Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov) as a biblical scholar, hierarch and preacher

Contents Appendix 1 Appendix 2. Printed works of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna The pastoral experience of one of the greatest hierarchs of the Russian Church, an outstanding preacher of our time, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Philaret (Drozdov), despite the change of eras and public moods, to this day remains an inexhaustible source of paternal wisdom, archpastoral love and the finest preaching skill left as a legacy of the Orthodox Russian Church. With his sermon, Bishop Philaret testified to the Truth during a most complex and contradictory period in the history of Russian spirituality, marked both by the peak of Orthodox statehood in Russia and by the previously unprecedented spread of sectarian and false-mystical quests in it. And today, in our no less troubled times, the bishop’s heartfelt and healing sermon is addressed to those who are in vain looking for Christ outside the Church and the Church where the very word of Christ is distorted, covered only by the sound of biblical sayings. Our brief essay does not aim to introduce the reader to the entire church and teaching heritage of His Eminence Philaret - for this an article or even a monograph would not be enough. However, to provide at least a general acquaintance with the significance of St. Philaret (Drozdov) in the paths of Russian spirituality is perhaps our duty to this outstanding archpastor. Saint Philaret - in the world Vasily Mikhailovich Drozdov (1783–1867), was born in the ancient city of Kolomna near Moscow into the family of a deacon. The future church scientist acquired the basics of school teaching in his hometown, and then in the philosophy class of the Trinity Lavra Seminary in Sergiev Posad, where, after completing the course, he was left to work as a teacher. Undoubtedly, the seminary gave Vasily Drozdov brilliant knowledge of ancient languages ​​and thorough philological training, but he owed everything else to his own talents and selfless diligence, which aroused admiration among his contemporaries who knew him closely. It is not surprising that soon the curator of the seminary, Metropolitan Platon (Levshin), one of the most authoritative scientific hierarchs of that time, drew attention to the young teacher. He encouraged Vasily Drozdov to accept monasticism and ordained him in 1808 as a hierodeacon. The inner desire of the zealous servant of the Holy Table was to fulfill the obedience of the caretaker at the shrine of St. Sergius. However, the will of the Lord prepared a different fate for the new monk. In 1809, he was unexpectedly summoned to the capital and on the day of Holy Easter he was ordained a hieromonk. Just two years later Fr. Philaret will be elevated to the rank of archimandrite with subsequent appointment to the post of rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, a position he held until 1819. The young rector's scientific and pedagogical activity was extremely intense. I should have been taught what was not taught to me,” he later recalled. Saint Philaret stood at the origins of the reform of the Russian Theological School, which included not only the updating of educational courses, but also the introduction of the Russian language into the teaching of basic theological disciplines, which had to replace traditional Latin with all its theological apparatus. The fact is that the teaching of the main theological disciplines: dogmatics, patrolology, canon law, philosophy and homiletics (rhetoric) from the time of the first Russian academies of the 17th century until the beginning of the 19th century was carried out exclusively in Latin. 1 Hence, the priests, who knew pagan writers better than sacred and church writers, spoke and wrote better in Latin than in Russian, were more capable of shining in the circle of scientists with selected expressions of a dead language, rather than shining the light of the people with a living knowledge of the truth, the Bishop once remarked on this matter. The translation of basic subjects into Russian meant the first cleansing of Russian theology from “Latin” (Catholic) stock phrases and, at the same time, from the very method of theological thinking. This process was far from simple and it was unlikely that it was destined to be completed during the lifetime of Saint Philaret himself, but the foundation was laid and the foundation was solid. 2 However, the departure from Latinism and the transition of teaching to the Russian language (in person) did not yet mean instant liberation from a century and a half of scholastic captivity. There was a catastrophic shortage of professors capable of teaching not from old hackneyed notes and not from textbook Latin phrases, but from the living Russian “thinking” language of Orthodox theology. Not every student of the old “Latin” school was able to think in the “new” theological language. Teaching “our own courses” was fraught with other kinds of abuse. As a result, it was necessary to correct the situation with almost hard labor of a few talented teachers. Thus, in a short period from 1810 to 1817, Fr. Filaret had to prepare lecture material on the full course of theological sciences, from dogmatic theology and homiletics to canon law and patrolology. It is not surprising that during these years the bishop complained of extreme exhaustion. 3 In 1817, Archimandrite Philaret, by a unanimous decision of the members of the Holy Governing Synod, was installed as a bishop and after changing several cathedras (Revel, Tver, Yaroslavl), four years later he established himself in the rank of Archbishop of Moscow and Kolomna. It was God’s will that the entire future life of the saint be connected with the Mother See. He devoted almost 46 years to reforms, active care and rectorship at the Moscow Trinity-Sergius Lavra Academy, within the walls of which he educated a whole galaxy of extraordinary theologians who no longer had anything in common with the traditions of scholastic scholarship. Through his works, Russian theological seminaries and diocesan schools were also reorganized. The very system of secondary and higher spiritual education was redirected to provide, as the Bishop said, (the only) internal education of young men for active Christianity, in other words, to reflect the very essence of all education, especially spiritual - to educate young people (regardless of their future spiritual or secular career), to give them the image with which man is endowed by virtue of his godlike creation (see: Decree of August 30, 1814 on the transformation of Spiritual schools). The importance of St. Philaret in the development of Russian academic scholarship is difficult to overestimate to this day. From a certain school-based doctrinal corporation, such as our theological educational institutions have been since the times of Peter Mogila and the Likhud brothers, 4 Metropolitan Philaret managed to create a fundamentally new type of scientific monastery: for the concept of a monastery contains the idea of ​​obedience, and the Academy sought to educate people obedient to their Christian duty; whereas in the concept of scientist lies the idea of ​​free recognition of truth, and the Academy respected the right to freely persuade and the right to freedom of belief. Saint Philaret very accurately assessed that only a continuous connection with the patristic tradition is the indispensable condition in which Orthodox theology (and not abstract scholastic studies), not to mention spirituality in general, can develop. A decisive step in this direction was the publication of translations into Russian of the works of the Holy Fathers. For this purpose, with the blessing of Bishop Philaret, in 1842, a printing organ of the Lavra Academy was created - Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation, where not only newly translated, but also monuments of patristic thought that were still unknown in Russian translation were published. At the same time, the Supplement to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers was released, which, in addition to the texts themselves, contained a rich reference apparatus and historical and philological comments. Under the leadership of Metropolitan Philaret, the name of the Moscow Academy acquired well-deserved fame not only in Russian theological science, but also in universal Orthodox thought (if one can put it that way), for Philaret’s Academy was, perhaps, the apogee that theological academic education in the Christian Church (without unnecessary exaggeration) managed to achieve throughout its entire New Testament history. Truly, this is only possible in the Orthodox kingdom at the highest period of development of its socio-political symphony. As the rector of the Academy and the organizer of theological science in Russia, Bishop Philaret himself was an outstanding professor. One of his students recalled his inspired ability to teach the highest concepts of exegesis 5 as follows: The speech is intelligible; he spoke sharply, highly, wisely; but more and more to the mind, less to the heart. He freely explained the Holy Scriptures - everything seemed to flow from his lips. He so attracted his students to listen to himself that when the hours of teaching him ended, there was always great zeal to listen to him even more without eating or drinking. He left strong impressions in the mind from his teachings... 6 Another testimony that is even more revealing is that the historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, himself a former outstanding lecturer, spoke of the pedagogical talent of Vladyka Philaret: His thought is not devoid of courage, but he did not consider courage to be the valor of thought... He did not like to discover the truth suddenly, so that its unexpected appearance would not confuse the mind or instill in him a substitute confidence (that) it is easy for an inquisitive mind to find it. We receive no less enthusiastic reviews regarding Saint Philaret as an outstanding master of the pastoral word. One of the brilliant Russian historians and theologians of the 20th century, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, characterized his preaching talent this way: It was always a living word and a thinking word, inspiring thinking out loud. Philaret’s preaching was always evangelism, never just eloquence. It is not at all surprising that we present here the opinion of not a contemporary of Saint Philaret - the fact is that the bishop never spoke all his sermons, but always wrote and delivered them according to what was written (most of them were published during his lifetime). Thus, each of us today could witness his preaching skills. Even the Hegelian thinker Alexander Herzen recognized the bishop’s rare gift of speech: He masterfully mastered the Russian language, successfully introducing Church Slavonic into it... As a preacher, Saint Philaret was deprived of the sugary ornateness characteristic of his time. From the pulpit he was very restrained in his words and laconic, teaching only clear thought and solid teaching. The academic school added to the apostolic zeal of St. Philaret also extraordinary competence in the most diverse issues of church practice and a thorough knowledge of the foundations of Sacred Tradition, which he owes entirely to his boundless diligence and patience. Some of Philaret's academic courses, published back in the St. Petersburg period, became the first experiments in domestic exegesis - for example, notes on the book of Genesis (1816), and his Review of Theological Sciences, compiled on behalf of the commission of Theological Schools (1814), for the first time brought into a system and outlined the didactic tasks of the main theological disciplines of an academic profile. Theology argues, - the Bishop liked to repeat, - the Orthodox faith in the fullness of its dogmatic content should become the living principle and focus of life; This content of faith must not only be remembered by everyone, but must be assimilated with a searching thought and whole soul, for Christianity is not ignorance, but the wisdom of God. However, Filaret himself was internally extremely restrained in his theological reasoning and called on others to the same responsible restraint. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky noted that the bishop had a certain almost instinctive need to justify each of his theological conclusions. Hence all his reservations about Tradition: In subjects that are not within the range of experiences of real earthly life, - said Filaret, - one cannot reliably rely on one’s own philosophizing mind, but one must follow the Divine revelation and explanations of it given by people who prayed more than us, labored, purified their inner and outer life, in which the image of God was therefore more clarified and pure contemplation was revealed, whose spirit even on earth closer to ours bordered on paradise. It was precisely the subtle sense of Tradition and theological responsibility that made his appearance at times very strict, which was reflected quite contrastingly in the memory of his contemporaries, along with his personal humility and complete quietness. This is the mystery and explanation of the theological talent of Bishop Philaret, which had such an enduring influence on his contemporaries. However, he had almost no direct students; it is difficult to talk about a theological school, for a school presupposes a system, but Philaret’s theology was not a system - it was the unity of the living experience of the Church and the depth of his personal intellectual contemplation. As a result, Saint Philaret created something more - a spiritual movement, within the framework of which an entire generation of not only theologians, but also the entire Orthodox Russian intelligentsia was raised. A piece of the spiritual heritage of St. Philaret remains in the hymnographic field. When in August 1814 an imperial decree was issued to the Holy Synod on the establishment of a thanksgiving prayer service on December 25 (Old Art.) in honor and memory of the deliverance of the Church and the Russian state from the invasion of the Gauls and with them the twelve tongues (that is, the Napoleonic hordes and others like them), the preparation of a special rite of prayer was entrusted to Archimandrite Philaret. The very next year, the rite he compiled was approved and sent to churches for prayer singing on the day of the Nativity of Christ, for it was on this bright day of the legendary 1812 that the enemy was expelled from Russia. More than one generation of Russian writers and poets was closely connected by their creative roots with Metropolitan Philaret, himself a former master of words and who knew how to appreciate the literary talent of his contemporaries. It is enough to mention at least the names of A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, V.A. Zhukovsky, F.I. Tyutchev, with whom the bishop had personal correspondence and had a certain influence on their work. For example, once Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, being at the apotheosis of his glory, but once again experiencing the suffering of “life hopelessness,” somehow poured out his embarrassment and feelings in the famous quatrains A vain gift, an accidental gift... (1828). Vladyka Philaret, having received these verses (probably through his spiritual daughter Elizaveta Khitrovo), saw in them nothing other than the groan of a lost soul, the murmur of self-consuming despair and, like a spiritual doctor, he himself took the “lyre” in his hands and also responded in verse: I myself am capricious in power Evil has called out from the dark abysses, He filled his soul with passion, Remember me, forgotten by me! Shine through the darkness of thoughts, The heart is pure, the mind is bright. The poet understood the poet and wrote with enthusiasm: And the strength of meek and loving Rejected the darkness of earthly vanities, The poet is in sacred awe. However, in one of Pushkin’s manuscripts the last stanza is read slightly differently: Of the published works of Saint Philaret 7, the most famous are his inspired Words and Speeches, which contain excellent examples of the preaching practice of his time and were immediately translated into several European languages; from the dogmatic: An exposition of the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the teaching of the faith; An outline of church biblical history (1816) and popular doctrines: Long and Short Catechisms (1823/28), where the depth and rigor of theology are in harmony with the simplicity of the language and maximum accessibility of presentation. His Conversations between those who are searching and those who are confident in the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church (1815), as well as Conversations to a Verbal Old Believer (1835), which is a unique collection of domestic church-archaeographic material, are polemical in nature. Presenting these Conversations in the form of a catechetical dialogue on the issue of ritual reform in the mid-17th century. and modern liturgical practice, the Bishop cited in them as an undeniable argument a huge number of excerpts from ancient liturgical books and data from church archeology. Now, when many priceless monuments of Russian church antiquity have been irretrievably lost, the Conversations themselves have become a most valuable historical source, thanks to which one can imagine not only the enormous pastoral and scholarly work that Bishop Philaret undertook, but also at least partially restore the picture of ancient Russian church culture and tradition. In general, we must pay tribute to the fact that, trying to overcome the schism that shook the Russian Church in the second half of the 17th century, Bishop Philaret made great efforts to establish the Old Believer unity of faith, which opens the way to Russian church reconciliation for many zealots of ancient rituals. 8 By the middle of the 19th century, there were already 179 parishes of the same faith in Russia, as well as several monasteries and monasteries, including in Moscow. A particularly important event was the consecration on April 3, 1854 of the St. Nicholas Edinoverie Church at the Preobrazhenskoye Cemetery in Moscow. The solemn service was then performed by Metropolitan Philaret himself, dressed in the ancient sakkos of his predecessor in the throne department, Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow (†1563). During the Divine Liturgy, ancient sacred vessels and an antimension, consecrated by Patriarch Filaret Nikitich (†1634), were used. In the same year, Edinoverie was established in one of the oldest and most authoritative Moscow Old Believer communities at the Rogozhskoye cemetery. In 1862, a women's Edinoverie monastery was also founded in Moscow at the All Saints Cemetery, and in 1866, a men's St. Nicholas Monastery. To heal the schism, the Bishop, in his archpastoral boldness, more than once resorted to broad oikonomia in relation to those who converted. Thus, with his blessing, in 1865, the vicar bishop of Dmitrov Leonid (Krasnopevkov) in the Trinity Moscow Edinoverie Church carried out the rite of joining to the Edinoverie members of the Belokrinitsky schismatic hierarchy - bishops Onuphry, Paphnutius and several other clergy. 9 When Metropolitan Philaret was a permanent member of the Holy Synod and with his direct participation, a significant event took place in 1831: the return of the greatest shrine of Western Rus', the Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, to the fold of Orthodoxy from the Union. Later, under the leadership of Bishop Joseph (Semashko) of Lithuania, almost one and a half million flocks in Volyn, Podlasie and Belarusian Polesie turned to Orthodoxy. The solemn act was adopted on the Week of Orthodoxy in 1839 at a council of Uniate bishops in Polotsk. However, His Grace Filaret was not only a rector, a “synodalist” and a reformer of Russian church science. All this, undoubtedly, makes up his great name and primarily characterizes his historical significance at the crossroads of eras and events in Russian history. But it should be noted that in his time the Bishop was also a sensitive shepherd and an insightful interlocutor, finding a common language full of love and condescension with both inveterate “peace lovers” and “quiet, silent guardians”... Being, according to the memoirs of contemporaries, a true zealot of the monastic order, he preferred severity and impartiality in relation to his charges, but was very compassionate and demanded with great reasoning: We must endure weaknesses in the hope of correction, but we must be careful that the indulgence of the weak does not turn into temptation for others who are not strong, so that a rotten member does not disfigure and infect the body, the Bishop once noted in one of his sermons. The saint considered serving the Russian throne as his archpastoral duty. It was Vladyka Philaret who compiled and for a long time, at the behest of Emperor Alexander I, kept secret in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin the Highest Manifesto on the appointment of Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich as heir to the throne. After the death of Alexander I, the saint, with his calm and thoughtful actions, contributed to the fact that the oath to his younger brother Nicholas I in Moscow took place without any unrest, while in the capital there was a revolutionary uprising of the Decembrists, who took advantage of the temporary confusion in connection with the oath to the new emperor as a pretext for the destruction of the monarchy in Russia. As a sign of royal gratitude, on August 22, 1826, Archbishop Philaret was elevated to the rank of metropolitan. However, despite all the loyal imperatives, the saint did not follow the temptations of his time, even if they were of the “Highest” origin. Indicative in this regard is the story of the consecration of the Triumphal Gate in Moscow, erected in honor of the victory over Napoleon and decorated with statues of pagan deities, quite suitable for the aesthetic inspiration of their time, but “not quite” suitable for the Orthodox worldview and spirit. Of course, such a solemn ceremony had to take place in the presence of the reigning persons, and therefore with the participation of the Moscow Metropolitan himself. However, something unprecedented happened. When the aide-de-camp of Nicholas I expressed the emperor’s request to consecrate the gate, the bishop, hanging his head, answered dryly: - I hear. The adjutant wing continued: “It pleases the Emperor that Your Eminence deign to be at the consecration yourself.” The saint answered in the same way: I hear. – What do you order to report to the Sovereign Emperor? “What do you hear,” the bishop answered in the same imperturbable tone. When the Emperor asked the aide-de-camp: What about Filaret?, he reported that he did not really understand anything and conveyed the conversation with the Metropolitan verbatim, as they say, “in person.” “Ah, so I understand,” remarked the Emperor. – Prepare the horses: I’m leaving today. Thus, the celebrations at the Triumphal Gate took place without the Tsar and the Metropolitan, a prayer service was served by the regimental priest, and the ceremony was considered to be over. It is not surprising that from 1841 until the end of his life, while remaining a member of the Synod by title, the venerable hierarch was no longer invited to its meetings in the capital (the only exception was the Synod of 1856, which moved its meetings to the capital on the occasion of the coronation of the new emperor). 10 True, in fairness it should be said that the incident with the Triumphal Gate brought extreme embarrassment to the saint: - Did I do a good job? - he said to his confessor to the Lavra governor, Father Anthony (Medvedev), - he irritated the Emperor. I do not have the virtues of Saint Mitrofan. “And don’t take them upon yourself,” Fr. reinforced him. Anthony, remember that you are a Christian bishop, a shepherd of the Church of Christ, who is afraid of one thing: to diverge from the will of Jesus Christ. The incident with the Triumphal Gate is only a special case of the internal imposition of archpastoral conscience and loyal duty, where the conscience of the shepherd of Christ’s Church and the awareness of everything over which he is placed turned out to be higher for St. Philaret than any other “external” service. Being an ascetic of the theory of Orthodox statehood, the saint nevertheless resolutely and unequivocally recalled the internal independence of the Church and zealously rebelled against any violation of the principle of the symphony of spiritual and temporal power on the part of those who viewed the Church as a “department of the Orthodox confession”, and saw the clergy as nothing more than officials of this department. 11 The state theory of Metropolitan Philaret - the theory of the Holy Kingdom, as it turned out, did not coincide in everything with the officialdom of Nicholas. According to Philaret, the Sovereign receives all the legitimacy of his power from the Church Anointing, that is, in the Church and through the Church. Thus, only the Sovereign is anointed, but not the state, and therefore the state authorities in church affairs have no jurisdiction. However, Filaret's way of thinking was alien to the statesmen of Nicholas's time, to whom he seemed too liberal. And yet, the Bishop humbly and persistently sought to implement those ideas that seemed justified and necessary to him from the point of view of the needs of the Church. However, this was not what determined for us today the enormous, almost fateful significance of St. Philaret in the paths of Russian spirituality. Therefore, it would be worth moving on to the story of what the Bishop himself considered the main task of his life’s journey - namely, the translation of the text of the Holy Scripture into modern Russian (see continuation). Peter (Mogila), Metropolitan (†1646) - founder of the Kyiv College, created on the model of the Polish Jesuit colleges; later – Kiev-Mohyla Academy. From the middle of the 18th century. actually lost the significance of the university and continued to exist as a Theological Seminary, still remaining faithful to the scholastic methods of humanitarian didactics that were outdated at that time. In 1817 it was closed, two years later it resumed its activities in the same Brotherhood Monastery, but already on the principles of the charter of 1814 and the principles of the all-Russian reform of theological education of the 1810s–20s; Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud are brothers, Greeks, invited to Moscow in 1685 during the reign of Princess Sofia Alekseevna (1682–1689; †1704) to found a higher educational institution in the manner of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy. Initially, rhetoric and philosophy were taught in the largest Moscow schools at that time at the Zaikonospassky and Epiphany monasteries. Subsequently, on the basis of these schools, the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy was formed, which practiced the same approach to the system of general and spiritual education as its Little Russian predecessor. With the founding of Moscow University in 1756, due to the anachronism of the practiced system of educational sciences, it also lost its significance as a higher educational institution and, from the last quarter of the 18th century, functioned exclusively as a Theological Academy. In 1814 it was reformed and transferred to the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. Exegesis is the interpretation of the text of Holy Scripture based on the symphonic meaning of the Old and New Testaments. Exegesis should not be confused with sacred hermeneutics, which studies the text of Scripture primarily from the point of view of semantic and cultural content. The Old Believer Edinoverie was established in 1778 in New Russia by Archbishop Nikifor of Kherson (Theotokis), almost simultaneously in Starodubye (Chernigov province) and later spread throughout Russia. The synodal bishops were allowed, at the request of local Old Believer communities, to ordain priests for them, who performed divine services and services according to the old rites and regulations, but with remembrance of the civil (the reigning house) and church authority. Although the first Edinoverie communities began to operate at the end of the 18th century, the solemn celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Old Believer Edinoverie took place on October 27, 1900. The first All-Russian Council of the Old Believer Edinovery took place in 1912 in St. Petersburg under the chairmanship of Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Volyn (†1936). The Belokrinitsa hierarchy was established in 1846 after the name of one of the schismatic monasteries in the town of Belaya Krinitsa in Austrian Bukovina. Its formal founder was the Bosnian Metropolitan Ambrose, who had been deprived of his pulpit and was then living in great need in Constantinople, who agreed to lead the Old Believer Church, which had lost its priesthood, for 500 chervonets annual salary. Soon he single-handedly ordained two more bishops, although he himself died in captivity, having previously joined Orthodoxy. Thus, the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, strictly speaking, does not meet the canonical requirements of the Orthodox Church - Rule 1 of the Holy Apostles sounds like this: let two or three bishops appoint a bishop. The rarest exception to this Rule can only be broad oikonomia on the part of the Apostolic Catholic Church itself. Regarding the history of the emergence of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into a literary language closer to us, it is worth noting that the need for such a text of the Bible was already a very tangible problem at the beginning of the 19th century - both from the point of view of the literary tastes of Russian society that significantly changed over the 18th century, and in connection with the “flourishing” in Russia of various kinds of mystical societies that spread their influence on the minds of almost all of our social elite. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk (†1782) spoke about the need for such a translation. The text of the so-called Elizabethan Bible, the last literary edition of the printed Church Slavonic Bible (1751), seemed to many contemporaries even less close and understandable than, say, the French or German new translations. Emperor Alexander I himself was accustomed to reading the New Testament in French in the famous De Sacy translation. However, these were translations where, behind a seemingly accessible verbal form, newfangled Protestant interpretations were hidden, completely distorting not only the sacred hermeneutics of Scripture, but sometimes even the meaning of its individual fragments, especially the prophetic ones. To prohibit the flock from using these newfangled vernacular translations (of course, the educated part of it) would be a one-sided measure, and even unproductive. Bishop Philaret himself resolutely rebelled against such prohibitive measures when it came to piety, preferring, first of all, the teaching word to reprimands. It was necessary to give the Orthodox reader an Orthodox translation into a language closer to him, which would not only be the most understandable linguistically, but also reflect the very spirit of the Russian Church and the Cyril and Methodius liturgical tradition that it sacredly preserves. The first experience of Russian translation took place during the reign of Catherine the Great: in 1794, with the blessing of the Synod, the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans was published in translation with the Slavic text together and with interpretations by Fr. Methodius (Smirnov), rector of the Moscow Theological Academy (1791–95), later Archbishop of Tver (†1815). It was reprinted three times before 1814. During the reign of Alexander And this task was undertaken by the Russian Bible Society, created in 1813 precisely for the purpose of distributing and translating the Holy Books, and primarily the New Testament, into contemporary Russian speech. Let us dwell on this in a little more detail. The fact is that to this day there are many rumors associated with the Bible Society. This was determined by the very specific composition of society, which, according to the idea of ​​creation, had to be “all-confessional”, which often took the form of a pro-sectarian orientation and unbridled mysticism (with which the Alexander era was already filled). In other words, the biblical cause lacked precisely those individuals who were solid in Orthodoxy, and this lack was fully filled by such outstanding theologians and people of holy life as Archimandrites Filaret (Drozdov) and Grigory (Postnikov), who replaced Filaret as rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, later Metropolitan. Novgorod (†1860), Chernigov Archbishop Mikhail (Desnitsky), who later occupied the Novgorod See (†1824), and a number of other academic professors. However, the president of the Bible Society was none other than the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince A.N. Golitsyn (†1844) - a man of very odious religious sentiments (even for his time), and its permanent members were well-known Masonic figures: A.F. Labzin, V.M. Popov, R. Koshelev and others. Nevertheless, in the matter of biblical translation it was possible to avoid “getting carried away” amateurs - its responsibility was entrusted to the Commission of Theological Schools, which was supposed to elect reliable translators from among academic biblical scholars. Moreover, the selection of translators was entrusted to Archimandrite Philaret, rector of the St. Petersburg Academy. Responsibilities were distributed as follows: the Gospel of Matthew was translated by Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, from Mark - Archimandrite Polycarp (Gaitannikov), who was at that time the rector of the St. Petersburg Seminary (later the Moscow Academy), from Luke - Archimandrite Moses (Antipov-Platonov), rector of the Kyiv Seminary, subsequently the Academy, and finally the Gospel of John undertook to translate himself Filaret. The work of individual employees was reviewed and verified by a special committee consisting of members of the Synod and the Bible Society. The rules for translation were drawn up by Archimandrite Philaret, who immediately reveals himself in their style and intonation: it was necessary to translate from Greek primarily before Slavic, but in the translation strive to retain Slavic words if they come closer to Russian than Greek, without producing darkness or discord in the speech, or if the corresponding Russians do not belong to the book language. The greatness of Holy Scripture lies in the power, and not in the brilliance of words; From this it follows that one should not become too attached to Slavic words and expressions for the sake of their imaginary importance, etc. In addition, the printed translation had to be accompanied by a Church Slavonic text. Filaret was absorbed in the work of the Bible Society with extraordinary enthusiasm. How aptly Fr. remarked on this matter. Georgy Florovsky: Under the cover of mystical temptations, he was able to recognize a living religious need, a thirst for spiritual instruction and enlightenment. That is why he took part in the work of the Bible Society with such enthusiasm. He was attracted by the task itself; it seemed to him that church forces should take up the biblical work so that the child’s bread would not be taken away. Very soon, our biblical scholars managed to achieve certain results, releasing the “Russian” Gospel in 1819, and a year later - the first edition of the translated New Testament. They began to translate the Old Testament and even managed to publish the book of Psalms in 1822 (though without Slavic accompaniment), but... alas, changed circumstances forced the complete curtailment of the activities of the Bible Society, and at the same time the implementation of the entire Russian Bible. 12 The first attempt to create a Russian text of the Holy Scriptures, of course, was not flawless. And it would be difficult to believe that translating Scripture would be as easy for our translators as Bible translations in Western Europe (where the variability of translation could depend not only on the literary tastes of the readers, but even on the social composition of the readership). However, this does not mean that the Russian translation resembled only private experiments. Not at all - the translation of the Four Gospels formed the basis for the later edition of the Russian Bible of the 1860s, which will be discussed below. However, at that time, in the work on the Old Testament text, it was precisely the absence of a unified translation system and a broad exegetical base that was clearly lacking, which was clearly lacking in the members of the Bible Society, who were very heterogeneous in education and theological convictions. Metropolitan Philaret understood that the translation of the Holy Scriptures into a modern language should not be a private initiative of just a narrow circle of biblical scholars, but the work of the entire conciliar spirit of the Russian Church, carefully preserving its Cyril and Methodius heritage. The scale and complexity of the work to create the Russian Bible required the programmatic nature of this event and thoroughly thought-out censorship. For the first time after the failure of the Bible Society, Bishop Philaret returned to this issue in August 1826 at a solemn meeting of the Synod, timed to coincide with the coronation of Emperor Nicholas I. But then Metropolitans of St. Petersburg Seraphim (Glagolevsky) and Kiev Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) were decisive opponents of the idea of ​​​​the translation itself. Bishop Philaret did not enjoy special favor from the new Sovereign, who owed much of his accession to the throne to the Moscow saint, and for many years humbly abandoned the idea of ​​the Russian Bible, so as not to upset and not enter into open confrontation with these most authoritative and outstanding hierarchs of his time. More than two decades later, in 1845, being a venerable hierarch and the “father” of a whole galaxy of students of the Lavra academic school of Russian theology, the Bishop decided to submit a memorandum to the Synod outlining the pressing reasons and the very concept of translating the books of the Old and New Testaments. But even then, due to serious differences with Metropolitan Filaret (Amphitheater) of Kyiv, as well as Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count N.A. Protasov, the idea of ​​translation had to be postponed again for many more years. And only in 1856, with the very favorable attitude of the new Sovereign Alexander II, the Synod gave its conciliar blessing, and the work of preparing the Russian Bible was resumed precisely on the principles that Metropolitan Philaret had indicated a decade earlier in his Memorandum. The concept of Bishop Philaret was published in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers under the title On the Dogmatic Dignity and Protective Use of the Greek of the Seventy Interpreters and the Slavonic Translations of the Holy Scriptures (Vol. XVII, 1858). The main idea of ​​this concept was to determine the main criteria for selecting the original text for translation. First of all, they tried to avoid the imprudent translation method of the times of the Bible Society: the bishop resolutely insisted on using in the translation of the Old Testament both the text of the Septuagint (70 interpreters) and the later Masoretic (Jewish) edition, not accepting any of these texts as self-reliable and comprehensive in its dogmatic dignity. 13 In particular, the bishop gave a number of examples when the Old Testament text, as translated by 70 interpreters, turned out to be closer to the original source than the surviving Jewish one. For example, Psalm 144 in the Masoretic text has lost the second half of verse 13: since this psalm in Hebrew is written in alphabetical order (that is, an acrostic, or in Slavic: edge-grain), then the letter “nun” is missing, with which the lost verse in Hebrew begins. Let's demonstrate this clearly: The acrostic is violated precisely by the fact that after the verse beginning with the 13th letter of the Hebrew alphabet “mem” - (Malhutha), there is immediately a verse beginning with the 15th ordinal letter “samekh” - (Someha), while the 14th letter of the Hebrew alphabet “nun”, with which the lost verse began, turned out to be correspondingly missing. If you do a reverse translation from the Septuagint into Hebrew, then Pistos (Faithful) is clearly translated as Ne’eman (faithful, devoted). Thus, the verse lost by the Masoretes, beginning with the missing letter “nun,” completes the acrosticide to the full order of 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. 14 This is a clear exception in the Hebrew Tanakh, where, as in later Jewish hymns, the acrostic principle is never again found to be violated by the omission of letters, of which there are always 22! 15 Prophetic passages about Christ are also indicated, most likely removed from the text by the Masoretes in order to hide the meaning of the prophecy, but clearly damaging the semantic context of this fragment (see: Ps 15:27, 21:17). However, the Bishop also pointed to examples where the evangelists themselves cite quotes from Old Testament prophecies precisely according to the Hebrew text, and not the Greek of the Seventy interpreters, for example: ex Egiptu ekalesa ton ion mu - From Egypt I called My Son (Matthew 2:15), whereas in the text of the 70: ex Egiptu metakalesa ta tekna avtu - From Egypt I called His children (Hosea 11:1). The same evangelist quotes the words of the prophet Isaiah: Behold my servant, whom I have willed, my chosen one (Matthew 12:18); however, in the Septuagint text this verse was translated into Greek as follows: Iakov o pais mu avtilepsomai avtu Israel o eklektos mu - Jacob is My servant, I will also accept (him), My beloved Israel (Isaiah 42:1). As we see, in both examples the text of the elders of the era of Ptolemy Philadelphus also sins against the original in those cases when it comes to the incarnate Son of God Jesus Christ - My Son; behold (behold) my servant, etc. etc., replacing this prophetic indication with contemporary realities of that time, namely: His children, Jacob, Israel (all these concepts are synonymous with the God-bearing people), etc. Obviously, even the spirit-bearing elders from the 12 tribes of Israel sometimes doubted the literal meaning of the prophetic promises, rationalizing the translation of what had not yet been revealed and revealed to the Jewish people. As we know, once the Angel of the Lord even clearly intervened in such a rationalization, when the interpreter Simeon gathered in the words of the same Isaiah: idu e parthenos... - Behold, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son (Isaiah 7:14) translate betulah (maiden - Heb.) not as parthenos - maiden, but as “young woman”, for virginity is alien to a mother and strange virgins have childbirth. 16 However, the Angel forced him to calm down his doubts and translate it as it is in the original. Thus, the remoteness of the Greek translation of the prophetic books of the Old Testament from the day when the prophets were fulfilled sometimes introduced rationalized adjustments to the meaning of the text relating directly to Christ and His prenatural birth. But, as we see, the evangelists followed the Hebrew original, the meaning of some of the revelations of which was more obvious to New Testament humanity than two centuries earlier, when the Bible itself was translated from Hebrew. We find a similar example in the cry of the cross of the Savior himself, which is given by the evangelists Matthew and Mark in Hebrew, but in Greek transliteration: eloi, eloi lema sabahbanei, and is immediately interpreted by them into Greek: Thee mu Thee mu ina ti me enkatelipes - My God, my God, where you have forsaken me (Matthew 27:46 ; eloi, eloi lema sabahbanei (...) o Theos o Theos mu, eis ti enkatelipes me - Mark 15:34), which does not literally correspond to the verse of the prophetic 21 psalm according to the Septuagint: o Theos o Theos mu, prosohes moi ina ti enkatelipes me - God, my God, see me, where you have forsaken me (Ps. 21:1). It could be argued that the Gospel of Matthew was written directly for the Jews of the dispersion (perhaps even in Aramaic), and therefore it is not surprising that the Apostle Matthew preferred the Hebrew source for quoting. 17 However, Saint Philaret in his Report indicates some examples of the preference of the Hebrew original to the Greek and later, completely “Hellenistic” holy fathers, such as Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, martyr Lucian 18 and others, who repeatedly quoted the Old Testament, literally translating individual fragments from Hebrew. In the same way, the editors of the Cyril and Methodius Bible, when translating the quote about the Wisdom of God: Kirios ektise me arhen odon avtu - The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways, made an amendment to the Hebrew text: The Lord acquired me at the beginning of his ways (Proverbs 8:22). 19 This did not mean that the authority of the Septuagint was called into question, but only indicated that further translation of the Bible into modern Russian must necessarily take into account possible discrepancies in the original, verifying them with the most adequate Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Church Slavonic versions of this text precisely in the interests of maintaining the authenticity of the meaning and accuracy of Orthodox dogmas. And in order to avoid confusion or arbitrariness, Bishop Philaret proposed constructive criteria for choosing the most adequate source of translation of a particular fragment of the Old Testament text, both from the point of view of hermeneutics and respect for the sacred importance of the text of the seventy in its ancient purity. These criteria broadly represent the following: strictly adhere to the Greek text when the corresponding place of the Old Testament is given by the inspired writers of the New Testament (i.e., the apostles) according to the translation of 70 interpreters, despite possible discrepancies with the Hebrew. For example, the verse of the psalm below let your saint see the destruction (Ps 15:27), cited by the Evangelist Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, is thus undoubtedly the most authentic, although it contradicts the Hebrew text (this principle represents, in our opinion, the most characteristic feature in the concept of Metropolitan Philaret, since in the past the translation of the Old Testament both in the West and in our country was carried out almost exclusively according to the Hebrew text, which led to unjustified deviations from the Septuagint); 20 accordingly, if this or that place of the Old Testament is cited by the writers of the New according to the Hebrew version, then, using their inspired authority, in this case, adhere to precisely this source, as, for example, in the above case: Out of Egypt I called My Son (Matthew 2:15); be sure to adhere to the Septuagint if the prophetic meaning of the words about Christ is distorted in the Masoretic biblical tradition, and also if the Hebrew text openly sets an example of later corruption, as, for example, in the case of the loss (or extrapolation) of the verse: The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works (Ps 144:13/14). also avoid the Hebrew source when it contains obvious hermeneutical errors, differing in this from the Greek translation. An eloquent example of such authenticity of the Septuagint is the indication of the age of King Ahaziah according to the Greek text of Chronicles: on eton ikosi Ochozias ebasilevse - Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Chronicles 22:2). In the previous chapter we read that Ahaziah's father Joram began to reign at the age of 32 - en triaconta kai duo eton ote ebasilevse, and reigned for 8 years - kai octo ete ebasilevsen en Jerusalem, until he died in severe suffering and departed unmourned, thus - at the age of 40 (2 Chronicles 21:5, 20). However, according to the Hebrew text, Ahaziah began to reign (immediately after his father) at 42 years old, thus being 2 years older than his father! Since Ahaziah was also the youngest son of Joram, the other sons were, from the point of view of the Hebrew text, older than their father by an even more expressive number of years... (see: 2 Chronicles 21:17). The translators of the Slavic Bible drew attention to the corresponding discrepancy, but prudently did not introduce this error into the text, noting only in the margin: forty-two years; 21 nevertheless, it is imperative to communicate with the Jewish source if any of the Holy Fathers interpreted this fragment based on the meaning of the Jewish version. 22 These criteria, writes His Eminence Philaret, should protect the Sacred text from the one-sidedness of the newest Protestant translations, which, adhering exclusively to the Hebrew text and not recognizing exegetical guidance in the works of the Holy Fathers, betray the Old Testament text to unbridled self-will and reckless criticism, which is why damaged passages of the Hebrew text are easily accepted as genuine and are reinterpreted, sometimes losing the prophetic text itself. the meaning of the Old Testament writings, replaced by a rationalistic meaning. At the same time, these criteria could protect the creators of the Russian translation from the one-sidedness of the Western Church, which, recognizing the only authentic text of the Vulgate, put itself in contradiction not only to the ancient practice of the Universal Church, but to itself, since the text of the Vulgate, approved by one Pope, was often rejected by another, and different Popes adhered to different versions of the same Vulgate, each of which was recognized at different times as the only reliable one. 23 His Eminence Philaret himself, as he subsequently repeatedly emphasized, based his approach to the translation of the Holy Scriptures on two immutable truths of the Scriptures themselves: Do not philosophize any more than you ought to philosophize (Rom. 12:3), but also try the Scriptures, as if you believe in them to have eternal life (John 5:39). It is very noteworthy that the last quote was also an epigraph to the preface: To the faithful and Orthodox reader of the first Slavic printed Bible of Ivan Fedorovich (Ostrog, 1581): Try the scriptures, as if you believe in them to have an eternal life, and that is the essence that testifies about me. 24 Thus, since 1858, translation has been officially resumed and is being carried out through the efforts of all four Russian Theological Academies (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and Kazan). The highest supervision and final censorship were entrusted to Metropolitan Philaret, who, despite his very advanced age, actively participated in the work of this huge all-Russian scientific fraternity (let us remember that it was he who owned the translation of the Gospel of John, carried out back in 1816). Thanks to the hard work of all academic institutions, already in 1860, with God's help, it was possible to publish the Four Gospels, and two years later - the complete canon of New Testament books with an annotation of the contents in each chapter (which was also strongly recommended by Metropolitan Philaret). The translation of the Old Testament required much more time, so the entire Bible (along with non-canonical books) was published in Russian only in 1876, after the death of the saint as an immortal monument to the work of almost his entire life. Nowadays, the work of Saint Philaret in this field is difficult to overestimate. It was as if Vladyka foresaw that the time would come when Orthodox people in Russia would find themselves cut off from the paternal Church Slavonic linguistic tradition for many decades, so that rarely would anyone be able to understand the literal meaning of even morning and evening prayers, not to mention reading and understanding the text of the Holy Scriptures. Otherwise, most churchgoers today would have to study the New Testament in parallel with Slavic philology. How many people would be able to do this? Bishop Filaret seemed to realize this impending need and for 30 years persistently sought from the Synod a blessing to create a text of the Holy Bible close to the colloquial language for home reading. He seemed to understand that the hour was short when there were the most favorable opportunities for the implementation of this immensely responsible event - probably in the entire history of the Russian Church! However, this prediction of the impending disaster of our time was, perhaps, the fruit of more than just archpastoral intuition. For example, in the letters of the Optina elder Ambrose (Grenkov) (†1891) there is very eloquent evidence of the prophetic words of the saint: I remembered the words of Metropolitan Philaret, who did not advise making vestments for icons, because the time is approaching when ill-intentioned people will remove vestments from icons. It is known that, due to the gift of foresight, Bishop Philaret foresaw the day of his death two months in advance, which followed on Sunday, November 19, 1867, shortly after the Divine Liturgy, which he served in his home church. The body of the great hierarch, after a touching farewell, was interred in a specially built chapel in the southern limit of the Holy Spiritual Church of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where it rests to this day. Appendix 2. Printed works of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna 1. A conversation about gratitude to God. – St. Petersburg: Borodin Printing House, 1842. – 17 p. 2. A conversation about hard work. – Moscow, 1847. – 10 pp. – Reprint from: Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. – 1847. 3. A conversation about mercy for the poor. – Moscow: Gautier Printing House, 1848. – 12 p. – Reprint from: Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. – 1848. 4. Conversations with the verb Old Believer. – Moscow: Synodal Printing House, 1835. – 126 p. 5. Introduction to Reading the New Testament. – Moscow: Snegireva Printing House, 1892. – 30 p. – Reprint from: The Joy of a Christian. – 1891. 6. Reports and letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on some church and state issues. – St. Petersburg, 1891. – III68 p. 7. Spiritual testament of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow // Kyiv Diocesan Gazette. – 1868. – No. 2. – P.77. 8. Spirit of Wisdom: Explanation of Chapter 7 from the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon // Christian Reading. – 1830. – Part 39. – P.226–240. 9 . The life of our venerable and God-bearing father Sergius, the miracle worker of Radonezh and all Russia, drawn from reliable sources, read in his Lavra at the All-Night Vigil, July 5, 1822 - Moscow: Synodal Printing House, 1836. - 78 p. - Authorship established from the publication: Russian Biographical Dictionary. – St. Petersburg, 1901. – T.21. – P.90. Same. – Moscow, 1837. – 78 p. Same. – Moscow: University Printing House. 1857. Same. – 5th ed. – Moscow: Synodal Printing House, 1857. Same. – Moscow: Gautier Printing House. 1867. – 63 p. Same. – St. Petersburg: Russian printing press (P.S. Nakhimova), 1878. – 56 P. Same. – Moscow: Efimov’s typo-lithography, 1880. Same. – 1888. – 59 p.: ill. Same. – Sergiev Posad: Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius own printing house, 1908. – 54 p. Same. – 1902. – 54 p.: ill. 10. The Life of St. Nikon, Abbot of Radonezh, read at the All-Night Vigil, November 17, 1843 in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. – Moscow: University Printing House, 1844. – 16 p. Same. – Sergiev Posad. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius own printing house, 1901 – 16 p. The printed works of Saint Philaret (Drozdov) are given here with some additions to the publication: Russian writers theologians. Church historians. Researchers and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. Bibliographic index. – 2nd ed. – Moscow: RSL, “Pashkov House”, 2001. – P.426–438. This list does not include articles published on the Internet in recent years. For example, in the Kiev-Mohyla Academy until the last quarter of the 18th century. within the walls of Alma Mater, students were obliged to communicate even among themselves only in Latin. Oddly enough, it was the graduates of the Kyiv Academy who first began to introduce the Russian language into the teaching of theology and theological debates, although not in Kyiv. This innovation was first introduced in 1764 at the Tver Seminary by the rector Archimandrite. Makariy (Petrovich), an Ugric Serb, but studied in Kyiv and Moscow, who was also prefect of the Moscow Academy (1734–66). Macarius was followed by his successor Arseny (Vereshchagin), later archbishop. Tverskoy (1775–83). But with the appointment of Archbishop Plato (Levshin) to Tver, the monopoly of Latin was restored (1770–75). The crowning glory of these fateful transformations happened to be laid much later by one of Metropolitan Philaret’s successors as rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky): his Catechism corrects the last tracings of Latin dogmatic definitions, and at the same time the very discourse of “Latin” theology. The continuity between Saints Philaret (Drozdov) and Anthony (Khrapovitsky) is revealed not only in the defense of academic theology, but above all in the very view of the didactics of theology and the place of ascetic feat in it. See especially the work of Archim. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), then still the rector of the St. Petersburg Seminary: On learned monasticism (1889). In addition to Filaret (Drozdov), Archimandrite taught his courses in Russian at the St. Petersburg Academy. Grigory (Postnikov), Philaret’s immediate successor as rector of the Academy and his consistent successor, later Metropolitan. Novgorod (1860); at the Moscow Academy - Kirill (Bogoslovsky-Platonov), later archbishop. Podolsky (1841); in Kyiv - Rector of the Academy Archimandrite. Moses (Antipov-Platonov), future exarch of Georgia (1834) and Meletius (Leontovich), later archbishop. Kharkovsky (1840). It is no coincidence that all four of the above were students of the first graduating class of the Filaret Academy. Later, a graduate of the new theological school of the Kiev Academy, Innocent (Borisov), the future Archbishop of Kherson and an outstanding preacher of his time (1857), joined this host of professors. Metropolitan Peter (Grave) and Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhuds - see Appendix 1. Exegesis – see Appendix 1. It is very noteworthy that this review belongs to Archimandrite. Photius (Spassky) (1838) - an obvious opponent of Metropolitan. Philaret (Drozdov) in the matter of translating the Holy Scriptures into modern literary language, which will be discussed below. For a complete bibliography of the printed works of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), see Appendix 2. Old Believer Edinoverie - see Appendix 1. Belokrinitsky hierarchy - see Appendix 1. However, to the incident with the Triumphal Gate was also added extreme disfavor towards Metropolitan. Filaret on the part of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Count N.A. Protasov (1855). The reason for this was the case of Rev. Gerasim Pavsky, prof. Petersburg University and Theological Academy, court archpriest and translator of the Old Testament Bible. In his translation, Archpriest Pavsky adhered too literally to the Hebrew text, which led to serious discrepancies with the Greek text of the Septuagint. As a result, the translator was subjected to serious church penalties (1842), which further undermined the position in the Synod of Metropolitan. Filaret as one of the ideologists of the Russian translation of the Bible. At that time, the chief prosecutor of the Synod, Count N.A. Protasov (1836–55), was at the head of the “anti-biblical” party. At one time, at the insistence of Metropolitan. Filaret had to abandon the idea of ​​appointing Tsarevich Alexander Nikolaevich to be present at the Synod, just as he was introduced to the Senate and other government institutions. This irritated Nicholas I even more, and the incident with the Triumphal Gate only “added fuel to the fire.” The intrigue around the Bible Society is a very complicated matter, and we will not be able to clearly explain its sad fate here. But in general terms: it was the participation in the activities of the Bible Society of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and concurrently the Minister of Public Education and the Manager of Foreign Confessions, Prince A.N. Golitsyn (a kind of exalted mystic), Rodion Koshelev and other “hobbies” that played an evil role not only with the Society, but also with the very idea of ​​translation, delaying the appearance of the Russian Bible for many decades. The Holy Governing Synod, although it blessed the beginning of this event (1816), did not take upon itself the leadership of the biblical translation. This precaution later even paid off in some way... Septuagint (Bible of 70 interpreters) and Masoretic Revision (Masoretes) - see Appendix 1. This verse is missing from the 16th century editions contemporary with the Council of Trent and later ones. In the Masoretic text this psalm has 21 verses. The Ostrog Bible of Ivan Fedorov (1581), despite its orientation towards contemporary Latin biblical rarities, still retained the Greek division into 22 verses, where the verse The Lord is Faithful in all His words... occupies the 14th position accordingly. However, the later Church Slavonic Bible no longer numbers this verse separately, having included it, like the Vulgate editions, in the 13th verse of Thy Kingdom of All Ages... as a continuation. Accordingly, Psalm 144 in the later Church Slavonic text nominally has 21 verses, maintaining textual correspondence with the Septuagint. In later printed editions of the Septuagint of the 19th century. There is also a splitting of this psalm into 21 verses by combining 14 and 15 verses (for example: Venice edition of 1810, or K. Tischendorf: Leipzig, 1887), but without losing the text itself. From the 9th song/Deservant of the canon of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. According to ancient tradition, the Holy Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or, more likely, in Aramaic), and then translated (if so, then most likely by the evangelist himself) into the poetic Greek of his time. However, judging by the sources of the apostolic time, the Jews of the dispersion with no less success used the “international” language of Mediterranean cultural communication - Greek, often even preferring the Septuagint to the Tanakh (see: Masoretes in Appendix 1). For example, in Alexandrian synagogues they traditionally used the Septuagint of the Alexandrian edition until in 128 AD. no new translation from Hebrew into Greek of Aquilla appeared, replacing the Alexandrian Text of the Seventy. Lucian the martyr - see Appendix 1. Since in the fragment from the Book of Proverbs cited by Metropolitan Philaret one can clearly feel the hand of an expert in the Masoretic text, it is possible that the edition of this verse also belongs to a certain Theodore, a baptized educated Jew who worked with the blessing of Metropolitan of All Rus' Maxim I (1283–1305) on the Church Slavonic translation of the Psalter and others Old Testament books under (Metropolitan Maxim, a Greek by birth, installed at the Kyiv See in Constantinople, subsequently moved the metropolitan residence to Vladimir-on-Klyazma; most likely, the mentioned interpreter Theodore comes from Kyiv). At least today we do not know of any other pre-Petrine scribe competent in combining the Church Slavonic text with the Hebrew original. It was in this way that the infamous translation of the Psalter by professor-archpriest Gerasim Pavsky was released, arrested and withdrawn from circulation in 1842 (see: note 10 in the first part). The editors of the “self-authentic” Vulgate were less prudent. For example, in the famous Antwerp edition of 1569–72. The Polyglot Bible reads the same nonsense: Quadraginta duorum annorum erat Ochozias cum regnare c?pisset... (the same errors were artificially introduced “retroactively” into the editions of the Greek Bible published in Western Europe). In the Ostrog Bible of 1581, the book of Chronicles, being translated from the Vulgate, also reflected the corresponding error: Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The above criteria for choosing the original text and the procedure for translating the Old Testament are presented here only briefly, in a generalized version and not in authentic sequence (in the interests of brevity and greater simplicity of presentation). However, Metropolitan Philaret himself names the above rules-criteria according to the order in which they are presented in his report (there are 7 in total), as it was published in 1858. Therefore, we refer those interested to the editions of his Report: Appendix 2, No. 37. Vulgate - see Appendix 1. in the Synodal Version: Do not think more [about yourself] than you ought to think and Search the Scriptures, for through them you think you have eternal life.