About our duty to adhere to the translation of 70 interpreters

Which text of the Old Testament Scriptures should we adhere to? prof. I.S. Yakimov Regarding the opinion of one bishop about the significance of the Russian translation of the Old Testament biblical books, published with the blessing of the Holy Synod, prof. I.S. Yakimov On the use of the new translation of the Old Testament writings by St. Feofan the Recluse The solution to the question of the extent of Orthodox use of the current Jewish text, according to the instructions of the church practice of St. Feofan the Recluse Regarding the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in the Russian translation of St. Feofan the Recluse About the perplexities caused by the Russian translation of St. books of the Old Testament by prof. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov A few words about the article by the Right Reverend Bishop Theophan: “Concerning the publication of the sacred books of the Old Testament in Russian translation” by prof. P.I. Gorsky-Platonov My article on the meaning of the translation of the Old Testament scriptures into Russian from Hebrew aroused objections expressed in print (1) (2). I don’t find it convenient or necessary to enter into an argument; To avert the perplexities that may arise from those rumors, I consider it sufficient to add a few lines to supplement my previous thoughts. This, however, will be more of an extract of other people's judgments. Extract from an article by His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret: “On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek of the seventy interpreters and the Slavic translations of St. Scriptures" (Appendix to the works of the Holy Fathers, 1858, part 17, p. 452, etc.). My thought is this: the Hebrew text is damaged; despite its damage, the original text of the Old Testament Scriptures in the 70 translation remains; The Hebrew text, however, should not be completely abandoned; it can be turned to when interpreting Scripture as a guide for considerations. The same thoughts were expressed by His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret. For how does the revered ruler look at the current Hebrew text? As if damaged by the Jews, and moreover intentionally, in order to facilitate disputes with Christians. Here are his words: “The Jewish text at the beginning of Christianity was in the hands of its enemies, and therefore could even be subject to deliberate damage, as St. Justin the Martyr in Conversation with Tryphon” (p. 453). Further, pointing out that in the verse “I plowed my hands and my nose” (Psalm 21:17) in the current Jewish text, instead of “plow” it reads “like a lion,” he says: “the current Jewish reading, by the very constraint of the composition of words and meaning, reveals damage to the text, in which, not without reason, one can suspect the ill-intentioned hand of a Jew, who was looking for a means to evade the power of the prophetic testimony of the crucifixion of the Lord" (p. 455). A little lower, having said that the Hebrew text must be taken into account when interpreting St. Scripture, adds: “this essential aid cannot be rendered completely unusable by the suspicion, to which the Jews gave rise, of damage to the Jewish text. This suspicion falls on those places in the damage of which the Jews found their advantage for disputes with Christians” (same page). How does the revered ruler look at the translation of the 70? Like a mirror of the Jewish text as it was 200 years before the birth of Christ. He says: “The text of the 70 interpreters is the oldest translation of the Jewish sacred books, made by the enlightened men of the Jewish people, when they had not yet ceased to be the people of God, when the Hebrew language was still a living language, and when the Jews did not yet have incentives to transform the true meaning of the sacred books with an incorrect translation. Therefore, in it one can see a mirror of the Hebrew text as it was 200 or more years before the birth of Christ” (p. 453). Let us add to this: if the current Jewish text is far removed from the text of the 70, then, based on the thought expressed before this, we can probably conclude that it is no longer the same as it was 200 or more years before the birth of Christ, and of which the text of the 70 serves as a mirror. If, then, that Jewish text, which was written 200 years before the birth of Christ, is the truest, then beyond the deviation from it of the current Jewish text, where should one look for the truest text of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, if not in the translation of the 70, which is recognized as a mirror of that ancient text? How, then, according to the court of the ruler, should one treat the Hebrew text? Do not abandon it, but sometimes turn to it for considerations when interpreting Scripture. “Justice, benefit and necessity require that the Hebrew text be taken into account when interpreting Holy Scripture. The suspicion of corruption of the Hebrew text is strong enough to refute the exclusive attachment to this text, and to show the dogmatic importance of the text of the 70; but it does not provide grounds for completely rejecting the use of the Hebrew text. Those places that the Jews had no need to damage should be taken into consideration when interpreting Holy Scripture” (p. 455). Let us add: so the Hebrew text is in a subordinate relationship to the text of the 70. The latter dominates, and the latter serves. The text of the 70 should guide the matter of understanding Holy Scripture. What rules does the revered ruler protect against the use of the Hebrew text? “In order to use the Hebrew text as an aid to the explanation of Holy Scripture, not to give room for arbitrariness, to put in this matter a barrier against deviation from the accuracy of Orthodox dogmas and to protect the sacred importance of the text of the 70 in its ancient purity, for this purpose protective rules should be proposed in the teaching about Holy Scripture.” These are: “If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament according to the Greek text: in this case, it is obvious that the Greek text should be adhered to preferably to the Hebrew.” “The Text of the 70 must be firmly adhered to until an important reason presents itself to come under the leadership of the Hebrew Text.” “If the Hebrew text shows signs of damage: it is obvious that the text of the 70 must be adhered to.” “A special sign of a true reading in the text of the 70 can be a consideration that reveals that a Hebrew reading that does not agree with the Greek gives a false meaning.” “If any passage of the Old Testament, read by 70, the meaning is determined by the agreed interpretation of St. fathers, as prophesying about Christ; and the current Jewish text of this place represents a different reading, unfavorable to the prophetic meaning: then in this case, the consonant testimony of the ancient fathers gives reason not to trust the authenticity of the current Jewish text.” “If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament from the Hebrew text, it is obvious that these infallible witnesses must be followed” (there are 3–4 such passages). "If anyone from St. fathers interpreted any place of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew text: it is fair and safe to follow this guidance” (pp. 468–470). These are the rules limiting the use of the Hebrew text. It is obvious how small the circle of this use is. Only the last two points boldly resolve it, namely, when St. The apostles cite passages from the Hebrew text and when St. the fathers interpret which passage as applied to the Hebrew text. The Bishop also instructs to turn to the Hebrew text when the Greek text is difficult to understand; but then it makes one timid to use this manual, putting forward the cautionary thought that what is clear can be false, and what is not clear can be true (see below). It is very remarkable what fruit the bishop expects from observing these rules. “They, he says, put up a protective barrier against any arbitrariness of interpretation and against the infection of so-called neology and rationalism. They protect against the one-sidedness of the newest foreign Christian denominations, which adhere exclusively to the Jewish text and do not recognize the leadership in the writings of St. fathers, betray the Old Testament text of the Bible to the unbridled self-will of criticism; as a result of which damaged passages of the Jewish text are easily accepted as genuine, others are reinterpreted, especially the prophetic meaning is eclipsed, the dignity of the Old Testament books is humiliated, and a wide path is paved for neology and rationalism” (p. 471). Then the venerable bishop warns against encountering ambiguity in the Slavic Bible, and not rushing indiscriminately to a clear translation, because it can be conjectural and erroneous. For what is the use of a clear but false thought? “The ambiguity,” he says, of the Slavic translation of the Bible in some places of the Old Testament, is a simple natural reason that encourages those who want to understand the Holy Scripture to turn, as far as possible, to the original texts, or translated ones in different languages. But with a lack of strict prudence, those satisfied with clarity easily receive a prejudice in favor of the clear text over the unclear one, although it may happen that the unclear text is correct, and the clear one is only conjectural, or completely erroneous. Such prejudice can be harmful to Orthodox dogmas if it becomes attached to a translation of the Bible made outside the Orthodox confession, under the influence of non-Orthodox opinions, or, in pursuit of clarity, wanders without guidance between different translations and critical studies, often very dangerous in the present state of foreign biblical criticism. One of the remedies against this for Orthodox Russia is knowledge of the dignity of the Slavic translation of the Bible and the use of it with fair respect” (p. 472). Having then confirmed the dignity of the Slavic translation of the Bible, among other things, by the fact that in the Old Testament it follows the text of 70 interpreters, and through this he assimilates what was said about the dignity of this latter to himself, the revered ruler sets out the rules for preserving the Slavic Bible in constant respect. “These are the essence of the following: 1) When teaching doctrine in theological schools, the evidence of Holy Scripture must be given accurately according to the existing Slavic translation. 2) If the Slavic text requires an explanation, then it should follow the text literally given. 3) In church teachings, the texts of Holy Scripture should also be cited according to the existing Slavic translation. Such a reduction may be accompanied by a presentation of the text in the Russian dialect, if this is necessary due to the nature of the text, or according to the level of education of the listeners. 4) Predominantly, according to the existing Slavic translation, the texts of the Holy Scriptures in other works should be cited, as long as the darkness of Slavic expressions does not require replacing them with clearer ones, consistent with the Greek or Hebrew text, and with the interpretations of St. fathers" (p. 475). What kind of Bible was in the hands of St. Apostles? (from Economos vol. 4, ch. 5). When Economos argued with the fashionable theologians of the Greek kingdom, defending the merits of the translation of 70 commentators, they objected to him: why are you arguing? Look, and St. The apostles used the Hebrew Bible. In order to silence these loudmouths, he made an extract of all the passages of the Old Testament cited in the New, and against each place he placed a corresponding extract from the Old Testament according to the translation of the 70 and according to the Hebrew text. He found 238 of all the passages cited in the New Testament from the Old, writing down the remark that others find them less (176–180). One has only to look at these extracts to make sure that all the passages from the Old Testament in the New are given according to the translation of the 70, excluding three or four. Some of these passages are cited by the Apostles not word for word, but only according to thought. But even in these there are words and figures of speech that show that in the memory of the Apostles those texts revolved according to the translation of the 70. Another part of these passages agrees with the prophetic writings not only in thought, but also in expression. For the most part, all three extracts here agree with each other. If this agreement were everywhere word for word, then it would be impossible to guess from what text the cited passages are cited. But as in most of them, in the word expressions of the text of the 70 there are shades that definitely distinguish this text from the Hebrew, and these shades are retained by St. Apostles; then there is no doubt that all these passages were taken by the Apostles from the Bible according to the translation of the 70. There are also some passages cited by the Apostles who agree only with the translation of the 70, and not with the Hebrew text. Such passages are obviously taken from the Bible according to this translation. There remains the slightest part of the passages that agree with the Hebrew text, and not with the 70. There are 3–4 such places. Economos says that the most evil detractors of the text of the 70 collected only 22 such passages. Analyzing them, he rightly subtracts 11 from this number: for the stretch is obvious. Of the remaining 11, he contests 7-8. And we can agree with him that it cannot be said with certainty that they were borrowed from the Hebrew Bible. This leaves 3-4 places for the Hebrew Bible. After this, there is no need to find it difficult to answer the question: what kind of Bible was in the hands of St. Apostles. Apparently the Bible is in the 70's translation; but sometimes they looked into the Hebrew Bible. This, however, is so rare that it should not even be mentioned - 3-4 in 238 cases. But that's not all, says Economos. Pay attention to the New Testament phraseology, and see what Bible it agrees with. She, he says, is a perfect imitation of the phraseology used in the translation of the 70. As evidence of this he points out: 1) In the names of angels, St. husbands and other persons of Old Testament history, also on the names of cities, rivers, etc. All of them are given according to the translation of 70, and there are up to 400 of them. In the current Hebrew text, they are so altered that you often cannot guess who they are talking about. They do not have Moses, but there is Musa; they do not have Jerusalem, but there is Jerusalem; There is no Jesus, but there is Yehoshua, and the like. 2) For words expressing the objects of worship, civil and family orders: tabernacle, bishop, priest, Easter, etc. 3) And especially on turns of speech and whole phrases. He writes them out on 50 pages. Noticing then that he cites this only as a sample, he concludes: isn’t it obvious that all the splendid purple covering the body of New Testament truths is woven from prophetic words taken from the translation of the 70? Taking into account everything that has been said, we cannot help but be convinced that in the hands of St. The apostles had only the Bible in the translation of the 70, and therefore, if it turns out that they have the Hebrew Bible, then this is a minor accident. What Bible was given to St. The Apostles to their closest successors, and through them St. Church, and which St. Has the Church always used it, from the beginning to the present day, and does it use it now? (from the same place). Which Bible of St. The apostles used it themselves and passed it on to their closest successors. St. Barnabas, active during the life of St. The Apostles, in his epistle directed to the Hebrews, cites up to 70–80 passages from the Old Testament, all according to the translation of the 70. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in his epistles, also if he cites passages from the Old Testament, cites them by 70. Clement of Rome and St. do the same. Polycarp. What the successors of the Apostles received from the Apostles, they passed on to their disciples and successors. St. Justin the Philosopher, even during the life of St. Polycarp, carries on a conversation with a Jew, and borrows everything from the Bible according to the translation of the 70. St. do the same. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, (according to Itala, which is a translation from the 70s). Thus invested and embodied in St. Bible Church by 70; and then it constantly reigned in it, and reigns, and cannot be removed from it, having thus become fused with its existence. All the fathers and teachers of the Church used it, and in all discussions at councils, when it was necessary to cite passages from the Old Testament, they were cited according to the same Bible of 70. It is from the 18th century and three quarters. If Orthodox belief and theology has as its fundamental principle to adhere only to what St. has always adhered to. Orthodox Church, then from what kind of Bible St. always used. Church, it goes without saying that we have an obligation to hold the Bible in our hands only after the 70 translations. Solving the confusion that arises in this regard. They object: how can this be? After all, St. did the fathers use the Hebrew text? They used it, but it was similar to how they used St. Apostles. Take the entire body of writers from the sons of the Orthodox Church, look at how many of them and to what extent they turned to the Hebrew Bible and you will see how insignificant the proposed objection is. Let us assume that all writers - St. fathers, teachers and ordinary people, there will be up to 500. How many of them turned to the Hebrew Bible? Five to ten. So, did these five or ten constantly hold the Hebrew Bible in their hands? No, sometimes they only turned to her and, moreover, extremely rarely. Look how much St. wrote. Chrysostom He has 13 volumes of considerable size, and among his writings the largest part is devoted to the interpretation of Scripture. How many times did he look into the Hebrew Bible? About a dozen or two, or maybe up to five. Does this mean much in the whole body of his writings? – Basil the Great turned to the Hebrew text even less, maybe three or four times. Gregory the Theologian, it seems, never. Most of all, St. turned to this text (or to the Syriac translation from this text). Ephraim the Syrian; but even his use of it, compared with the use of the text of the 70s, is very insignificant. There is nothing to say about other writers: for them, the Hebrew Bible seemed to not exist at all. So is it possible after this to expose the use of the Hebrew text of St. fathers and other writers of the Church and attach any significance to it?! Definitely not. On the contrary, having examined everything how things were going in this regard in St. Church of God, we must draw the following conclusion: the Bible in the 70 translation should be in church use and in the hands of Christians for home use. Primates of the Church and learned theologians, according to the needs of interpreting Scripture, can turn to the Hebrew text as a manual, without however giving it predominant meaning. This is how it has always been done in the Church; This is how it should be now, and hereafter. But how, they say, did the Church allow new translations from Hebrew, in addition to the translation of the 70? It would be more correct to say this: other translations were made from Hebrew, and the Church did not say anything against it. These are the Syriac translation and the translation of Bl. Jerome. She didn’t say anything: but what of this? Nothing can be deduced from nothing. She didn’t say it because she had reason not to say anything. But the Holy Church is a living body, continuously living. The testimony of truth is always ready to come from her lips. If we turn to her for a solution to our question now, then since there has been a change in the state of things, namely in the state of the Hebrew text, we cannot expect her to remain silent now, as she was silent then. She was silent then, but now she will say something. And it is very likely that her voice will not be inclined to approve the Hebrew text and translations from it, intending them for general use. The reason for this is that the current Hebrew Bible is not the same as it was in the hands of the Syrian translators and bl. Jerome. Compare and you will see. Bl. Jerome translated from Hebrew with the help of his teacher, one of the learned Jews of that time. We must assume that this translation corresponds to the reading of the Hebrew Bible at that time. Meanwhile, the current Hebrew Bible is far from being similar to the Bible in the translation of Bl. Jerome. It is obvious that the current Hebrew text has departed from that which was in the hands of Jerome and the Jews of his day. He is no longer the same, therefore it is legitimate to expect that the Church will react to the translation from him differently than how she reacted to the translation of the bl. Jerome. That the Syrian translators also had in their hands a Bible different from the current Hebrew one, anyone can verify this through comparison. For those who cannot do this, the following circumstance will help in this. Between the works of Origen, according to the latest edition of Migne, the Syriac translation of the prophet Ezekiel is placed. This translation is similar to the translation of the 70, with very minor differences, and is quite different from the current Hebrew text. If all the other books of the Old Testament in this translation show the same similarity with one (70) and the same difference with another text (Hebrew), then one cannot help but be convinced that the Hebrew Bible, which was in the hands of the Syriac translators, is not the same as the current Masoretic Bible. We conclude: then St. The Church did not say anything about those translations, seeing that the translation differed little from the 70. The Jews had not yet managed to spoil the Hebrew text so much that translations from it should be frowned upon; Therefore, the Church remained condescendingly silent, saying nothing about these translations. Thus, the works of those translators are not an example for us, and the condescending silence of the Church at that time should not give us fearless courage to take on a similar task. She can say: find the Hebrew Bible from which the Syrians and bl. translated. Jerome, and translate. Where can I find her?! Another reason why one cannot expect St. The Church agreed to give the Hebrew text in translation such a move that it could enter into competition with the 70th, that at the beginning of Orthodoxy, the interpretation of Scripture should be carried out according to the guidance of St. fathers and teachers of the Church; and they all interpreted the Bible in the translation of the 70, and not according to the Hebrew text. Having given a translation from Hebrew, give it a new interpretation: for the translation has become clearer, but still it is not free from many difficulties in understanding it and without explanation will not satisfy the inquisitive. Where can I get an explanation? Certainly not at St. fathers, and among those who have been engaged in this business for a long time - among Protestants. Having entered this road, we will move from our foundation and go to wander like the last ones. This St. The Church cannot help but see and therefore cannot allow the translation of the Hebrew text to be unsafe for believers. Yes, the Church's disapproval of the current Hebrew text in translation can be considered already stated. When Economos finished publishing his volumes on the merits of the translation of 70 interpreters (in the early 40s), the Ecumenical Patriarch and his synod wrote a letter of approval to him. Then the most learned Constantine, also one of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, did the same. Whether other patriarchs did the same is not clear, but there is no doubt that they were of the same opinion. Here is the voice of the most important part of the Orthodox world! But at the same time, we also had an unfavorable attitude towards translations of the Bible from Hebrew. Combine this voice with the voice of the East and you get a general disapproving verdict from the Orthodox Church on the Hebrew text in translation. Thus, these examples cited from antiquity of the use of the Hebrew text and new translations from it do not provide us with any encouragement or justification. If St. The Church, seeing how others turn to the Hebrew text, and others make new translations of the Bible, abandoned its Bible in the translation of 70 and took that one, then it would have been a different matter. When she, as if without noticing it, still held her same Bible of 70, it is obvious that she did not attach any importance to the actions shown, but taught by example: stick to this Bible. Was it only in ancient times, among Christians, that there were translations of the Bible that said Syrian is blessed? Jerome? - Look at all the other translations and decide what was the dominant direction among Christians in this regard? Economos notes that the Syrians, in addition to the translation from Hebrew, had a translation from the 70s. In the western part of Syria, of which Antioch was the metropolis, the Greek text of the 70 translations dominated from the time of the Apostles. When Christianity reigned in eastern Syria, they decided to translate the Bible into Syriac. As it was easier for them to translate from Hebrew due to the similarity of languages, they did it from Hebrew. The Western Syrians, however, despite the closeness of the Syrian translation with the translation of the 70s, were not content with it and translated for themselves the Old Testament writings from the 70s. And there were two Syriac translations. They used both indifferently. In the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian has been dominated by the use of the Syriac translation since the 70s. And now, they say, this latter has become dominant. Modern with these Syriac translations, Latin was made - ancient Italic from the 70s. Soon after them, translations appeared in Armenian, Abyssinian, Gothic - all from the 70s. Much later than all of them, the Slavs adopted Christianity, and their enlighteners made for them a translation of the Old Testament Scriptures from the 70s. From all this one cannot help but see that antiquity did not gravitate very strongly towards the Hebrew Bible. In the Church of Christ, the Bible dominated everywhere for 70 years. As for the translation of bl. Jerome, in the east they did not know about him, but in the west he was met with disapproval. Bl. wrote against him. Augustine and Rufinus. But even after that, it did not suddenly begin to be accepted in a friendly manner, but came into use little by little. It became predominant after Gregory the Great, from the 7th century, and even then not in its entire composition. The Psalter remained in use in its ancient translation. But how did the Church take the translation of the prophet Daniel from Theodotion, and leave the translation of this prophet for 70 years? Theodotion translated from Hebrew. Yes, she did this and rightly had reasons for doing so without, however, any damage to the authority of the translation of the 70. Theodotion is in many ways similar to the 70 in his entire translation, it is believed because his copy of the Hebrew text was closest to that which was in the hands of the 70. This proximity could have predisposed him to accept his translation. Ekonomos, examining this case, found that not the entire prophet Daniel was taken from Theodotion, but only some places. This idea is suggested by the fact that Theodotion could not spread in the Church except through Origen’s editions, and yet in Hippolytus, who lived at the same time as Origen, there are entire sections from Daniel, similar to the current Greek text of the 70s. Therefore, not everything in this text is from Theodotion. To say “Fedotionov’s prophet Daniel was taken entirely into the Code of the 70” is unfair. But, of course, the borrowing was still done. There is no indication how this happened. Blazh. Jerome is the only witness to this, but he has a general phrase: Daniel in the churches is read according to Theodotion... This is how the most famous men judged. And who they are, under what circumstances and in what form everything was done, he does not say anything. And no one, either before or after, remembers him. And this single testimony of his remained in oblivion until the Protestant disputes about the translation of the 70. So the fact cannot be ignored. But, without data, we are not able to give it the desired interpretation. The Church decided to do this. She gave us this book in this form, in the codex of 70, along with other books of this translation. And let us accept it as an authoritative, authentic translation of the Prophet Daniel, refraining from any conclusions from this in favor of the Hebrew text in our time. This circumstance is usually pointed out in order to justify their rapprochement with the current Jewish text. But meanwhile, this circumstance, most of all, should cut off any desire among lovers of truth. Theodotion translated from Hebrew; bliss Jerome testifies that this translation is the closest to the then Hebrew text. But compare his translation with the current Hebrew text; what a big difference!? Consequently, the current Jewish text in this prophet has departed far from the ancient one both in its general composition and in its particulars. If he is like this in the prophet Daniel, why think that he is less like this in other sacred writings? And if so, then what kind of trust can one have in him? Thus, the fact that the Church took the prophet Daniel in its entirety or in particulars from Theodotion cannot serve as an excuse for the corruption of the current Jewish text, but, on the contrary, should lead to its suppression. But the Church has never made a determination that only the translation of the 70 is the only correct one, and that the Orthodox should only use it. What of this? She didn’t make any determinations that she should just hold it, but she always just held it in her hands. Imitating St. Church, don’t say this either, but still hold this Bible in your hands and don’t reach for another one. From the Church’s failure to define this point, no conclusion can be drawn: therefore, it is permissible to throw away this Bible of the 70 and turn to the Hebrew one, or to prefer this last one to that one. Is there only one thing we recognize as immutably true and obligatory for belief, which is publicly defined by St. The Church, or is it sufficient for this to be simply certified that the Church has always maintained this way, although it has not publicly defined it? Review everything that is believed and you will see that it is not only that which has dogmatic obligatory dignity for us, that which is publicly determined as such by the Church, but everything in general that has always been contained by it. This last form expresses the main principle for determining the obligatory objects of belief. The vowel definitions were compiled by St. Church, when some heretical wisdom arose that confused the believers. The Church then drew up definitions that suppressed these heresies, not reinventing them, but borrowing from the treasury of its eternal beliefs. If there were no such cases, there would be no definitions, and obligatory beliefs, nevertheless, would be very definite for the sons of the Church, being indicated by what was always contained by it. There were no disputes about what the text of the Bible should adhere to; there was no definition about it. But since the Church has always contained one Bible in 70 translations, it should be a law for us to only use it both in the Church and in home reading. But just as the Church looked condescendingly at those who sometimes turned to the Hebrew Bible, even now, perhaps, this is irreproachably allowed to scholars and interpreters of Scripture, of course, not without strict restrictions. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret recalls the Church’s failure to define this point, but only then to express condescending permission to use the Hebrew text as a guide in interpreting Scripture. But then the use itself is limited by the strictest rules. All that has been said, I believe, is enough to understand how the Orthodox should treat the 70 interpreters and the Jewish text. I also consider it necessary to stipulate that in expressing such thoughts, I do not intend to discourage people from paying due attention to our Russian translation of the Bible. On the contrary, it should be considered very timely and beneficial in view of the Russian translations from Hebrew appearing abroad, it is unknown who and how they were compiled, and in general in view of the urge that is spreading among us to turn to foreign translations of the Bible as if they were the clearest and therefore endowed with the highest dignity. Since in these translations there may be Bibles of very disapproving quality, one cannot help but be grateful for the work that makes reference to those Western Bibles unnecessary. I am only talking about the meaning in which this new translation of ours should be accepted, since it was made from Hebrew. As such, it is only a aid to understanding the word of God, and not the authentic word of God itself. That’s how you should look at it and use it that way. One more word. Others have a belief that the Hebrew text is clearer, realizing that it is also higher in dogmatic value. The Hebrew text in the original is no clearer than the text of the 70s. It is dark and difficult to understand. Why is it clearer in translation than our Slavic Bible? This is not due to the clarity of the original, but is the fruit of the translators’ ingenuity. Translators make their philological assumptions, then introduce paraphrases into the translation, and the translation is clear. Since the personality of the translator obviously matters a lot, the stamp of this personality cannot but be reflected in the translation. The personalities of translators are different, and so are the translations. Compare the translations of the Kyiv and St. Petersburg Academy, Archimandrite. Macarius and Pavskago, and you will find how in other places they diverge far from each other. The same is true for foreign translators. Whatever the translator is, it’s a new Bible. Seek here, between this confusion of languages, the true word of God! In this way, i.e. By introducing conjectural explanatory thoughts into the translation, it is possible to make our Slavic Bible very clear - and perhaps with less difficulty, and with less strain on the Greek text, compared to how the Hebrew text is raped. Here the Right Reverend Porfiry translated the Psalter from Greek and without any exaggeration (see Works of Kyiv Academician). And it is in no way inferior in clarity to the Psalter translated from Hebrew; but has on its side the advantage that in the Russian translation the Psalter is presented as ecclesiastical, and not extra-church. (There is, it seems, a translation from Greek and the book of Job). This is how you can translate the entire Bible from Greek. And it will be clear, and there will be a Bible of the church, and not an extra-church one.