX, thanks to which three main readings or reviews of the LXX, named after their authors, appeared and became widespread in the church. The main one of these reviews, the review of Origen, given in his famous hexaples and octaplas, came to us at second hand: Eusebius and Pamphilus copied that column of hexaples, which contained the text LXX reviewed by Origen with all its critical signs. This text of Origen's review found distribution in the Palestinian church. In other churches, two other reviews of the LXX were accepted: in Antioch and Constantinople, a review by the presbyter-martyr (†311) Lucian, and in Alexandria by the latter’s contemporary Hesychius. Existing codices LXX are distributed among these reviews based mainly on biblical quotations from St. fathers. Despite the possible inaccuracy of these quotations, all of them taken together often indicate what reading of a certain passage was accepted in the church in which one or another father lived and acted, and manuscripts giving such a reading are included in the review that prevailed in that church. But in addition to the Greek codes 70, ancient translations made from the text 70, which are the same monuments of this text as its Greek manuscripts, are also subject to distribution according to reviews. These are the translations of Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Gothic. Based on quotes from Chrysostom and Theodoret, Cornille sees the review used in the Church of Constantinople (Lucian) in the codex as the so-called. Venetian, Venetus, in the Venetian San Marco Library under No. 1 (published by Parsons under No. 23) and 5 minuscule ones, i.e. codes written in cursive: 1) Vat. Bible, No. 1794, ca. XI century in folio; Parsi. No. 48, 2) Pars. No. 51, belonging. Medici in Florence ca. XI century 3) Pars. 231, Vat. bib. IV-XI on Papyrus; contains selected biblical books; from 1 Ezek. no 1–5 tbsp. 4) Brit. music 1, 13, 11; contains only 16 prophets. 5) Pars. 36; Wat bibli. No. 347; perg., into a sheet; 16 prophets; XI century According to Luk.-Const. reviews have also been made of the Slavic Translation that came out of the Church of Constantinople, which is confirmed by agreement with the mentioned codes of ancient lists of the Slavic translation given for example. Explanatory prophecies of the Kirillo-Belozersky Library No. 9/134 (manuscript XV), Ostrog and rep. Elizabethan Bibles (in Ezek. 1 this agreement is found in vv. 18–22). Based on this review, a Gothic translation of the bishop was also made. Ulfilas, but it was not preserved for the book of Ezekiel 20. It is more difficult to determine which of the surviving codices and “filial” (Cor. “Tochterüberzetzung”) translations 70 relate to the other two reviews. From the review of the Alecandrian-Hesychievskaya, translations should have been made that came out of the bowels of the Egyptian Church - Coptic, Ethiopian and Arabic, and perhaps Vetus Latina 21. Based on these translations and quotes from Cyril of Alexandria (although he did not write about the book of Ezekiel, but often quoted it), Cornille includes in this review a number of codices that are not relevant for Chapter 1. Egyptian translations rarely agree with these codes, but they do agree, even in Chapter 1. Ezek. more than once, with the famous Codex of Alexandria. According to legend, it was written by the noble Egyptian Thekla shortly after the Council of Nicaea. In any case, it is of very ancient origin. It was presented in 1828 to the English King Charles I by Cyril Lucaris and since 1753 has been kept in the British Museum, whose society published it photographically in 1801–3. As for the Egyptian translations, which are of the most decisive importance for the restoration of Hesychius’s review and very often in Chapter 1. Ezek. differ from the Hebrew text, each of them has been preserved in different forms and monuments. The most ancient of them are Coptic translations, existing in all three Coptic dialects: Upper, Middle and Lower Egyptian. The first two survive in fragments, while the latter survives in its entirety in numerous manuscripts and has been privately published. The Great Prophets was published with a Latin translation by N. Tattam, Oxford 1852. The Coptic translation gives a purer and more original stage of Egyptian review than the Alexandrian Codex itself, since it does not contain most of the “hexaplar insertions” (Cor.) from the Hebrew text that penetrated into the Alexandrian Codex. But the translation is quite free: “abbreviations and additions are not uncommon” (Cor.). The antiquity of the Ethiopian translation can be judged by the testimony of John Chrysostom, who says that Ethiopians read the scriptures in their native language. “But whether the few manuscripts that have reached us are really that ancient is doubtful” (Cor.). In this translation, two editions are distinguished: the oldest, made according to 70, and the later, which is a reworking of the first according to the Masor. etc. Of course, the latter has no value for science. But the first often denounces in chapter 1. Ezekiel Codex Alexandrinus in additions from the Masorets. i.e. as often as the Coptic translation. However, not everyone appreciates the Ethiopic translation equally; so one old exeget on Cor. speaks of his manuscripts: codicem alexandrinum presse et κατὰ πόδα sequuntur. De Lagarde, on very controversial grounds, however, thinks that the Ethiopian translation was made only in the 13th century from Arabic. But the subtlety in knowledge of the Greek language, which makes itself felt in this translation, indicates an early time, and in general it is undeniable that the whole flavor of the Ethiopian translation is Greek, and not Arabic. This subtlety of the sense of language is especially characterized by translations of Greek words composed of prepositions and nouns: so in ἐξαστράκτον i.e. πῦρ 1:4 the Ethiopian translation conveys not only the concept of lightning, but also the preposition εξ, while in Coptic and Arabic the same concept of lightning is conveyed: “fire shine.” According to Cornille, “the text 70 presented in the Ethiopic translation belongs to the best of those that have come down to us and, in its kindness and originality, competes with the most ancient and most honorable manuscripts.” Variants of the Ethiopic translation of the book of Ezekiel in comparison with other Egyptian translations and Greek codices were carefully collected by Cornille, who studied this translation from a manuscript from the Frankfurt city library, placed in Ruppel, Riese in Assirien II, 407. The manuscript is made of 64 parchment sheets in 80, and judging by the quality of the parchment, the manuscript is not late (Cor.) The Arabic translation was published in The Parisian polyglot, from which it was reprinted in the London one. The Parisian text is based on a manuscript in the possession of de Breker, the French ambassador to the Sultan. English scientists filled in the gaps in the Paris edition using one Oxford manuscript from the Seldens inheritance. The text of the Parisian polyglot, as study of it has shown, is a translation for Egyptian Christians from Arabs from the 70s, London for Syrians from Peshito. Therefore, text 1 is especially important. From the Coptic translation regarding the first chapter of the Arabic. lane it differs unfavorably in that it has hexaplar additions compared to the Alexandrian text, such as 1 11:1, 16; 2 1:22. But they are countered by a significant number of omissions: 1:25; 1:26 and in 30 other places in the book. Representatives of the Palestine review of Eusebius and Pamphilus are several codes, which the interpreters of Chapter 1. Ezekiel is very often used when restoring its text, making it easy and convenient to read in difficult places. This is, first of all, the Vatican Code, which is not inferior in antiquity to the Alexandrian Code. Printed specially in ancient script with cast letters on behalf of the Curia Verzellone, Cozza Sergio 1868. The Marchalianus and Chisianus codices also belong to the Palestine review. The first (code of the prophets), named after one of its former owners, changed several owners (named after one of whom) and disappeared for some time, has been in the Vatican since 1875. librarian Montfaucon dates it to the 7th century, Tischendorf to the 6th or 7th century. It is important for its hexaplar signs and postscripts. Chizian-minuscule, containing only great prophets 22; it dates back to the 14th, 11th or 9th centuries; all unnecessary things from the Hebrew text are added under the asterisk (in chapter 1 of Ezek. v. 1, 8, 11, 14, 23–25, 22); ἰδού corrected everywhere in εἶδού; in a word, the codex is clearly corrected according to the Masor. T. and regarding spelling χωβαρ, εκαστω vm. εκαστερω. υπεραυω instead of υπερανωθευ; in 13th century inserted εστι. According to the list preserved in Caesarea, Origen's hexaple was made in 617 by the Monophysite bishop Paul of Telus, a Syrian translation 70. This translation is remarkable 1) for its accuracy: it conveys the most insignificant Greek particles; 2) the manuscript in which this text is preserved (the so-called codex Ambrosianus) is only a century younger than it. Thus, this hexaplar codex is one of the most precious treasures that we possess, and which is absolutely necessary for every criticism of the Old Testament text (Cor.). It was published photographically by Ceriani in 1874. Of all the texts listed, 70 and translations from 70 are most at odds with the Masorah. t. Vatican Codex. At the same time, this codex gives the shortest and clearest text of the 1st chapter of Ezekiel. He absolutely does not have the darkest in ch. 14th century and renders verses 23, 24 and 25 much more briefly and simply, so unclear and filled with seemingly unnecessary repetitions. Nevertheless, it would be a great scientific imprudence to consider, like some exegetes, this codex as the only true representative of the translation 70. Its reading can be trusted only when it is confirmed by representatives of other reviews, for example. the Codex of Alexandria, Egyptian translations, or codices preserved by Lucian. And this happens quite rarely. For the most part, the reading of the Vatican Codex stands alone, supported only by its related codes: the Cisian, Marshallian and Ambrosian, which mostly enclose its omissions under an asterisk. At the same time, involuntary attention is drawn to the fact that such a reading, diverging from other codes, is given by the Vatican Code in the most difficult parts of the chapter, which in its transmission lose their difficulty and obscurity. Here there is a suspicion that the difficulties have been deliberately eliminated: silendum putaverunt, ne scandalum legenti tacerent (Bl. Jer. on v. 14). Once the reading of a well-known passage has been established, the question arises about the relationship of this reading to the Hebrew, when the latter diverges from the first. Here, too, the newest interpreters of the prophet Ezekiel go to an extreme opposite to the old interpreters. Just as those in such cases gave preference to the Hebrew text without any doubt, so these unconditionally believe the Greek. The truth, as always, is in the middle. We must not forget that translation 70 is still a translation. No matter how accurate the Greek translation of the book of Ezekiel is, in necessary cases the most conscientious translator sacrifices the letter to the spirit. So, when there are disagreements 70 with Jewish texts, one must first of all raise the question whether this disagreement is not simply freedom of translation, allowed for some considerations or reasons. In this way one can explain, for example. even such a major disagreement between the LXX and the Masor. t. in 1 chapter. Ezekiel, which is represented by one expression of v. 7 (Masoretes: “and the sole of their feet is like the foot of a calf”; 70: “and their feet are winged”). When the Hebrew text has something redundant against the 70, it would be too much bias towards the 70 to suspect the Hebrew text of an arbitrary addition just because the translation of the 70 is generally very accurate. In such cases, it is more correct to assume the omission of the word on the side of 70 than its addition in the Hebrew text. It was psychologically more impossible to introduce a word into the sacred text than to omit during translation a word that seemed unnecessary or inconvenient. On this basis, we do not dare to omit 70 from Art. 9. “and their faces,” in v. 11. “and their wings,” in v. 15. hachajjot, in 22 – hannorah, no matter how difficult they are to explain, especially the first two. The difficulty of explanation is rather a proof in favor of the Hebrew text than 70: one would rather decide to omit an unclear word than to add an unclear one. We must act differently if we find in 70 something that is excessive against the Masorah. t. word. If it is difficult and inconvenient, then masor is possible. i.e. suspect of his omission. The proven accuracy 70, while allowing them free translation in places and even the omission of unclear words, could not in any way allow them to insert words that introduce whole new concepts into the description. On this basis, we consider the reading of 70 in Art. 4 to be authentic. one word ἐν αὐτῷ, in v. 26. ἐπ᾿αὐτοῦ, words that, due to their brevity in the Hebrew language, could disappear from the text; with less confidence we are ready to admit the authenticity of the whole sentence in Art. 7. καὶ ἐλαφραὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν. There remain now those few cases in which the 70 and the Masoretes positively contradict each other. Throughout the entire chapter, only one such case can be mentioned. This is Art. 13 (according to Masor. T., “the appearance of the animals was like the appearance of coals”...; 70: “among the animals there were, as it were, coals”...). Here, in view of all the stated considerations about more favorable conditions for preserving the text 70 than the Masoretic one, as well as for all internal reasons, we have to give preference to 70. If regarding the places conveyed differently by the Masorah. etc. and 70, the question of damage to these places in one or another text is possible, then regarding the places according to both texts, apparently, there should be no talk of damage. Damage to a well-known place in one monument would be exposed by others independent of it. Unfortunately, these considerations are not taken into account by Western biblical criticism. She finds it possible to explain Ch. 1. Ezekiel with the assumption of corruption and in its places, according to all texts and translations. We will show that all such places are explainable without this heavy assumption. Acquired in 1862. Prophets published by strack: Prophetarum posteriorum codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, in tolio. St. Petersburg. 1876. In addition, it is known that Jews, out of respect for the word of God, destroyed manuscripts of the sacred text that were worn out from use (Viguru. Guide to reading and studying the Bible, trans. Vorontsova, Moscow 1897, I, 107). Only Cornille could not study the Slavic translation due to ignorance of the Slavic language (58). Meanwhile, this translation, made back in the 9th century. and represented, especially for the first chapter of Ezekiel, by very ancient manuscripts (parimiynikami), is very important, as Lagarde also recognized, for the restoration of the original reading of LXX. We will see this several times as we study the first chapter of Ezekiel. Who, for example, was not surprised by the following excerpt from one proverb from St. Ezekiel on Passion Week (moreover, precisely from chapter 1): “every time I walk, I walk, and always I stand, I stand” (v. 21: proverb for the 6th hour of Holy Tuesday). The strangeness of this expression arose precisely from the fact that the translator did not want to sacrifice the accuracy of the translation for clarity and add subject pronouns to the verbs: always idyahu this, idyahu that, etc. In the new editions of the Lenten Triodion, for greater clarity, these verbs are supplemented with not demonstrative pronouns, but the subject nouns themselves in parentheses: “ever idyahu (animal), idyahu (and wheels),” etc. The text of the targum exists in two reviews: one verified by F. Pratensis in the Bomberg Rabbinical Bible of 1557, which was repeated by Buxtorf in his Bible (Basel, 1618, the other verified by Arias Montanus) in the Antwerp polyglot according to the card manuscripts preserved in Compluten. Ximenes, which was repeated by the Parisian polyglot. The London Polyglot printed Buxtorf's text and the Antwerp translation. The oldest list of the Targum was published by de Lagarde in 1872; several passages of the Targum, namely the readings for Easter, including Chapter 1. Ezekiel, found by Lagarde in Erfurt. The Erfurt text does not coincide with any of those reviews and is not more closely related to any of them. Between the Targum lists for Chapter 1. Ezek. Cor. indicates 21 options, but they do not concern the prophetic text. Pescito's text is now given in the Paris and London Polyglot and popular edition of Samuel Lee; Vetus Testamentum Syriace, London 1823. On what manuscripts is the text of Par. floor. positively unknown: there are a remarkable number of omissions in it, among other things 1:25. In the London Polyglot, the Parisian text is simply reprinted and separately on 2 pages there are versions of 3 manuscripts that were available in England, one of which is from the 11th century. The oldest Pescito manuscript was considered for some time to be the text in the hexaplar Codex Ambrosianus, which was even published photographically. Cerianis; but Cor. proved that this manuscript slavishly follows the Masorah. t. (even in the division of chapters) and, therefore, edited according to it. By “happy accident” (Cor.) Lucian’s review was given in the Complutensian edition of the Bible (1514–1517), since the manuscripts from which the Greek text for this edition was verified presented Lucian’s review, just as the other two famous editions of the Bible, Aldine (1518) and Sistine (1587), present in a more or less pure form - the first Isikhievskaya review, and the second Pamfilov. In the translation of Vetus Latina of the 2nd century, which is now given such great importance (one copy of this translation, Weingartensis, used by the monks on parchment bindings and with great difficulty copied from there by Ranke in various libraries, is considered the oldest biblical codex in the world; another palimpsest discovered by him in Würzburg on the manuscript of Augustine's Enarattiones in 32 priores psalmos of the 5th century) and which has been best preserved for books of Ezekiel, 1 ch. No. This translation is made from LXX with remarkable accuracy. Lost. But Ezekiel and Daniel were published according to the list of Vincentius de Regibus in Rome in 1840 in a “brilliant” (Cor.), complete and accurate form (and the lists of Isaiah and Jeremiah left by de Regibus disappeared). This is the only Greek codex containing the book of Daniel, published from it in 1772 Sumen de Magistris. Parsons did not use the codex itself, but an inaccurate list preserved in the Chiggi library; this list was prepared on behalf of Pope Alexander VII (1655–1665), who came from the house of Chiggi, by Allation for printing, but was not published. You might be interested in: