History of the Russian Bible
In the tenth century, the Bible was translated into a language understandable to the inhabitants of ancient Rus'. It was translated by two monks and missionaries Cyril and Methodius. Some historians of Russia call them “the first teachers and educators of the Slavs.” They made their translation of the Bible into the Slavic language using the Slavic alphabet they developed. This alphabet, called “Cyrillic” after one of its creators, marked the beginning of Russian writing.
Over the centuries, the Russian language has evolved and changed, but the ancient Slavic translation of the Bible by Cyril and Methodius remained in use for many centuries. The language of this Bible began to be called Church Slavonic.
With the advent of printing in Rus', they first began to print books of the Holy Scriptures in the Church Slavonic language. In 1564, the founder of the printing business in Russia, the first printer, Ivan Fedorov, published the book “Apostle,” which included the Scriptures of the New Testament: the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles. This book in the ancient Slavic language was the first to be published in Russia. And in 1581, the complete Bible was printed in Church Slavonic for the first time. However, in its text there were sometimes errors and inaccuracies. In subsequent editions, efforts were made to correct these errors.
By decree of Empress Elizabeth, a carefully corrected Church Slavonic Bible, the so-called “Elizabethan”, was published in 1751, the text of which was verified with the ancient Greek translation - the Septuagint. The Elizabethan Bible, almost unchanged, is still used in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, it is clear that only those who know the Church Slavonic language well can read and understand the text of this Bible. Over the centuries, this language has become more and more different from the developing Russian language and is becoming more and more incomprehensible to the people. Therefore, starting from the 16th century, attempts were made to translate the Bible into Russian.
In the first half of the 16th century, a native of Polotsk, doctor of medicine, Francis Skorina, translated all the Scriptures of the Old Testament into the contemporary language of southwestern Russia. The translation he made from Jerome's Latin Bible was published in 1517-1525. in Prague and Vilna (now Vilnius). In 1703, Tsar Peter I decided to publish the New Testament in Russian. He instructs the German pastor Gluck, known for his philological works, to translate it. Working in Moscow, Pastor Gluck completes the translation. But in 1705, Pastor Gluck died, and after his death the translation he left behind disappeared. Some historians believe that this translation was stolen and destroyed by opponents of the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures in a language understandable to the people, who were afraid that this would serve as the beginning of a reform movement in Russia.
In 1813, an important event took place in the spiritual life of Russia: the Russian Bible Society was founded, which set as its goal the printing and distribution of books of Holy Scripture among the peoples of the country. It was decided to sell them at a cheap price and distribute them free of charge to the poor. In 1815, after returning from abroad, Emperor Alexander I ordered “to provide Russians with a way to read the Word of God in their natural Russian language.” The question of the Russian translation of the Bible was raised again.
The Russian Bible Society took responsibility for publishing the books of Holy Scripture in Russian; the translation was carried out under the leadership of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Finally, in 1818, the first edition of the four Gospels, in parallel in Russian and Slavic, came out of print, and in 1822 the New Testament was printed in its entirety for the first time. Then they began to translate and print the books of the Old Testament. At the same time, translations of the Holy Scriptures were made into the languages of other peoples of Russia.
But some representatives of the highest church authorities had a negative attitude towards the activities of the Bible Society. They believed that the Bible should be in the hands of the clergy and that the people should not be allowed to read and study it on their own. In 1824, Metropolitan Seraphim asked the Tsar to ban the Bible Society. In April 1826, by decree of Emperor Nicholas I, the activities of the Society were terminated. By this time, the printing house of the Russian Bible Society had managed to print about a million copies of the books of the Holy Scriptures in 26 languages of the peoples of Russia.
After the Society's activities were banned, work on the Russian translation of the Bible was suspended. In 1825 the sale of the New Testament in Russian was stopped.
However, supporters of the publication of the Russian Bible, despite the oppression, did everything possible to achieve their goal, believing that another favorable time would come, and the people would receive the Holy Scriptures in their native language. Only in 1858, thirty-two years after the prohibition of the activities of the Bible Society, the hopes of the advocates of publishing the Russian Bible came true: Emperor Alexander II allowed the translation and printing of the Holy Scriptures in Russian. The translation was to be carried out under the direction of the Synod (the highest authority of the Orthodox Church).
A lot of work has been done to ensure that the Russian translation of the books of the Holy Scriptures corresponds as closely as possible to the texts of the ancient originals, and also has literary merits. In 1862, forty years after the first edition of the Russian New Testament, its second edition, somewhat improved, was published in more modern Russian.
It was decided to re-carefully prepare a translation of all the books of the Old Testament. For this purpose, in 1860, a special committee was elected at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The translation of the Old Testament was done by professors of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: M.A. Golubev, E.I. Lovyagin, P.I. Savvaitov, a famous archaeologist and historian, D.A. Khvolson, a Christian of Jewish origin, Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Leipzig. Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy M.S. Gulyaev also worked a lot on the translation.
The translation of the Old Testament was done from the ancient Hebrew original. The translators were also guided by the Greek text of the Septuagint, used the Latin translation of Jerome and the previously made Russian translation. Finally, in 1876, the complete Russian Bible came out of print for the first time. Its text is sometimes called “synodal”, since it was published under the auspices of the Synod. This happened almost three centuries after the appearance of the first printed Church Slavonic Bible.
The language of the Russian Bible, accurate in its rendering of the sacred original, has undoubted literary merits. Thanks to its emotionality and rhythm, the Russian translation is close in form to prose poems. The publication of the Russian Bible was an important event in the history of Russian Christianity and Russian culture. Reading the Holy Scriptures in their native language, millions of people found genuine spiritual values in it, gained faith and peace with God.
Review of some Russian Bible translations
Elizabethan Bible in Church Slavonic, 1751.
Download Elizabethan Bible (7.44 MB)
Archbishop MEFODIUS (M. A. Smirnov): “The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans, with an interpretation confirmed by the sayings of the Holy Fathers and other important writers,” Moscow, 1792 (second edition, revised, published in 1815).
Archim. FILARET (V. M. Drozdov):“Notes guiding a thorough understanding of the book of Genesis, which also includes a translation of this book into the Russian dialect,” 1819; Moscow, 1867. (This work was reprinted in the early 1990s in the series “Patristic Heritage” under the title “Creations of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna on the book of Genesis”, as well as by V.A. Kabanov under the title “GENESIS in translation Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow", M.: 2002)
RBO“Our Lord Jesus Christ Holy Gospel, from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in Slavic and Russian dialect”, St. Petersburg, 1819; “Our Lord Jesus Christ New Testament, in Slavic and Russian,” St. Petersburg, 1821. “Our Lord Jesus Christ New Testament”, St. Petersburg, 1821; Leipzig, 1850; London, 1854, 1855, 1861. (In 2000, the RBO carried out a reprint of this translation from the 1824 edition: “The New Testament in the translation of the Russian Bible Society.”)
RBO(under the leadership of Archbishop Philaret [V.M. Drozdov] and Archpriest G.P. Pavsky) published the Octateuch, 1825 (“Bible. Eight books of the Old Testament. Pentateuch. Joshua. Judges. Ruth”, London, 1861, 18622); “Psalter, or Book of Praises in Russian”, St. Petersburg, 1822; Leipzig, 1852; London, 1858.
G. P. Pavsky translated the Gospel of Matthew, 1819 (this work was included in the translation of the New Testament in 1821). He also independently translated all the books of the Old Testament in 1820-1835 (the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Proverbs of Solomon were published in 1861-1866; translations of the remaining books were not published).
Archim. Macarius (M. Ya. Glukharev) translated almost all the books of the Old Testament in 1834-1845 (the translation was carried out from Hebrew, and not from Church Slavonic); his translations (of some prophetic books in two editions) were published in Moscow in the 1860s. (Since 2000, the RBO has been reprinting this translation, originally published in the Orthodox Review magazine: “The Pentateuch of Moses in the translation of Archimandrite Macarius.”)
"Bible. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, translated from Hebrew, regardless of the insertions in the original and its changes in the Greek and Slavic translations. Old Testament. The first section, which contains the Law, or the Pentateuch. Translation by Vadim", London, 1860.
Ep. Agafangel (A.F. Soloviev):“The Book of Job with brief explanations in Russian translation”, Vyatka 1860, 1861; this text was republished by V.A. Kabanov entitled “JOB. Translated by Agathangel, Archbishop of Volyn and Zhitomir. (1861)"
I. P. Maksimovich translated the following books: Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes (published in the 1860s).
M. S. Gulyaev translated the books of Kings, Chronicles (published in 1861-1864).
M. A. Golubev, D. A. Khvolson, E. I. Lovyagin, P. I. Savvaitov translated and published the entire Old Testament in 1861-1871. It was this work that served as the basis for the Synodal Translation of the Old Testament.
RBO.Synodal translation. Complete Russian Bible.1876. The most popular Russian translation. To this day it is published in huge quantities.
Download Synodal translation (1.7 MB)
Download the Geneva Bible - Synodal translation with commentaries (18.3 MB)
L. I. Mandelstam translated the Torah in 1862, as well as the Psalms. Literal translation in favor of Russian Jews", Berlin, 1864, 1865, 1872.
Book P. (pseudonym?): “Books of Holy Scripture in the Russian translation of the book. P. (historical books)", St. Petersburg, 1865.
V. A. Levinson, D. A. Khvolson translated the entire Old Testament, which was published in London in 1866-1875 (this two-volume work was regularly published in Vienna and Berlin until 1914 under the title “The Holy Books of the Old Testament, Translated from the Hebrew Text. For Jewish Use”).
I. Gorsky-Platonov:“Psalms in Russian translation”, 1868, as well as “The Book of Exodus”, 1891.
A.-I. L. Pumpyansky:"Psalms of David. Jewish text with Russian translation", Warsaw, 1872, as well as Proverbs of Solomon, St. Petersburg, 1891.
O. N. Steinberg translated the books of Joshua, Judges, 1874-1875, “The Book of the Prophet Isaiah with a literal Russian translation”, Vilna, 1875; “The Pentateuch of Moses with a literal Russian translation”, 1899.
Ep. Porfiry (K. A. Uspensky):“The Book of Esther in Russian translation from the Greek text”, 1874; “The Psalter in Russian translation from Greek”, Kyiv, 1874-1875; St. Petersburg, 1893, “The Four Books of Maccabees”, Kyiv, 1873.
I. G. Gershtein, L. O. Gordon translated the Pentateuch, which was published in 1875.
P. A. Yungerov translated about fifteen Old Testament books from ancient Greek. They were originally published in Kazan, 1882-1911.
Psalm 1 1 Blessed is the man who did not go into the assembly of the wicked, and did not stand in the way of sinners, and did not sit in the company of destroyers, | ||
L. N. Tolstoy: “Connection, translation and study of the 4 Gospels”, Geneva, 1892-1894; Moscow, 1907-1908;
V. A. Zhukovsky: “The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, Berlin, 1895, 1902.
K. P. Pobedonostsev: “The Holy Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in Slavic and Russian languages with the addition of the Russian text in a new edition”, St. Petersburg, 1903; “The Epistles of the Apostle Paul in a new Russian translation”, St. Petersburg, 1905; "New Testament. Experience in improving the translation into Russian of the sacred books of the New Testament", St. Petersburg, 1906.
A. Efros: “Song of Solomon”, St. Petersburg, “Pantheon”, 1909; "Song of Solomon. Translation from Hebrew", St. Petersburg, 1910, Book of Ruth, Moscow 1925.
Ep. Antonin (A. Granovsky): “The Book of Proverbs of Solomon. Russian translation of the book from a parallel critical edition of the Hebrew and Greek texts with the application of the Slavic text", 1913 .
Probatov Vasily. Poetic transcriptions of the Gospel and the book of Psalms. First half of the 20th century.
Download Probatov Vasily. Poetic transcriptions of the Gospel and the book of Psalms (491 Kb)
Ep. Cassian (Bezobrazov) and others: “The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, B.F.B.S., London, 1970 (subsequently republished many times by various organizations, most recently by the Russian Bible Society).
Download the New Testament translated by Cassian (Bezobrazov a) (347 Kb)
S. S. Averintsev published a translation of the book of Job in “Poetry and Prose of the Ancient East”, Moscow, 1973; "World of the Bible", Moscow, 1993.
“Collected Works / Ed. N.P. Averintseva and K.B. Sigov. Translations: Gospels. Book of Job. Psalms. Per. from ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew.”, K.: SPIRIT AND LITERA, 2004.
D. Yosifon: “Five Books of the Torah”, Yerushalayim, 1975; “The First and Last Prophets”, Yerushalayim, 1978; "Ketuvim", Yerushalayim, 1978.
K. I. Logachev: “The Gospel according to John in the new Russian translation”, OBO, 1978; “The Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Translation from the “text of the majority””, “Literary studies”, 1991.
Living Bibles International: “The beginnings of the Christian faith. Retelling the seven books of the New Testament", 1984.
World Bible Translation Center: “Good News from God. New Testament. Translation from Greek text", Moscow, 1989; “Good News. New Testament. New translation from the Greek text", Moscow, 1990; "The Bible. Modern translation of biblical texts", Moscow, 1993; 1997.
Download the Bible translated by World Bible Translation Center (1.6 MB)
L. Lutkovsky: “Gospel”, Moscow: Friendship of Peoples, 1991.
Download the Gospels. Translation by Leonid Lutkovsky (294 Kb)
E. G. Yunz: “The Book of Ecclesiastes”, journal. "Questions of Philosophy", vol. 8.1991;
“The Gospel as presented by Luke”, M.: Protestant, 1994;
"The Book of Jonah", journal. "The World of the Bible", vol. 4. M.: 1997;
"The Book of Ruth", journal. "The World of the Bible", vol. 5. M.: 1998.
M. I. Rizhsky: “The Book of Job: From the history of the biblical text”, Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1991.
“The Book of Ecclesiastes”, Novosibirsk, 1995.
International Bible Society : “Word of Life. The New Testament in Modern Translation,” Living Bible. Int., Stookholm, 1991;
“The Bible for our life, New Testament”, 1999;
"Being. Translation of the International Bible Society", BBI, 1998
Work is underway to translate the entire Old Testament into modern Russian.
V. N. Kuznetsova: “Good News: The New Testament translated from ancient Greek”, Moscow, RBO, 2001.
I. Sh. Shifman: “Teaching. Pentateuch of Moses", Moscow: Republic, 1993.
P. Gil(under general editorship G. Branovera): “The Pentateuch and Haftarot. Hebrew text with Russian translation and classical commentary "SONCHINO", "GESHARIM" 5761/"Bridges of Culture", Moscow, 2001, 2006.
Geli Vishenchuk: “New Testament Scriptures. Comments. Second, revised edition", AMG Int., Chattanooga, 2001.
V. A. Gromov(editor): “The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, edited by V. A. Gromov,” USA, Evangelical Bible Translators, Int., ed. "Esther", Ukraine, 1997; "Gospel of the Kingdom", 2000.
S. V. Lezov: “As presented by Mark” in his book “History and Hermeneutics in the Study of the New Testament”, Moscow: Eastern Literature, 1996.
Pearl of the Carpathians: “The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Acts of the Apostles”, GBV, Germany, 1997.
K. G. Kapkov: “Canonical Gospels. New Russian edition", Moscow, 1997.
Slavic Bible Foundation: “The Gospel of Mark. Gospel of John. Epistle to the Romans. Apocalypse", St. Petersburg, 1997.
Live Stream: "New Testament. Restorative translation", Anaheim, 1998.
M. G. Seleznev(editor of the series “Old Testament. Translation from Hebrew”) and others: “The Book of Genesis”, Russian State University for the Humanities, 1999;
“Exodus”, Russian State University for the Humanities, 2000;
“Parables. Book of Ecclesiastes. Book of Job", Russian State University for the Humanities, 2001;
“The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah”, RBO, 2001. (A translation of the entire Old Testament into modern Russian is planned to be published by 2009, and work is also underway to create a Hebrew-Russian interlinear translation of the Old Testament)
Dov-Ber Haskelevich(under general editorship G. Branovera): “Tehilim. With a new Russian translation and a brief commentary,” Jerusalem: SHAMIR, 5759/1999.
Al Salam: “The Holy Book. Semantic translation of selected items from Taurat and Injil", Bishkek, 2000.
M. P. Kulakov: “New Testament in modern Russian translation”, 2000;
“New Testament and Psalter in modern Russian translation”, 2002.
Sample:
SHAMASH(translation from English A. Dolbina, V. Dolbina): "The Jewish New Testament / A Jewish Translation of the New Testament by David Stern<англ. изд. 1989 г.>", Finland, 2001.
Hieromonk Ambrose (Timrot): “Psalter. New translation from the Greek text of 70 interpreters”, M.: 2002.
"Central Asian Scripture in Russian": "Holy Bible. / Meaningful translation of Taurat, the Book of Prophets, Zabur and Injil", Istanbul Publishing House, 2003.
WatchTower: "Christian Greek Scriptures - New World Translation", Rome, 2001.
K. I. Logachev: “Greek-Russian New Testament for translators and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures (16).
The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Galatians,” Bible Association, Bible Institute, 1992;
“Greek-Russian New Testament (20-21). First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians", Institute of Biblical Textual Studies and Biblical Translations of St. Petersburg State University, 1995.
A. A. Alekseev(chief editor) and others: “The Gospel of Luke in Greek with interlinear Russian translation”, Institute of Bible Translation, Stockholm - Moscow, 1994;
“The Gospel of Matthew in Greek with interlinear Russian translation”, Stockholm - Moscow: Institute of Bible Translation, 1997;
“New Testament in Greek with interlinear translation into Russian”, St. Petersburg: RBO, 2001.
D. P. Reznik: “The Epistle of James in Greek with interlinear translation into Russian”, Kyiv: Mission “Serving the Chosen People”, 1997 .
A. Vinokurov: “Interlinear translation of the Old and New Testaments into Russian” (The project is currently at the stage of its development), 2002-2007.
V. Zhuromsky(chief ed.): “Interlinear Greek-Russian New Testament / Literal Modern Translation”, Zhitomir, “Ukrainian Society of Grace”, 2006.
Translation of the books of Jonah and Job by Ilya Karpekin. Based on the English translation of Sir Lancelot by C. L. Brenton.
Pavlodar translation. 2007. This trial translation is an attempt to overcome the eternal dilemma of biblical translators - what is better - to be closer to the letter of the original or to express the author’s thoughts in modern language. In parallel with the expressive paraphrase in modern Russian, there is an ancient Greek original with interlinear translation so that the reader can compare the texts and independently draw conclusions regarding their meaning.
When developing this publication, four different dictionaries of the ancient Greek language were used, and the experience of creating about 20 of the best modern translations was also studied. The critics were linguists, proofreaders and people with theological education from different CIS countries.
The review uses materials from Stanislav Tampio
Read first. Bible: After two years of his life, when he began to live in Israel, Saul chose for himself a husband, O husband of Israel; instead - in the Elizabethan: The son of one year Saul, when the kingdom began, and two years of the kingdom of Israel. And Saul chose for himself three thousand men about the men of Ivyukh... When comparing these two translations with the currently known in print readings of the Greek translation copies of the 70 and with the Hebrew text, it turns out that the first has the greatest - comparatively - similarity only with the Sistine publication and the Vatican list of the 4th century, where, according to a literal translation into Russian, it reads: “And Saul chooses for himself three thousand husbands from the men of Israel.” The difference between this latter and the first. Slavs translation concerns only the initial words: two each Leteh, in israel, which constitute a surplus against the named publication and list. Other lists are quite consistent with the first printed Slavs. the translation writing this is unknown. In this regard, our first printed text of this passage in the book of Kings turns out to be the least attested by the ancient Greek copies, as well as the Slavic ones, in which, as far as is known, there was another translation, found in the Gennadian Bible and other lists: AND before summer Saul reigned over us, while you reigned over them. This latest translation serves as a rendering of the reading of a significant number of Greek. lists, although not entirely accurate. Despite its little evidence, our first printed translation turns out, as we will see later, to be the most remarkable translation of the above passage that we have. – Its translation in the Elizabethan Bible has confirmation for itself in a significant amount of Greek. 70 translation lists. In presenting it to the Holy Synod, the Elizabethan references referred only to the Codex Alexandrinus and the Complutensian Codex as the basis for the change they made in the translation of this passage, pointing out at the same time the dissimilarity between the previously printed and corrected translation by Peter the Great's references and the text of the just named code and publications. Although this reference cannot currently be considered completely accurate, since in Alexandriysk. the list does not preserve the text of the th chapter, although, further, it turns out that it is not entirely complete, since it is silent about the Sistine edition, the text of which does not agree with the new translation of this passage proposed by the reference workers; nevertheless, it is generally true that the translation made by the Elizabethan interrogators serves as a transmission of the reading of a significant number of Greek copies, and this reading is a literal translation of the Hebrew text, which is also not stated in the report of the interrogators.
Although the new Slavic translation has on its side a significant number of evidence from ancient monuments of the biblical text, with all this it cannot be recognized as the most perfect of our existing translations of this passage in view of the very composition of the sayings of which it consists. The words that begin Chapter XIII. according to this translation: son of a single summer Saul whenever started reign represent very great difficulty in understanding both in themselves in their application to Saul, and in their use by biblical narrators. When thinking about Saul as a fully grown man, fully developed, as he is portrayed in the previous chapters of the 1st book of Kings (IX, 2; X, 23) at the time of his election to the kingdom, the age of infancy given to him in the above words is completely incomprehensible . An attempt made by the ancients to eliminate this incomprehensibility through the interpretation of words; “son of the year Saul”... in the sense of indicating the infantile purity of Saul’s soul upon his accession to the throne does not quite achieve the goal due to the fact that in other places in the Old Testament historical books in which the same expression is used in the Hebrew text, it everywhere has a meaning different from this interpretation : it usually indicates the number of years of the person to whom it is attached. On this basis, recognizing that the words “son of the year Saul” are used in the same sense... both at the beginning of the XIIIth chapter, and finding the one year given to Saul at his accession completely inappropriate to his actual age, biblical scholars of ancient and modern time, reading the beginning of this chapter in Heb. text, a way out of the difficulty is usually found in the assumption that the Hebrew text of this passage has not reached the present day in its original form, that the number of years of Saul originally read in it has not been preserved intact, and this unpreserved number of years is introduced into the text on the basis of considerations and different biblical scholars do not come up with the same thing: some: 30, others: 40, others: 50. However, it is impossible to settle with certainty on one of these numbers due to the instability of the grounds put forward for this. A clear proof of the dissatisfaction of Western biblical scholars themselves with the determinations of Saul’s age obtained in this way at his accession to the kingdom is the fact that in modern times they began to abandon these numbers of years included in the text and recognize as more probable what was not shown in the original Hebrew text the exact number of years or the fact that in ancient times this number was destroyed by some Jewish zealot, and in the translation of this place by the book. Tsar. before the word: “year” a space is left to indicate the unknown number of years of Saul at his accession.
Instead, some of our domestic biblical scholars use a different kind of technique when translating this passage from the Hebrew text, which generally consists in the fact that the words of the latter are not conveyed with literal accuracy, and the following translation is obtained: “The year was Saul’s reign, and he reigned for two years.” over Israel" or: "The year of Saul's reign has passed. In the second year after reigning over Israel“... Upon closer examination, these translations from Hebrew also turn out to be free from very serious perplexities, consisting of the following. Since the words of the Hebrew text, when literally translated: “the son of the year in the reign,” do not give, as was indicated, a clear meaning, then to obtain the latter they are translated with such digressions that the word: “son” is eliminated, and “was” or “was” is added. passed,” the preposition in the word “reign” is also eliminated and this last word is placed in direct dependence on the word “was” or “year”; Thanks to such changes, these words acquire the meaning that they indicate not the number of years of Saul’s life upon accession, but the amount of time of his reign, determined in one year. Besides the fact that such a meaning given to these words turns out, as noted above, to be inconsistent with the generally accepted meaning of the Hebrew expression in other places in the Old Testament. books, it is impossible to recognize it as correct because in the further words: “and he reigned over Israel for two years” there is another definition of the same time of Saul’s reign not in one, but in two years. Such an obvious disagreement between the biblical writer and himself in the first of the given translations is eliminated in the second of the translations by the fact that instead of “he reigned for two years,” the expression is used: “in the second year after his reign,” and a direct deviation is made from the usual meaning of the words of the Hebrew text, in which it reads here “two”, and not “second” and “reigned”, and not “after his accession”. And even if this second translation were grammatically correct, it would still contain an inconsistency in the fact that after the immediately preceding words had already indicated the passing of the year of Saul’s reign, it is again indicated in the words in question for the second year this reign, that is, indicates the same time. This double indication - according to the second translation - of the biblical writer in two halves of the verse at the same time cannot, of course, not arouse bewilderment, and at the same time - distrust in the correctness of this translation. Thus, and in the form in which the current Hebrew text of this passage is translated by our domestic biblical scholars, it turns out to be extremely difficult to understand. This is - according to the Hebrew text - one of those places that the interpreters of Holy Scripture call (cruces interpretum =) “crosses of interpreters.”
* * *
For the sons of the Greek-Eastern Orthodox Church there is no need to adhere to this place in the book of Kings, at all costs, to the current Hebrew text and, in particular, to find ways to eliminate the perplexities raised by the words: “the son of the year Saul at his accession.” The translation of the 70, which in our country has equal dignity with the Hebrew. text, reveals by reading this passage of the biblical text in some of its oldest copies another, more reliable way to get out of the difficulty here. An indication of this path is the above reading of the Vatican list, according to which Chapter XIII. begins with the words: “And Saul chose for himself three thousand husbands from the men of Israel.” This reading represents the significant feature that it completely excludes from the biblical text the perplexing words: “the son of the year Saul at the reign.”... The absence of these words in the text of the oldest currently known list of translations of the 70 is not without reason seen by modern biblical scholars time is a sign that they were not originally read in the translation of the 70. This opinion seems plausible because otherwise it is hardly possible to explain their absence from this list, while their inclusion in other later lists of this translation is easily explained by the great influence on the text of the latter of works that corrected and partly supplemented it based on other ancient translations. In this last respect, it is known that in some of the Greek lists the words: “the son of the year Saul at his accession” are marked with a special sign (asterisk), indicating the completion of the Greek translation from other sources in this place. Why the original Greek translators did not include these words in the biblical text can only be explained presumably, either by the fact that these words were not found in the list of the Hebrew text they had, or by the fact that they, as being not only translators, but also interpreters of the priests text, they considered it best to “omit this verse as “incomprehensible.” The preservation of the original text of the 70 in the Vatican list of the 4th century finds an explanation, on the one hand, in the fact that this list was written, as one might think, in Egypt, where it received its origin and translation of the 70, which therefore could have been preserved here in greater purity, and on the other hand, that it was in Egypt that a revision of the Greek translation was carried out in the 3rd Christian century by Hesychius, distinguished, according to the research begun on this subject, by the general brevity in the transmission of the biblical text and the removal from it all the additions made to it from other Judeo-Greek translations: Hesychius, according to our domestic biblical scholar, “did not introduce readings into his text if he noticed that they were not the readings of seventy.” If the Vatican list in question received its origin from Egyptian Christians in the 4th century, after Hesychius here revised the translation of the 70 in order to restore its original text, then it becomes clear that in this list the words in question in Chapter XIII are not readable. 1st book. Kings, as included in the translation of 70 from other Judeo-Greek translations. But to all this, this reading of the Vatican list, not without reason, can be considered and evaluated as the most accurate reproduction of the text of the 70 in its original form. In general, it must be said: a look at the Vatican book. The 4th century, as being especially close to the original text of the 70, has important grounds that are revealed by comparing the readings belonging to it with the Hebrew text and the readings of other Greek copies of the translation of the 70. And with such a look at this list, the reading of this passage of the book of Kings that it represents acquires, of course, especially important significance, which compensates for the lack of evidence in favor of this reading from other Greek lists.
In particular, the importance of this reading of the Vatican list for understanding the biblical narrative is evident from the fact that with it, not only the indicated perplexities caused by the words: “the son of the year Saul at his accession” disappear by themselves, but also further ones that arise when reading the following in Hebrew text and some Greek. lists of words: “and he reigned over Israel for two years.” If we put these words in close connection with the subsequent ones, which talk about Saul’s election of three thousand Israelites to constantly remain with him, then their meaning seems quite clear: or, apparently, it indicates the time of Saul’s reign when he started a permanent army ; “Neither the grammar nor the sequence of the story contradicts such an understanding,” as has long been noted. But there are other important circumstances here that are not conducive to recognizing this understanding as correct. The most important of them is that the same words and in the same combination are usually used in other places in the historical books of the Old Testament to designate the total number of years of the reign of this or that person, in view of which another understanding of the given words turns out to be more plausible, consisting in that the biblical writer wanted to designate with them the entire reign of Saul. Such a definition of this time, as lasting in the literal sense of these words only two years, seems, however, completely inconsistent with the numerous events that occurred during the reign of Saul: in addition to what was done under Saul within the state, only wars with all the surrounding peoples(): The Moabites, the Ammonites, the Amalekites, the Edomites, the kings of Sob and the Philistines, led of course not at the same time, but at different times, clearly do not fit into the two years indicated by the writer. In view of this historical information, the number: “two years” turns out to be obviously incomplete or not preserved in the Hebrew text in its original form, as a result of which biblical scholars, who adhere exclusively to this text, try to fill out this number by adding other numbers to it (10 or 20 ) or by changing it to a slightly larger number 9), on the basis of certain considerations, the insufficiency of which is already evident from the dissimilarity of the numbers of years of Saul’s reign obtained by different biblical scholars. – And this kind of bewilderment and difficulty presented by the words: “and he reigned over Israel for two years” is completely eliminated, of course, by reading the Vatican list, as it does not contain an indication of the two years of Saul’s reign.
With this negative, and in essence, one might say, liberating meaning of reading this passage according to the Vatican slip, is connected another – positive one. It lies in the fact that if the XIIIth chapter. 1st book. Tsar. begin, in accordance with this list, with the words: “And Saul chose for himself three thousand men,” then the event spoken of in this place of the biblical narrative turns out to have taken place immediately after the speech of the prophet. Samuel, which he uttered when relinquishing government power during a public meeting in Gilgal (). That the biblical writer attributes the establishment of a standing army, the indication of which is preceded in the Hebrew text by the words: “the son of the year Saul reigned over Israel for two years,” refers to the time of this Galgal national assembly, and not to any other that took place in the second year of his reign. Saul, this can be seen from further words, read here identically in the Hebrew text and the translation of the 70: And release the remains of people to their own villages. The reference made in these words to the dissolution of the people's assembly would be incomprehensible if the latter took place a year after Samuel removed himself from the position of Judge, since in this case the circumstances under which or as a result of which the people were convened would remain unspecified. Given the thoroughness with which events are set out in the first two books of Kings, the mention of the dissolution of the people to their homes should have been preceded by an indication of the convening of the people into an assembly. When reading this passage of the book of Kings according to the Vatican list, there was no need for such an indication, since it was made earlier in the story about the meeting of the people in Gilgal; the dissolution of this national assembly and, of course, in the above words, which are completely clear.
The undoubted advantages of reading this place according to the Vatican list, revealed to the best of our ability, belong to a large extent to the Slavic translation of this place in our first printed Bible, as the closest to reading this list in comparison with other hitherto known translation lists of the 70. Our first printed Bible does not contain the most incomprehensible and perplexing words: “the son of the year Saul upon his accession,” just as they are not in the Vatican list. True, in the first one the following words are read: By two fly of his kingdom, for started reign in Israel reminiscent of the reading of the Hebrew text and some Greek copies following it; but there is no sufficient reason to insist on retaining these words in the Slavic text, since they do not represent an accurate rendering of either the Hebrew text or the Greek copies. If, when transmitting the initial words of the XIVIth chapter, our ancient translators gave preference to reading the Vatican or a copy similar to it, and if this reading, upon examination, turns out to be completely consistent with the content of the biblical narrative and alien to various perplexities aroused by readings different from it, then this provides sufficient grounds in order to harmonize our Slavic translation in the 2nd half of the 1st verse with the reading of the Vatican list and on this basis begin the XIVIth chapter of the 1st book. Tsar. words: “And Saul chose for himself three thousand men.”... The Elizabethan reference books, as can be seen from all that has been said, here introduced into the Slavic translation something that does not serve to improve it and, in all likelihood, does not even belong to the original text of the translation 70 -ti.
* * *
Read in the first printed Slavs. Bible:... and set them to saws and to the trizus of iron, they cut off stone, and to those who create iron and to those who create pliids pass...; in the Elizabethan B... and put them on saws, and on iron tridents and iron axes, and ahead of them through them you sing the plindian... In these words, the biblical narrator depicts what King David did after the victory over the Ammonites and the capture of their capital with the male adult population of the latter and other Ammonite cities. According to the previous Slavic translation, they were doomed to forced labor in quarries, iron and brick factories. According to the new Slavs. translation - they were given over to painful executions using special lethal weapons or by burning in kilns in brick factories.
In order to thoroughly judge which of these translations serves as a more accurate rendering of the original biblical text, it is necessary to turn to the ancient monuments of the latter.
Presenting to the Holy Synod the second of the above translations, which belonged to Peter’s own references, the Elizabethans, in confirmation of their agreement with it, pointed out that this translation “has been corrected in accordance with all Greek codes.” In the four editions of the translation of the 70 available to the Elizabethan reference books, there was the following reading of this passage from the book. Tsars in its literal translation into Russian: .. “put (or placed) at the saw, at the iron threshing machines (or three-pointed tools), and at the iron saws (in the Compl. ed.: - axes) and carried (to Oxford. - took , in Compl. – circled) them through a brick” (or “brick factory”). Between this reading from the Greek translation and the second of the given Slavic translations there is no noticeable similarity in those sayings, on one or another rendering of which the meaning of the translated passage mainly depends: expression: put it on the saws does not represent an accurate (grammatically) rendering of the Greek text; in words: leading through the cave to Plinoyan given to the Greek saying corresponding to the last two words of the Slavic translation (πλινθίον or πλινθεῖον, as in the ancient Vatican sp.) a meaning that it does not actually have. In general, the idea of inflicting the death penalty on the captive Ammonites, which clearly appears in the second of the above Slavic translations, is not expressed in any way in the Greek text that was used by the Elizabethan reference books. The closest rendering of the latter is, on the contrary, contrary to the instructions of the Elizabethan reference books, the translation in our first printed Bible, as expressing, in agreement with the Greek text in most of its copies, the idea of forced hard labor to which the captive Ammonites were condemned.
The reason for the change made by Peter's investigators in the previous translation of this passage lies, one must think, in the influence on them of the Hebrew text, which they, as we know, used, and which could be understood and translated by them in the same way as - blessed. Jerome and many others to this day. In the Vulgate this passage is translated as follows (if the Latin speech is translated into Russian): “and the people brought him sawed, and drew iron drags over them (circumegit super eos ferrata carpenta): and cut with knives and passed like bricks” (in typo laterum) . The Hebrew text is conveyed very similarly to this in the German translation (Luther): “and he laid them under iron saws and teeth (Zacken), and iron axes, and burned them in brick kilns” (Ziegelöfen). From the Hebrew text, either through independent translation or under the influence of other translations, the idea of the various instruments named in this place in the Book of Kings, specifically instruments of capital punishment, was gleaned; from here, in particular, the idea of a brick kiln, which is absent in the Greek text, was borrowed. At least other sources besides the above, to which the new Slavic translation of this passage of the book of Kings could owe its origin, are not known to the writer: the Syriac and Arabic translations, which were also used locally by Peter’s enquiries, express a different idea of the fate of the captive Ammonites, than which is expressed in the translation of the Elizabethan Bible.
Thus, when comparing the above Slavic translations with other monuments of the biblical text, it turns out that the translation of the first printed Bible serves as a transmission of the Greek text in most of its copies and editions, and the translation found in the Elizabethan Bible serves as a transmission of the Hebrew text in its usual understanding.
Which of these two Slavic translations, which are different in primary sources and in meaning, has more rights to remain in the text of the Slavic Bible, the translation of our first printed Bible or the Elizabethan one?
When resolving this issue, the following features of the biblical text in this place of the book of Kings attract attention:
In the 1st. In presenting David's orders regarding the captives of Ammon, the biblical writer does not use any of those expressions that would indicate the execution of them and which are used in other places in the Old Testament books, which speak of the then cruel treatment of prisoners of war from among the nations not belonging to the Canaanites ( eg: for killing; : cut to pieces; 2 Parallel XXV, 12: Svergosha and etc.). Instead, the following expressions are used here: known, put or “set” and superior. Expressed by these words, which generally represent a very close translation of the sayings of the Hebrew text, the movement of the captives in itself predisposes the thought to see in this action of the victor a special purpose, and not the execution of them: if this latter had been meant, then it could have been committed in the cities from which these captives came; there was no need to take them to a special place to put them to death. This removal from the cities, on the contrary, becomes understandable if the captives were doomed to forced labor in special places chosen for this, which idea is expressed in the translation of 70 according to most of his lists and in the first printed Slavs. Bible.
In 2. Expressed in the Vulgate and other later translations of this passage by the book. Kings, the idea of special painful executions to which the captive Ammonites were subjected and which consisted of sawing, crushing and burning, cannot be recognized as plausible because it does not have anything corresponding in the address c. David with prisoners of war from other nations: neither the Mosvites () nor the Edomites () were subjected to special painful executions. Such an unprecedented commission of the latter against the Ammonites alone naturally requires an explanation, which cannot, however, be served by the fact that during this war David was, as a result of his grave sin (), in a state of alienation from God, since this was removed from the king before the end of the war ( ). If other biblical scholars explain the exceptional use of painful forms of death to the Ammonites during the reign of David by the fact that this people treated the vanquished cruelly, then one cannot be completely satisfied with this explanation, because at the same time the motives for which David, who did not use such methods of execution, remain unclear in relation to captives from other no less cruel and hostile nations, he acted differently with some Ammonites. The exceptional cruelty of David, in whose character “there was the least cruelty,” with the Ammonites alone, which cannot be satisfactorily explained, naturally shakes confidence in the accuracy of that translation of this passage of the book. Kingdoms, which introduces an incomprehensible event into the history of this reign.
And, thirdly, the idea formed by the new translators of this passage in the book of Kings about the instruments named here as instruments of capital punishment does not have a solid basis in the existing information regarding these objects. What exactly is meant by those named according to the usual translation? saw, iron tridents etc., what purpose or structure they had, the essence of the matter remains unknown due to the fact that the Hebrew names used here are found in the Old Economy. books very rarely or only in the narration of this event. So the first of them (in Hebrew “vixen”), translated by the word; “saw”, except for the story about this event in 2 Kings. and 1st Chronicles. (XX, 3), used only in 1 Kings, VII, 9, regarding stones, cut with a saw. Some of the biblical scholars mean the same kind of tool by a saw in the narration of this event, presenting the matter in such a way that the Ammonite prisoners of war were taken to the quarries and here they were assigned to sawing stones. The next name (in Hebrew, “kharitsa”), in addition to the story about this event, is only used in , where it is translated in Greek by the word (τροφαλίδες), meaning: “piece.” The subject indicated by the writer of the book. Kingdoms by this name was so unclear to the Greek translators that in each of the three places in the Old Testament books in which it appears, they used different Greek words; it is also translated differently by later translators: by Symmachus: (τροχοί) “wheels”, by blessed. Jerome (ferrata carpenta =) “iron drags”, Luther (Zacken =) “teeth”, in the English authorized translation (harrows =) “harrows”, others (in Hebrew dictionaries, in the translation of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy and in the Synodal Russian translation) “iron threshers”, and for others (Einschnitte, Gräben =) “cuts, ditches”. In the explanation of the further name (in Hebrew “magzerot”) there is more agreement among ancient and modern translators: in Greek it is conveyed by the word (ύποτομεῦς or σκἐπαρνον) “cutter”, “axe”, in Jerome - (culter) “knife”; the later ones are close to this. The last of the names (in Hebrew “malben” according to “keri” or interlinear reading of the Hebrew text) is explained differently: in Greek. translators understand the meaning πλινθείου or πλινθίου): “brick factory” or “brick”; close to this - translated as blessed. Jerome in typo laterum =) “in the image of bricks” or “like bricks”; Meanwhile, the new translators retain the previous understanding, as partly finding a basis for themselves in other places - the Old Testament. books where this Hebrew word is used is then replaced by another: “brick kiln” (in the translation of Luther and others), then finally it is Hebrew. the word is replaced by another readable in the text itself according to Katib - “malken”) and understood in the meaning of a statue.
From the given heterogeneous explanations of almost each of the words used in this place of the book of Kings, it is clear how generally insufficient philological grounds are for accurately determining their lexical meaning, and at the same time for understanding the objects that they mean; In particular, it is clear that all these words can, with some justification, be understood as the names of tools used in quarries, metal and brick factories, or the products themselves produced in them, and, of course, the view of these tools as tools the death penalty is eliminated by itself. With this understanding of these names, the idea of forced or, at present, hard labor, in itself cannot cause any particular bewilderment, since the extraction of hard stone and copper from the bowels of the Canaanite land is clearly stated in Deuteronomy (VIII, 9), which is confirmed and travelers' indications of the traces of metal mines that were once here preserved in Palestine.
If we connect this result, which follows from an examination of the names of various tools used in this place, with the biblical writer’s story about the removal of captive Ammonites from the cities and his silence about putting them to death, then the most plausible understanding of what is said in the book turns out to be the most plausible. Kings about this event, that the captives were sentenced not to execution, but to labor. Indeed, some of the domestic and foreign biblical scholars of modern times have come to this understanding, by whom the passage in question in the book of Kings is translated in this way: “and he put them to saws, to iron threshers, to iron axes, and sent them to brick work.” This new translation from Hebrew is obviously completely similar in meaning to the Slavic translation of the first printed Bible, made from the Greek text. The similarity of two translations, made independently, on the basis of two most important monuments of the biblical text, serves as an obvious sign of the correctness of the understanding they express.
However, the evidence of 1 Chronicles seems to speak decisively against this understanding. XX, 3. Here, when presenting the same event from the history of the reign of David, in Hebrew. the text and Greek translation reads: And with saws, and tools of iron, and cutting. When considering this biblical evidence, which clearly expresses the idea that the various instruments listed here were instruments of painful execution of the Ammonites, the most important fact is that this place of the book. Chronicles generally presents the same composition of words and their order as in 2 Kings XII, 31 and differs from the text of the latter in only two words; pretre instead of give it to me or put And dissecting instead of: iron axes. To the words of Chronicles: dissecting corresponds to Hebrew. in the text the same word, only in the plural (“vixen”), which is used in the same verse and the Slavic rendering of which, in the singular (“vixen”), is: saws. The use of the same name of an object in one sentence is in itself an unusual phenomenon in correct speech; a comparison of this passage in Parallen with the corresponding text of Kings shows that in the latter one reads not this utterance that excites bewilderment with its repetition (i.e., “megerot”), but another (“magzerot”), different from it, although and similar in pronunciation and meaning. If instead of this last statement read in the book. Kingdoms and not arousing bewilderment, is in the book. Paralip-n, whose writer undoubtedly used the book of Kings here, another that turns out to be inappropriate, as already used at the beginning of the sentence, then the reason for this and supporters of the exclusive meaning of the current Hebrew text rightly indicate that in the Hebrew text Paralip-n regarding the outline of this word ("magerot") an error has crept in. There is reason to think that the ancient Greek translators also looked at this word in this place Paralip-n as erroneous, since they, in all likelihood, left it without transmission. And if the speech in question is Heb. text of Paralipon turns out to have not been preserved in its original form or is “erroneous,” then it is not without reason that one can also look at another tin, which differs in the text of this passage of the book. Parall. from the book Kingdoms, i.e., in the saying: ("naiyasar" instead of "vaiyasem" =) pretre vm. give it to me; and in the outline of these Hebrew words, differing from each other only in one consonant letter ( R vm. m), the same error could occur as in the word just considered. One reason to treat the word ("vaiyasar" =) "sawing" with some distrust is that this predicate turns out to be inappropriate when applied to further words: iron guns and dissecting; the latter obviously required a different predicate. An expression of the incongruity of what is used here in Hebrew. The text of the predicate is served by the fact that in our domestic translations it is either replaced by another, or supplemented by another predicate. In view of this, what is read in the current Heb. in the text of the 1st book of Chronicles: “and he sawed with a saw” cannot have such an important meaning in explaining what David did with the captive Ammonites that this explanation could be based on it or replace what is read in the book. Kings “added”, as some of the Western biblical scholars do. Let it retain its place in the book. Pyaralip-n, but does not extend his influence to the text of the book of Kings and to the explanation of the latter. This is how the Greek translators looked at the meaning of this saying, rendering each of the Hebrew words used in both biblical books with their corresponding Greek words: ἔθηκεν) “put” and (διέπρισεν) “sawed”; Our ancient Slavic translators did the same, rendering the first word: “attach”, the second – “tear to pieces.” The dissimilarity of ideas about one and the same event, which appears in this case, cannot be eliminated, despite the evidence of the most ancient monuments of the biblical text.
Thus, consideration of this passage in the book of Kings proves that the ancient Slavic translation serves as the closest translation not only of the Greek translation, but also of the Hebrew text, as some of the modern biblical scholars understand the latter.
There is no need to dwell particularly on other places in the first printed Slavic Bible, which turn out to be translated more accurately than in the Elizabethan Bible, since in relation to at least some places of this kind this has already been done in the works of domestic biblical scholars. This category includes, for example, what is read in Jeremiah. I, 2 according to the original Bibles: in the days of Josiah son Ammonya instead of what is said in the Elizabethan Bible: in the days of Josiah the son Amos. The correctness of the first of these translations is recognized in the “Interpretation of the book.” St. prophet Jeremiah” “in view of the reading of the Hebrew text,” St. Ephraim the Syrian, blessed. Jerome, the Complutensian and Aldinsky editions of the translation of 70, as well as on the basis of the instructions of the sacred historical books “regarding the name of Father Ts. Josiah. This is then the reading of the first books. Bible in the book. prophet Hosea (I, 4): in the house iio instead of Elizavetinsky: at the house of Judah. The correctness of the first reading is recognized in the interpretation of Rev. Palladium on the book. prophet Hosea and Joel based on Heb. text, Vulgates, readings of the blessed. Theodoret, St. Ephraim and the context of prophetic speech, “for it speaks of the kingdom of the house of Israel, and Jehu was the king of Israel”; The “Sirish-Hexaplic text, where the name is not Judah, but Jehu,” also testifies in favor of such a translation. There is in the first place. Slavs Bibles and other places similar to those cited are generally translated more accurately than those of the Elizabethan reference books. The existence of this kind of translations is in the first place. The Bible deserves special attention both because they can serve as an important confirmation of the correctness of the new corrections of the existing Slavic text consistent with them, and because such places clearly show and undoubtedly prove the importance of studying the ancient handwritten texts of the Slavic Bible, as those sources from from which the Otrozh reference workers derived their remarkable readings of the biblical text. Our most ancient ancestors, led by the holy enlighteners of the Slavs, were obviously able to understand with greater success the readings of the biblical text that were different according to different lists and editions than those closest to us.
Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Elizabethan Bible- the name of the translation of the Bible in Church Slavonic, published in 1751 during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (the translation got its name from her name). The Elizabethan Bible, with minor revisions, is still used today as the authorized text for worship in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Work on the translation under Peter I
Work on a new Slavic translation of the Bible began by personal decree of Emperor Peter I of November 14, 1712:
|
The commission began its work and verified the existing Slavic text of the Ostrog Bible with the Greek, based on the “London Polyglot” Brian Walton, and also using as sources the Aldine Bible (1518), the Sistine edition of the Greek translation of the Tanakh (1587) and its translation into Latin (1588). The commission did not check the psalter, but the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith and the 3rd book of Ezra were corrected according to the Vulgate, as was done during the publication of the Ostrog Bible.
Verification of texts and work on corrections lasted seven years. In June 1720, the corrected text in eight volumes was provided to Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky), and then, on his instructions, the text was re-checked. In 1723, the Synod approved a list of corrections to the biblical text submitted to it. However, printing of the publication did not begin. On February 3, 1724, the Emperor made an oral decree to the Holy Synod on the procedure for publishing the Bible - when printing “ without omission, indicate previous speeches that have been forwarded... so that there will be no complaints from restless people about popular unrest, and in what characters this Bible will be printed, so that those characters will be announced to His Majesty". They completed this work under the leadership of Theophylact (Lopatinsky), Bishop of Tver. At the same time, the Psalter was left in the old translation, and the proposed changes to its text were indicated in the margins. The commission printed samples of the text in various fonts and submitted them to the Synod. With the death of Peter I in January 1725, work on the publication was suspended.
Subsequent editorial commissions
Peter's successor, Empress Catherine I, in November 1725 issued a decree to continue publishing the Bible, but it was previously prescribed: “ however, first... it should be examined in the Holy Synod in common with those who corrected it, and agreed with the ancient Greek Bibles of our Church, so that in the future no disagreement and no error in the translation... will be found". The Synod instructed Bishop Theophylact to do this again. It is believed that this was only a formal reason for delaying work on the publication of the Bible due to the struggle between two church parties during which Feofan (Prokopovich) slowed down the work of his ideological opponent Stefan (Yavorsky).
Work of commissions under Elizaveta Petrovna
The Synod entrusted this work to Archimandrite Thaddeus (Kokuilovich) and the prefect of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Hieromonk Kirill (Florinsky). In September 1742, they presented to the Synod a thoroughly rewritten, corrected translation and a report on their work. It follows from it that they checked the new translation of the Bible with the Greek codes, guided mainly by the Alexandrian Codex (from the edition of the London Polyglot), believing that the ancient Slavic translation was made from it. Also on rare occasions they used the Sistine edition of the Septuagint and the Codex Vaticanus. They translated the books of Tobit and Judith, which existed only in translations from Latin, from Greek; Only the Third Book of Ezra was compared with the Latin text of the Vulgate, since its text in Greek was not found by them.
The Synod decided to once again check the text before printing the Bible, and this work proceeded extremely slowly. About the nature of the discussions in the Synod, the statement of its member, Metropolitan Arseny (Matsievich) is noteworthy:
If we think about it in detail, then we don’t really need the Bible (Church Slavonic). A scientist, if he knows Greek, will read Greek; and if in Latin, then the Latin, with which the Russian (meaning in the Church Slavonic language) will correct whatever the Bible is for itself and for teaching the people. For the common people, there is enough in the church books from the Bible.
Elizaveta Petrovna, by her decree of February 14, 1744, indicated to the Synod that “ the work of correcting the Bible..., which has already begun long ago, cannot be delayed" and demanded that the work be completed as soon as possible. The Synod was allowed to recruit not only its own members, but also other people of clergy to work. Soon the Synod came to the conclusion that it was impossible to correct the Slavic translation of the Bible based only on the Greek text and asked the Empress for permission “ in addition to the Greek - use the Syrian and Hebrew and other Bibles, which have similar power to the old Slavic" because " This Greek (Bible) is dissatisfied with the previous one, printed in Slovenian". A new commission was created under the leadership of Moscow Archbishop Joseph and Archimandrite Hilarion (Grigorovich) of the Resurrection Istra Monastery. Their work was unfruitful, and the commission soon disbanded.
Subsequently, the Russian Church continued to use the Elizabethan Bible in liturgical practice, making only some minor changes to it.
Write a review of the article "The Elizabethan Bible"
Notes
Links
- . - 1st ed. - St. Petersburg. , 1751. - T. 1.
- . - 1st ed. - St. Petersburg. , 1751. - T. 2.
- . - 1st ed. - St. Petersburg. , 1751. - T. 3.
- . - 1st ed. - St. Petersburg. , 1751. - T. 4.
- . - 4th ed. - M., 1762.
- . - 8th ed. - M., 1784.
Literature
- // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
- Eleonsky F. G. On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Elizabethan Bible: On a new revision of the Slavic translation of the Bible. St. Petersburg, 1902.
- Evseev I. E. Essays on the history of the Slavic translation of the Bible. Pg., 1916.
- Rizhsky M.I. History of Bible translations in Russia. Novosibirsk, 1978.
- Tsurkan R.K.. St. Petersburg, 2001. pp. 217-220.
Passage characterizing the Elizabethan Bible
Returning from his trip, Prince Andrei decided to go to St. Petersburg in the fall and came up with various reasons for this decision. A whole series of reasonable, logical arguments why he needed to go to St. Petersburg and even serve were ready at his service every minute. Even now he did not understand how he could ever doubt the need to take an active part in life, just as a month ago he did not understand how the thought of leaving the village could have occurred to him. It seemed clear to him that all his experiences in life would have been in vain and would have been meaningless if he had not applied them to action and taken an active part in life again. He did not even understand how, on the basis of the same poor reasonable arguments, it had previously been obvious that he would have humiliated himself if now, after his life lessons, he again believed in the possibility of being useful and in the possibility of happiness and love. Now my mind suggested something completely different. After this trip, Prince Andrei began to get bored in the village, his previous activities did not interest him, and often, sitting alone in his office, he got up, went to the mirror and looked at his face for a long time. Then he turned away and looked at the portrait of the deceased Lisa, who, with her curls whipped up a la grecque [in Greek], tenderly and cheerfully looked at him from the golden frame. She no longer spoke the same terrible words to her husband; she simply and cheerfully looked at him with curiosity. And Prince Andrei, clasping his hands back, walked around the room for a long time, now frowning, now smiling, reconsidering those unreasonable, inexpressible in words, secret as a crime thoughts associated with Pierre, with fame, with the girl on the window, with the oak tree, with female beauty and love that changed his whole life. And at these moments, when someone came to him, he was especially dry, strictly decisive and especially unpleasantly logical.“Mon cher, [My dear,],” Princess Marya would say when entering at such a moment, “Nikolushka can’t go for a walk today: it’s very cold.”
“If it were warm,” Prince Andrei answered his sister especially dryly at such moments, “then he would go in just a shirt, but since it’s cold, we need to put warm clothes on him, which were invented for this purpose.” This is what follows from the fact that it’s cold, and not like staying at home when the child needs air,” he said with particular logic, as if punishing someone for all this secret, illogical inner work that was happening in him. Princess Marya thought in these cases about how this mental work dries out men.
Prince Andrey arrived in St. Petersburg in August 1809. This was the time of the apogee of the glory of the young Speransky and the energy of the revolutions he carried out. In this very August, the sovereign, while riding in a carriage, fell out, injured his leg, and remained in Peterhof for three weeks, seeing daily and exclusively with Speransky. At this time, not only two so famous and alarming decrees were being prepared on the abolition of court ranks and on examinations for the ranks of collegiate assessors and state councilors, but also an entire state constitution, which was supposed to change the existing judicial, administrative and financial order of government of Russia from the state council to the volost board. Now those vague, liberal dreams with which Emperor Alexander ascended the throne were being realized and embodied, and which he sought to realize with the help of his assistants Chartorizhsky, Novosiltsev, Kochubey and Strogonov, whom he himself jokingly called comite du salut publique. [committee of public safety.]
Now everyone has been replaced by Speransky on the civil side and Arakcheev on the military side. Prince Andrei, soon after his arrival, as a chamberlain, came to the court and left. The Tsar, having met him twice, did not honor him with a single word. It always seemed to Prince Andrei that he was antipathetic to the sovereign, that the sovereign was unpleasant about his face and his whole being. In the dry, distant look with which the sovereign looked at him, Prince Andrei found confirmation of this assumption even more than before. The courtiers explained to Prince Andrey the sovereign's lack of attention to him by the fact that His Majesty was dissatisfied with the fact that Bolkonsky had not served since 1805.
“I myself know how much we have no control over our likes and dislikes,” thought Prince Andrei, and therefore there is no need to think about personally presenting my note on the military regulations to the sovereign, but the matter will speak for itself.” He conveyed his note to the old field marshal, a friend of his father. The field marshal, having appointed an hour for him, received him kindly and promised to report to the sovereign. A few days later it was announced to Prince Andrey that he had to appear before the Minister of War, Count Arakcheev.
At nine o'clock in the morning, on the appointed day, Prince Andrei appeared in the reception room of Count Arakcheev.
Prince Andrei did not know Arakcheev personally and had never seen him, but everything he knew about him inspired him with little respect for this man.
“He is the Minister of War, the confidant of the Emperor; no one should care about his personal properties; he was instructed to consider my note, therefore he alone can give it a go,” thought Prince Andrei, waiting among many important and unimportant persons in the reception room of Count Arakcheev.
Prince Andrei, during his mostly adjutant service, saw a lot of adopted important persons and the different characters of these adopted ones were very clear to him. Count Arakcheev had a very special character in his reception room. A sense of shame and humility was written on the unimportant faces waiting in line for an audience in Count Arakcheev’s reception room; on the more official faces one common feeling of awkwardness was expressed, hidden under the guise of swagger and ridicule of oneself, one’s position and one’s expected face. Some walked thoughtfully back and forth, others laughed in whispers, and Prince Andrei heard the sobriquet [mocking nickname] of Andreich’s forces and the words: “uncle will ask,” referring to Count Arakcheev. One general (an important person), apparently offended that he had to wait so long, sat crossing his legs and smiling contemptuously at himself.
But as soon as the door opened, all the faces instantly expressed only one thing - fear. Prince Andrei asked the duty officer to report about himself another time, but they looked at him with ridicule and said that his turn would come in due time. After several persons were brought in and out by the adjutant from the minister’s office, an officer was let in through the terrible door, striking Prince Andrei with his humiliated and frightened appearance. The officer's audience lasted a long time. Suddenly, peals of an unpleasant voice were heard from behind the door, and a pale officer, with trembling lips, came out of there, grabbed his head, and walked through the reception area.
Following this, Prince Andrei was led to the door, and the attendant said in a whisper: “to the right, to the window.”
Prince Andrei entered a modest, neat office and at the desk saw a forty-year-old man with a long waist, a long, short-cropped head and thick wrinkles, with frowning eyebrows over brown, dull green eyes and a drooping red nose. Arakcheev turned his head towards him, without looking at him.
-What are you asking for? – Arakcheev asked.
“I don’t... please, your Excellency,” said Prince Andrei quietly. Arakcheev's eyes turned to him.
“Sit down,” said Arakcheev, “Prince Bolkonsky?”
“I’m not asking for anything, but the Emperor deigned to forward the note I submitted to your Excellency...”
“Please see, my dear, I read your note,” Arakcheev interrupted, saying only the first words affectionately, again without looking him in the face and falling more and more into a grumpily contemptuous tone. – Are you proposing new military laws? There are many laws, and there is no one to enforce the old ones. Nowadays all laws are written; it is easier to write than to do.
“I came by the will of the Emperor to find out from your Excellency what course you intend to give to the submitted note?” - said Prince Andrei politely.
“I have added a resolution to your note and forwarded it to the committee.” “I don’t approve,” said Arakcheev, getting up and taking a paper from the desk. - Here! – he handed it to Prince Andrey.
On the paper across it, in pencil, without capital letters, without spelling, without punctuation, was written: “unfoundedly composed as an imitation copied from the French military regulations and from the military article without the need of retreating.”
– Which committee was the note sent to? - asked Prince Andrei.
- To the committee on military regulations, and I submitted a proposal to enroll your honor as a member. Just no salary.
Prince Andrei smiled.
- I don’t want to.
“Without a salary as a member,” Arakcheev repeated. - I have the honor. Hey, call me! Who else? - he shouted, bowing to Prince Andrei.
While awaiting notification of his enrollment as a member of the committee, Prince Andrei renewed old acquaintances, especially with those persons who, he knew, were in force and could be needed by him. He now experienced in St. Petersburg a feeling similar to what he had experienced on the eve of the battle, when he was tormented by a restless curiosity and irresistibly drawn to higher spheres, to where the future was being prepared, on which the fate of millions depended. He felt from the embitterment of the old people, from the curiosity of the uninitiated, from the restraint of the initiated, from the haste and concern of everyone, from the countless number of committees, commissions, the existence of which he learned again every day, that now, in 1809, was being prepared here in St. Petersburg, some kind of huge civil battle, the commander-in-chief of which was a person unknown to him, mysterious and who seemed to him a genius - Speransky. And the most vaguely known matter of transformation, and Speransky, the main figure, began to interest him so passionately that the matter of military regulations very soon began to pass into a secondary place in his mind.
Prince Andrei was in one of the most favorable positions to be well received into all the most diverse and highest circles of the then St. Petersburg society. The party of reformers cordially received and lured him, firstly because he had a reputation for intelligence and great reading, and secondly because by his release of the peasants he had already made himself a reputation as a liberal. The party of dissatisfied old men, just like their father’s son, turned to him for sympathy, condemning the reforms. Women's society, the world, welcomed him cordially, because he was a groom, rich and noble, and almost a new face with the aura of a romantic story about his imaginary death and the tragic death of his wife. In addition, the general voice about him from everyone who knew him before was that he had changed a lot for the better in these five years, had softened and matured, that there was no former pretense, pride and mockery in him, and there was that calmness that purchased over the years. They started talking about him, they were interested in him and everyone wanted to see him.
The next day after visiting Count Arakcheev, Prince Andrei visited Count Kochubey in the evening. He told the count his meeting with Sila Andreich (Kochubey called Arakcheev that way with the same vague mockery that Prince Andrei noticed in the reception room of the Minister of War).
- Mon cher, [My dear,] even in this matter you will not bypass Mikhail Mikhailovich. C "est le grand faiseur. [Everything is done by him.] I will tell him. He promised to come in the evening...
– What does Speransky care about military regulations? - asked Prince Andrei.
Kochubey smiled and shook his head, as if surprised at Bolkonsky’s naivety.
“He and I talked about you the other day,” Kochubey continued, “about your free cultivators...
- Yes, it was you, prince, who let your men go? - said the old man from Catherine, turning contemptuously at Bolkonsky.
“The small estate did not bring in any income,” Bolkonsky answered, so as not to irritate the old man in vain, trying to soften his act in front of him.
“Vous craignez d" etre en retard, [Afraid of being late,] said the old man, looking at Kochubey.
“There’s one thing I don’t understand,” the old man continued, “who will plow the land if you give them the freedom?” It is easy to write laws, but difficult to govern. It’s the same as now, I ask you, Count, who will be the head of the wards when everyone has to take exams?
The Bible in Church Slavonic - transliteration in the modern Russian alphabet
(1751)
Elizabethan Bible
Translation of the Holy Scriptures into Slavic
On November 14, 1712, Peter I issued a decree on the publication of a translation of the Bible into the Slavic language, the text of which would have been previously clarified from existing editions in other languages. The following were appointed to the editorial commission: as editors, teacher of Greek schools, Hieromonk Sophronius Likhudiy and Archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery Theophylact Lopatinsky; printers Feodor Polikarpov and Nikolai Semenov as typesetters; proofreaders monks Feologos and Joseph; The editor-in-chief is Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom, His Eminence Stefan (Yavorsky).
The commission verified the existing Slavic text of the Ostrog Bible with the Greek “translation of the Seventy”, based on Brian Walton’s “London Polyglot”, and also using as sources the Aldinian Bible (1518), the Sistine edition of the Greek translation of the Tanakh (1587) and its translation into Latin language (1588). The commission did not check the Psalter, but the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith and the 3rd book of Ezra were corrected according to the Vulgate, as was done during the publication of the Ostrog Bible.
The work of collating and correcting the texts took seven years. In June 1720, the corrected text in eight volumes was provided to Metropolitan Stephen, and then, on his instructions, it was double-checked. In 1723, the Holy Synod approved the list of submitted corrections. On February 3, 1724, the emperor made an oral decree to the Synod to print the corrected texts simultaneously in two editions: both new and old, “so that there are no complaints from troubled people and people’s unrest”. Peter also demanded to see samples of the headsets. The commission printed samples of the text in various fonts and submitted them to the Synod. The Psalter was left in the old translation, and the proposed changes were indicated in the margins. With the death of Peter I in January 1725, work on the publication was suspended.
Peter's successor, Empress Catherine I, issued a decree in November 1725 to continue publishing the Bible, but requested another check, “so that in future no disagreement or error in translation... will be found”. It is believed that this was only a formal reason for delaying work on the publication of the Bible. The matter was slowed down by the ideological opponent of Stefan (Yavorsky), Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich). He presented a report on the work done to the Synod only in 1735, and again achieved a decision to recheck the text, which had already been corrected more than once. The work was transferred to St. Petersburg and in 1736 entrusted to the translator of the Synod, Vasily Kozlovsky, with assistants under the general leadership of Archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery Stefan (Kalinovsky). It was decided to print the existing translation, and indicate the corrections made in the notes in the lower margin; it was ordered to check with the Septuagint and leave only the readings that coincide with it, and in doubtful cases, with the Masoretic Text.
There were new difficulties at every step, the work dragged on, the Synod made many more decisions and attracted new people to the work. In September 1742, a thoroughly rewritten, corrected translation was presented to the Synod by Archimandrite Thaddeus (Kokuilovich) and the prefect of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Hieromonk Kirill (Florinsky). They checked the new translation of the Bible with Greek texts, guided mainly by the Codex Alexandrinus (from the London Polyglot edition), believing that the ancient Slavic translation was made from it. Also on rare occasions they used the Sistine edition of the Septuagint and the Vatican Codex. They translated the books of Tobit and Judith, which existed only in translations from Latin, from Greek; Only the Third Book of Ezra was compared with the Latin text of the Vulgate, since its text in Greek was not found by them. But this option was sent for revision.
On February 14, 1744, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, by her decree, indicated to the Synod that “the work of correcting the Bible, ... begun long ago, cannot be delayed” and demanded that the work be completed as soon as possible. The Synod was allowed to recruit not only its own members, but also other people of clergy to work. The Synod came to the conclusion that it was impossible to correct the Slavic translation of the Bible based only on the Greek text and asked the Empress for permission “to supplement the Greek - to use the Syrian and Hebrew and other Bibles.” Another commission was created under the leadership of Moscow Archbishop Joseph and Archimandrite of the Resurrection Istra Monastery Hilarion (Grigorovich). Their work was unfruitful and the commission soon disbanded.
In 1747, a new commission was created, which completed the task of correcting the translation. It included the prefect of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Hieromonk Varlaam (Lyashevsky), and the philosophy teacher of the Kyiv Academy, Hieromonk Gideon (Slonimsky). They compared the translation of the Bible previously prepared by Sophronius Likhud and Theophylact (Lopatinsky) with Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts, using their various versions. They submitted all their corrections to the Synod. On September 10, 1750, the Synod reported to the Empress that the translation was ready for printing.
On December 18, 1751, the Elizabethan Bible went out of print. All changes made when correcting the translation were agreed upon; the notes to the text formed a separate volume, almost equal in volume to the text of the Bible itself. The first edition quickly sold out and in 1756 a second edition was published with additional marginal notes and engravings, as well as corrections of errors and typographical errors of the first edition. Subsequently, this version, called the Elizabethan or Petrine-Elizabethan Bible, was published many times. It entered the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and, with minor amendments, is used during services to this day.
The first book of Moses' Genesis(book chapters: 50)
Second Book of Moses' Exodus(book chapters: 40)
The third book of Moses Leviticus(book chapters: 27)
The fourth book of the Numbers of Moses(book chapters: 36)
The fifth book of Moses, Deuteronomy(book chapters: 34)
Book of Joshua(book chapters: 24)
Judges(book chapters: 21)
Book of Ruth(book chapters: 4)
First Book of Samuel(book chapters: 31)
2 Samuel(book chapters: 24)
3rd Kings(book chapters: 22)
4th Book of Kings(book chapters: 25)
First Book of Chronicles(book chapters: 29)
Second Book of Chronicles(book chapters: 36)
First Book of Ezra(book chapters: 10)
Book of Nehemiah(book chapters: 13)
Second Book of Ezra(book chapters: 9)
Book of Tobit(book chapters: 14)
Book of Judith(book chapters: 16)
Book of Esther(book chapters: 11)
Book of Job(book chapters: 42)
Psalter(book chapters: 151)
Proverbs(book chapters: 31)
Ecclesiastes(book chapters: 12)
Song of Songs(book chapters: 8)
Wisdom(book chapters: 19)
Book of Sirach(book chapters: 52)
Book of the Prophet Isaiah(book chapters: 66)
Book of the Prophet Jeremiah(book chapters: 52)
Book of Lamentations(book chapters: 5)
The Message of Jeremiah(book chapters: 1)
Book of the Prophet Baruch(book chapters: 5)
Book of the Prophet Ezekiel(book chapters: 48)
Book of the Prophet Daniel(book chapters: 14)
Book of the Prophet Hosea(book chapters: 14)
Book of the Prophet Joel(book chapters: 3)
Book of the Prophet Amos(book chapters: 9)
Book of the Prophet Obadiah(book chapters: 1)
Book of the Prophet Jonah(book chapters: 4)
Book of the Prophet Micah(book chapters: 7)
Book of the Prophet Nahum(book chapters: 3)
Book of the Prophet Habakkuk(book chapters: 3)
Book of the Prophet Zephaniah(book chapters: 3)
Book of the Prophet Haggai(book chapters: 2)
Book of the Prophet Zechariah(book chapters: 14)
Book of the prophet Malachi(book chapters: 4)
First Book of Maccabees(book chapters: 16)
The Elizabethan Bible dates back to the time of Peter I. This is a man who, while ruling Orthodox Russia, was forced in some cases to put on the mask of an Orthodox sovereign and perform some acts in this direction. This is the construction of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, the transfer of the relics of the blessed prince Alexander Nevsky to St. Petersburg and, in particular, this is concern for the Bible, the Holy Scriptures.
On February 14, 1712, Peter I issues a decree on correcting the Ostrog Bible according to the Septuagint. The best linguists of their time were appointed, including Sophronius Likhud, the founder of our Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. In 1724 the work was completed. The letters (font) had already been typed, and everything was ready for publishing the Bible. What was missing was a direct command from the emperor. But in January 1725, the Emperor caught a cold during another flood in St. Petersburg and died.
In terms of government, after Peter I there follows a whole chain of palace coups. As for the Bible, more and more commissions were created. These commissions were sometimes given completely opposite tasks. As a result, the matter of publishing the Bible stood still. This continued until 1743, until Elizaveta Petrovna, the daughter of Peter I, ascended the throne. Based on the edits that had been made before her, a hasty review of the text was made, and in 1751 the corrected Bible was published.
Russian translation of the Bible (1876).
The idea of a Russian translation of the Bible has been ripening among the people for a long time. For example, Saint Alexis translated the New Testament into the spoken language of his time. In the 16th century, in what is now Belarus, Francis Skorina translated the Bible; in the 18th century, Archbishop of St. Petersburg Ambrose (Zertis-Kamensky) translated individual books from the Hebrew text. But these were private attempts that were not widely used. In 1812, a Bible Society was founded in Russia, modeled on the British one, with the goal of translating the Bible into the languages of foreigners living on the territory of the Russian Empire. Soon Emperor Alexander I himself proposed to translate the Bible into Russian. In 1818, the Four Gospels were published. In 1819 the book of the Acts of the Apostles was published, in 1822 the New Testament was published. Work began on the translation of the Old Testament. Translations of books were distributed between the Academies, then they exchanged translations, and the other Academy introduced its own corrections, amendments, comments, and wishes. Work began on the translation of the Old Testament. Here the question arose about which text to translate from. It was decided to translate from the Hebrew text and compare it with the Septuagint. Those words and phrases that are present in the Septuagint and are absent in the Hebrew text are placed in brackets, which are also present in the modern text.
At this time, opponents of the Russian translation raised their heads, who believed that translating the Bible into Russian meant vulgarizing it. In 1826, Prince Golitsyn was dismissed. The Bible Society was closed. The printed edition of the Pentateuch was burned, and the work of the Russian translation of the Bible stopped for a long time.
At this time, private translations of the Bible into Russian were undertaken. For example, the Altai missionary, now canonized, Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev) translated books from the Hebrew text. He was summoned to the Synod and instructed that he should engage in missionary work, and not in translating books. A more serious scandal erupted regarding the translations of books from the Hebrew text by Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, a professor at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the Department of Jewish Language. He translated in a purely rationalistic, non-messianic spirit. This translation was lithographed (i.e. printed). Father Gerasim was summoned to the Synod. He was assigned private admonition and penance.
The business of Russian translation of the Bible was resumed in 1858 after the accession of Alexander II. The text of the Bible was re-examined. The text of the Old Testament was also distributed and gradually translated. The entire Bible was translated in 1875, and in 1876 the entire Russian Bible appeared in one volume for the first time.
Dividing the Bible into sections.
As long as the Holy Scripture exists, its division into separate parts exists. There are books that were originally collections of songs and hymns. This is the Psalter, the Book of Lamentations of Jeremiah.
The division into separate parts is inherent in the meaning of the text. New introductions are often made in the text of the beginning of the Bible. In the post-flood period there is a constant alternation of history and genealogy. Each genealogy summarizes a specific historical department.
There was a division for synagogue use. In the New Testament, division existed in the Christian Church from the first centuries. From the ancient beginnings I would like to mention the pericopes of the Alexandrian deacon Ammonius (4th century). The modern liturgical division into conceptions is attributed to St. John of Damascus (8th century). The modern division into chapters was made in the West in the 13th century (1238 by Cardinal Hugon). The first Bible, completely divided into chapters and verses, as we know it, was published in 1555 in the Paris edition of Robert Stephen. It should be noted right away that this division is very unfortunate.
History of exegesis.
Origen is considered the founder of exegesis as a science. But the Lord Jesus Christ must be considered the first Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. He interprets the Old Testament on many occasions. We can take a classic example: the interpretation of divorce law. He repeatedly refers to the Old Testament, pointing to Himself as the Messiah or justifying some provisions of His sermon. After Jesus Christ comes the apostolic age, i.e. period of apostolic preaching. Preaching among the Jews, the apostles constantly referred to the Old Testament. Many examples can be given, starting with the speech of the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost. Then comes the period of the apostolic men. The apostolic men left few exegetical works. They paid attention mainly to the moral side of the lives of believers. In the 2nd century, the period of apologists begins. At this time, Christianity became a significant force in the world and was forced to defend itself against Jews, heretics and pagans. From this period it is worth mentioning three apologies: the holy martyr Justin the Philosopher, his conversation with the Jew Tryphon, based entirely on the interpretation of the Old Testament. And two apologies for the Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons: “Against the pagans” and “Against the heretics.” The third century was a period of continuous persecution of the Church. This period is famous for martyrs, not for theological works, and from the beginning of the 4th century the formation of theological schools takes place. It is worth focusing on two schools, because the history of the fight against heresies largely represented the struggle between these schools.
