Maxim asks: Hello, I want to ask you whether the Bible of the canonical synodal translation is equivalent in every sense to the Bible in the modern translation.

Andris Pešelis answers.

Hello, Maxim!

In my understanding, among the translations of the Bible in Russian, the Synodal translation is the best.

True, you need to know the nuances.

For example, the Old Testament in the Synodal translation was translated from the ancient Greek Septuagint.

Therefore, the numbering of the Psalms in the Synodal translation does not coincide with the numbering in other translations of the Bible, and in some places it is necessary to clarify the content of the text according to the Hebrew texts, for example, in the book of Daniel 9.ch. translated with a tip to the interpretation of the prophecy, which Jewish commentators point out that this translation is too Christianized.

In Rev. 1:10 in the Synodal translation is translated: “on the day of resurrection,” and in ancient Greek it is written: “on the day of the Lord.”

The basis of the Synodal translation of the New Testament is the majority of ancient Greek manuscripts (about 5000 of them), which were also used by the reformers to translate the Bible, for example, they were used to translate Luther into German, the English King James Bible, etc., but these ancient Greek manuscripts are no longer used in modern translations of the Bible!

Including in modern translations of the Bible in Russian!

These manuscripts are considered by most to be corrupted today because they coincide too suspiciously with each other and do not offer a range of different readings, like those “best”, but the most ancient 25.

Modern translations use a synthesis of 25 ancient Greek manuscripts, which were not used during the Reformation. During the Reformation, one of the best manuscripts, in the understanding of modern translators, lay in the Vatican archives - the Vatican Codex. His readings of the text do not even coincide with the Latin Vulgate, which Luther did not translate because he considered it inaccurate. Another best manuscript during the Reformation lay in the trash of a monastery in Sinai - the Codex Sinaiticus.

These manuscripts were not used to translate the Russian Synodal Version, so it contains all the words of the New Testament. For modern translations into Russian, they use the working text of the New Testament in ancient Greek, which is 2200 words shorter than the one from which the Synodal translation was translated.

In my understanding, it is necessary to translate all the words of the text, but in modern times this idea is not supported, but they believe that it is necessary to translate the meaning, or thought, and not all the words.

Which Bible translation is accurate: canonical or synodal?

1. Church Slavonic, for that matter. It is precisely this that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church uses in divine services. Yes, you still need to get used to the language, you will have to work hard to get the hang of it. But it's not as difficult as it seems. But the accuracy of the translation will convey the meaning of the original much closer, and the Church Slavonic text does not contain many semantic errors that were made in the Synodal edition.

   P.S. You can also read a short article by Academician D. S. Likhachev about the importance and accuracy of the Church Slavonic language:

2. Whichever your HEART ACCEPTS is... RIGHT.... FOR YOU AT THIS MOMENT!
   May the Lord OPEN the Eyes of your Heart!
   Amen.
3. I don’t engage in literalism and the search for truth in the true
4. In 1947, the Isaiah scroll, along with other biblical and non-biblical scrolls, was found in a cave near the Dead Sea. Shortly thereafter, a complete photocopy of this beautifully preserved Isaiah scroll was made available to scholars. It is believed to date back to the end of the 2nd century BC. This find is truly amazing: a Hebrew manuscript that is approximately a thousand years older than the oldest generally accepted Masoretic texts of Isaiah that have come down to us! Other caves at Qumran harbored more than 170 scrolls containing passages from every book of the Hebrew Scriptures except Esther. These scrolls are still being studied today.
   One scholar examined the longest psalm, 119, from the Psalm Scroll, one of the most valuable Dead Sea Scrolls. During his research, he discovered that the text of the psalm coincides almost word for word with the Masoretic text. Regarding the Scroll of Psalms, Professor J. A. Sanders noted: Most of the discrepancies concern spelling and are of interest exclusively to those scholars who study the phonetics of the Hebrew language and similar issues. There are practically no serious discrepancies in the rest of the ancient manuscripts found near the Dead Sea. As for the Isaiah scroll, there are some discrepancies with the Masoretic text, differences in spelling and grammatical structures, but there are no contradictions in teachings.
   Comparative textual analysis suggests that the divinely inspired Hebrew Scriptures have come down to us virtually unchanged.
5. TORAH in Russian! There is a lot of what is DISTORTED in other translations... believe me... although the truth lies NOT in the letters... seek and you will find...
6. What is important is not the translation, but the sacred meaning that everyone can learn by reading the Bible, re-read all the translations and then the truth will come by itself
7. translation by the Russian Bible Society after 2000
8. only -- canonical -- because the word CANON --- ORIGINAL, i.e., rewritten from original manuscripts written on papyrus --- where there are no human additions and human judgments --- but everything is under the influence of the HOLY SPIRIT -- for all generations living on our planet.
9. Signs of canonicity of the 66 books included in the Bible: First of all, canonical books should tell about the works of God, encourage people to worship him and cultivate deep respect for his name and purpose for the earth. There must also be evidence that these books are inspired, that is, that they were written under the influence of the holy spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They should not encourage superstition and idolatry, but should encourage love and service to God. Any individual book should not in any way contradict the internal consistency of the Bible as a whole; on the contrary, all books, as one, should testify in favor of a single Author. Moreover, canonical books are expected to be accurate even in minor details. In addition to these basic signs, there are other proofs of divine inspiration, or canonicity. Finally, special circumstances help establish the biblical canon, some of which concern the Hebrew Scriptures, others the Christian Greek Scriptures.
   In 1876, with the permission of the Synod, the entire Bible, including the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, was finally translated into Russian. This translation of the Bible is often called the Synodal Translation. The translations of Archimandrite Macarius and Pavsky served as the main sources when working on the official translation of the Bible authorized by the Russian Orthodox Church. However, in this translation, God's name was retained in only a few places where it appears in the Hebrew language.
10. Orthodox....Where is your love? Is Orthodoxy the true faith? It is implied that this particular faith is true. However, all religions are guilty of such conceit. They have gotten their Orthodoxy into their heads and are poking it at everyone. Orthodoxy is wonderful, but it’s as if it hasn’t always been and is, and the world doesn’t revolve around you. I attached a picture with the history of Christianity for those who think that Orthodoxy has always existed and the Bible was written in the Old Slavic language. They read a lot of who knows what, listen to the grandmothers and already think the truth. I couldn’t help but leave my message under this post. Our people are naive, they will read one thing and think so too. So I will leave my contribution here as well. Imago Higher Intelligence wrote above about the fact that all people hold your Bible, well, it’s not your Bible actually))) I laughed for a long time when I read this. And yes, if the Orthodox began to read the Bible, it would not be bad, even if they removed icons and ordinary people from the list of Saints. Over the course of its history, Orthodoxy has picked up more earthly than biblical things, the Bible is the most faithful prophetic word to people, and the Orthodox are on the same level as the message of simple “saints”, that the Bible is the word of God. Everyone is fighting against the Baptists, but look how strong their marriages are , what kind of families, young people in the church, in Belarus - 70% of marriages break up, in Western countries it is even worse, in alcoholism Belarus is in first place, in abortion it is also in the first row.... They sit in their houses and tell everyone that they are Orthodox, yes you really show me! No one has even read at least one entire book in the Bible in their life, but they know everything... but where do you know, our Bibles are the same (I mean Protestantism, we didn’t translate the Bible for ourselves like various sectarians - Jehovahs, Mormons, etc. People are dying and they are sitting in their monasteries, earning heaven for themselves, well done for taking care of yourself! And how do people???? don’t choke in your holiness. It’s easy to live in a monastery, far from people, work, bustle... the easiest way is to be a Christian in a monastery, and you will live in the world, with people, with people like you, in this deception and teeming injustice, and remain Christians at the same time! They hid. Read the Bible with them, reason, and don’t teach people not to read the Bible and not to ask God for wisdom. The Bible taught people how to fear fire. God left us to read His word day and night.
    https://vk.com/doc133911279_437519619?hash=30239cb2864b1968a5amp;dl=b0bf0e8b66e3bf0352 link to the picture in good quality
11. The Synodal translation of the Bible is canonical... So, you can safely read - 100% authenticity.
    The Bible should be read correctly in the following order.
    First, from Matthew to the Acts of St. Apostles; then, the Old Testament. And only then - the Apocalypse...
    And most importantly, do not forget that the Bible is not a textbook, for example, on anthropology, geology or, say, paleontology. The Bible is a book about the relationship between man and God. And what is more - an ancient man; and moreover, written down by an ancient man.

    And apparently one more thing should be said about the interpretation of the Bible.
    The Bible is collected into a codex in roughly historical order. (Because not all authors adhered to chronology - they had completely different goals).
    In general, the word "Bible" means "Books", not "Book". These were different books and they were kept not in codices, but in Christmastide. Therefore, these were many books, from which the Church itself, in the person of holy men, collected these texts together, testifying that these texts are Holy Scripture. Therefore, if some sectarian or non-religious begins to talk about the Bible, you have to say: “Stop! Go home and don’t argue - you don’t understand anything! This book is not yours, you didn’t write it, you didn’t compile it, you didn’t write it.” published and it was not you who translated it into Russian. Do you see what is written? - Synodal translation. And the synod is the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church... So, get out of here! Go, and don’t push your Jehovahism, Baptism, Adventism... Everything that you have in your hands is all stolen! It belongs to the Orthodox Church, and certainly not to you! Your sect is at most 100 years old, and certainly not 2000 years old. And to Christianity "
    If a person who is not familiar with biology suddenly starts talking about it and waving some kind of book, then there is no point in listening to him, since he is not an expert. Although he may have some ideas, opinions, etc., etc.

12. Synodal, in my opinion, is the most inaccurate. The rest are less, but still not accurate.
    Even the Torah is not an exact copy of the one that was revealed to Moses (peace be upon him). Once upon a time, the Jews lost their Scriptures and they were restored from the memory of Ezra (peace be upon him).
13. original question. Let's define what a "canonical" translation is? I haven't encountered this yet. The Russian Orthodox Church has two “official translations” - in Church Slavonic and the Synodal translation in Russian. Moreover, the last one is a translation into Russian of Church Slavonic with “small clarifications” (as it was written somewhere).
    Synodal - it is so called because it was made either by “order” of the Synod or during its existence (it seems to me that the version with the “order” is more accurate, but I don’t know for sure, I could be wrong)
    If possible, read in Slavic; if something is not clear, open the Synodal translation. Moreover, on the Internet you can download both
14. The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.
15. We won’t see the text of the original source - we still have to rely on someone else’s opinion... In any foreign dictionary there are half a page of interpretations for every word, but here is an ancient text...
16. The Synodal consists of canonical books and several non-canonical ones. The question is fundamentally wrong.
17. Canonical. There are completely unspiritual insertions in the Synodal.

For a long time, only one translation of the Bible was used in the territory of the former Soviet Union - the Synodal translation. This was due both to the policy of general atheism in the country and to the dominant position of the Orthodox Church, whose synod approved this translation. As a result of this state of affairs, the idea has taken root in the public consciousness that the Synodal translation is the real Bible (almost the original), and all other translations are something innovative and not trustworthy.

Is it so? How accurate is the Synodal Translation of the Bible? And why are different translations needed at all?

First translations

The ancient history of Bible translations into Russian is not that rich. The first of them was carried out by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, who lived in the 9th century. Moreover, it was made from the Greek Septuagint. This means that the translation was already double: first from Hebrew into Greek, and then from Greek into Old Church Slavonic.

In 1751, Empress Elizabeth ordered that this translation be rechecked and, if necessary, corrected. This is how the edition of the Bible called “Elizabethan” appeared, which the Orthodox Church still uses in its services to this day.

Works of Macarius

In 1834, Orthodox Archimandrite Macarius began work on translating the Bible, which lasted for ten years. He translated the text directly from the Hebrew language and already in 1839 presented part of his work to the Synod for consideration. He was categorically refused to publish it. What was the reason? The members of the Synod did not like the fact that Archimandrite Macarius decided to use the personal Name of God in the main text where it appears in the original. According to church tradition, it should be replaced everywhere by the titles Lord or God.

Despite such a categorical refusal, Macarius continued his work. However, they began to publish it only 30 years later. And then only in parts, over the course of seven years, in the magazine “Orthodox Review”. The next time this translation, extracted from the repositories of the Russian National Library, saw the light only in 1996.

Work on the Synodal translation

As paradoxical as it may sound, the translation of Macarius, rejected by the Synod council, served as an indispensable aid in the preparation of an updated translation, known today as the Synodal Translation of the Bible. All attempts to prepare other translations were suppressed with all severity, and finished works were subject to destruction. For a long time there were debates about whether it was necessary to provide the flock with an updated translation at all or to leave only the Old Church Slavonic version.

Finally, in 1858, an official decision was approved that the Synodal translation would be useful to the flock, but the Old Church Slavonic text should continue to be used in services. This state of affairs continues to this day. The complete Synodal Translation of the Bible was published only in 1876.

Why are new translations needed?

For more than a century, the Synodal Translation has helped sincere people gain knowledge about God. So is it worth changing anything? It all depends on how you view the Bible. The fact is that some people perceive it as some kind of magical amulet, believing that the very presence of this book in the house should produce some kind of beneficial effect. And, therefore, grandfather’s tome with yellowed pages, the text of which is full of hard signs (this is one of the striking features of Old Church Slavonic grammar), will, of course, be a real treasure.

However, if a person understands that the true value is not in the material from which the pages are made, but in the information that the text carries, then he will give preference to a clear and easy-to-read translation.

Lexical changes

Any language changes over time. The way our great-grandfathers spoke may be incomprehensible to the current generation. Therefore, there is a need to update the translation of the Bible. Here are examples of several that are present in the Synodal translation: finger, finger, blessed, husband, ramen, pakibytie. Do you understand all these words? And here are their meanings: dust, finger, happy, man, shoulders, recreation.

Bible: modern translation

A number of modern translations have appeared in recent years. Among them, the most famous are the following:

• 1968 - translation by Bishop Cassian (New Testament).
• 1998 - restoration translation of “The Living Stream” (New Testament).
• 1999 - “Modern translation” (complete Bible).
• 2007 - “Holy Scripture. New World Translation (Complete Bible).
• 2011 - “The Bible. Modern Russian translation" (complete Bible).

The new translation of the Bible allows you to focus on the meaning of what is written, and not read into an incomprehensible text, as if into ancient spells. However, there is also a trap for translators here, because the desire to convey the meaning of what is said in an understandable language can lead to personal interpretations and interpretations. And this is unacceptable.

Don't be careless when choosing which Bible translation to use for your personal reading. After all, God's Word states that he speaks to us from the pages of this book. Let his words sound without distortion!

Report by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk at the inter-Christian conference dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the Synodal Translation of the Bible (Moscow, October 4, 2016)

1. We have gathered today to celebrate an important date in the history of Christianity in Russia - the 140th anniversary of the Synodal Translation of the Bible. It is natural for a believer to honor with gratitude the memory of those who gave him the opportunity to touch the Good News and read Scripture in his native language. The anniversary of the biblical translation is a holiday for all Christians in Russia.

Philo of Alexandria, who lived at the beginning of our era, wrote that the Jews of Alexandria celebrated the anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Greek annually by gathering on the island of Pharos (where, according to legend, the Seventy Interpreters translated the Pentateuch). “And not only the Jews,” writes Philo, “but also many other people come here to honor the place where the light of interpretation first shone, and to thank God for this ancient benefit, which always remains new.”

The Slavic peoples gratefully honor the memory of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who laid the foundation for the Slavic Bible. In an era when the Western Church did not encourage translations into vernacular languages, Cyril, Methodius and their disciples gave the Slavs the Bible in a dialect that was understandable and native to them. In Bulgaria, Russia and some other countries, the memory of the Solunsky brothers is celebrated at the state level - as a day of education, culture and Slavic literature.

The creators of the Synodal Translation deserve no less gratitude from us. It is in this translation that millions of Russian-speaking people in Russia and abroad know and read the Bible.

Moreover, in contrast to the situation that often occurs in other countries, where different Christian denominations use different translations of the Holy Scriptures, in Russia the Synodal translation does not divide, but unites Christians of different confessions. A clear indication of this is our meeting today, which brought together representatives of Christian churches using the Synodal Translation.

There are differences between the “Orthodox” and “Protestant” editions of the Synodal Translation, but they concern only certain passages of the Old Testament. In “Protestant” editions, the so-called “non-canonical books of the Old Testament” are omitted; these are the second and third books of Ezra, the books of Judith, Tobit, the books of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, the epistle of Jeremiah, the book of the prophet Baruch and the three Maccabees books. All these books were present in the manuscript biblical tradition of the Middle Ages, but were not included in the biblical canon of Protestant communities due to the fact that they were written later than the other books of the Old Testament and are not included in the Jewish canon.

In the Old Testament part of the “Protestant” editions of the Synodal Translation, the insertions on the Septuagint, which are present in the “Orthodox” editions, are omitted - places where the translation of the Hebrew Bible is supplemented with insertions made from the Greek text. All these discrepancies, however, are marginal in nature in comparison with the main Message of the Old Testament, which for all Christians in Russia sounds in a single translation.

There are no differences between the “Orthodox” and “Protestant” Bibles regarding the core of our faith - the New Testament.

2. The beginning of biblical education in our country dates back to the times of the Baptism of Rus'. The oldest monuments of the Russian language are the Ostromir Gospel, written in 1056-1057. for the St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, and the so-called “Novgorod Psalter”, which dates back to the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, i.e. only one or two decades later than the Baptism of Rus'. Both of the oldest monuments of the Russian language are biblical texts. This clearly tells us that the Russian language, Russian writing, Russian culture are inseparable from the Russian Bible.

Thanks to the works of Saints Cyril, Methodius and their disciples, spiritual literature in the national language existed in Rus' from the very beginning. But, like any living human language, the Russian language has changed. By the beginning of the 19th century, the gap between Church Slavonic and the language of everyday communication widened so much that Slavic texts became difficult to understand. Many representatives of the aristocracy - for example, Pushkin or Emperor Alexander I - if they wanted to read the Bible, they were forced to read it in French. There was no Bible in Russian, and Slavic was already difficult to understand. In November 1824, shortly after arriving in Mikhailovskoye, Pushkin wrote to his brother in St. Petersburg: “The Bible, the Bible! And definitely French!” In other words, Pushkin specifically asks to send him not an obscure Church Slavonic Bible, but a French one written in a language he understands.

By the end of the 18th century, translation of Scripture into Russian became the order of the day. In 1794, “The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul with Interpretation to the Romans,” prepared by Archbishop Methodius (Smirnov), was published, where, in parallel with the Slavic text, a Russian translation was given. This was the first translation of a biblical text into Russian, understood as a language other than Church Slavonic.

A new stage in the history of the Russian Bible occurs at the beginning of the 19th century, in the era of Alexander I. During the war of 1812, which Alexander I perceived as a test sent by God, his personal “biblical conversion” took place. He becomes a deeply religious person, the Bible (in French translation) becomes his reference book.

Also in 1812, a representative of the British Bible Society, John Patterson, arrived in Russia. His proposal for the formation of a Bible society in Russia receives, unexpectedly for Patterson himself, the warm support of the Russian emperor. On December 6, 1812, Alexander I approved the report of Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn, a supporter of biblical education, on the advisability of opening the St. Petersburg Bible Society. On September 4, 1814 it received the name of the Russian Bible Society. Prince Golitsyn became the President of the Society. It was created as interfaith; it included representatives of the main Christian denominations of the Russian Empire. This experience of cooperation between different faiths is an important example for today's Christians in Russia.

The society devoted itself to translating and publishing the Bible. During the ten years of its existence, it published over 876 thousand copies of biblical books in 29 languages; of which in 12 languages ​​– for the first time. For the beginning of the 19th century, these are huge circulations. This was possible only thanks to the attention and personal support of Emperor Alexander I. The Russian language was not left without attention.

On February 28, 1816, Prince A.N. Golitsyn reported the will of Alexander I to the Holy Synod: “His Imperial Majesty... sees with regret that many of the Russians, due to the nature of the education they received, having been removed from the knowledge of the ancient Slovenian dialect, not without extreme difficulty can use the sacred books published for them in this only dialect , so that in this case some resort to the aid of foreign translations, but the majority cannot have even this... His Imperial Majesty finds... that for the Russian people, under the supervision of clergy, the New Testament should be translated from the ancient Slavic into the new Russian dialect "

As things progressed, however, the plans of the Russian Bible Society became more ambitious: they were talking about translating not just the New Testament, but the entire Bible, and not from the “ancient Slavic”, but from the originals – Greek and Hebrew.

The main inspirer, organizer, and, to a large extent, executor of the translation of the Bible into Russian was the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite Filaret (Drozdov), the future Metropolitan of Moscow, canonized by the Orthodox Church. He developed rules for translators and became, in fact, the editor-in-chief of all translations performed, the final authority in their preparation for publication.

In 1819, the Four Gospels were published. In 1821 - the complete New Testament. In 1822 - Psalter. One of the first Hebraists in Russia, Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, was responsible for the translation of the Old Testament. In 1824, the first edition of the Pentateuch was prepared and printed, but it did not go on sale. It was decided to add the books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth to the Pentateuch and release them together in the form of the so-called Octateuch.

In the meantime, a fatal event for the translation occurred: in May 1824, as a result of palace intrigues initiated by Count Arakcheev and Archimandrite Photius (Spassky), Alexander I dismissed Prince Golitsyn. The new president of the Society, Metropolitan Seraphim (Glagolevsky), made every effort to ensure that the translation of the Bible into Russian was stopped and the Bible Society ceased to function. Almost the entire circulation of the newly printed Pentateuch with the appendix of the books of Joshua, Judges and Ruth (9,000 copies) was burned at the end of 1825 at the brick factory of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. On April 12, 1826, under the influence of Count Arakcheev and his like-minded people, Emperor Nicholas I, by his decree, suspended the activities of the Society “until the Highest permission.”

Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky and Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev), who heroically continued during these years as private individuals to work on translating Scripture into Russian, had to experience the displeasure of the church authorities of that time.

The stoppage of work on the Russian translation of the Bible and, soon after, the closure of the Russian Bible Society were caused not only by palace intrigues and the personal quarrel of Alexander I with Prince Golitsyn. Opponents of the translation, primarily the famous Admiral Shishkov, insisted on the special sacred nature of the Slavic language and the inadequacy of the Russian language for conveying religious content. “...We can judge what difference in the height and strength of the language should exist between the Holy Scriptures in Slavonic and other languages: in those one thought is preserved; in ours, this thought is dressed in the splendor and importance of words,” writes Shishkov. In such a perspective, the question inevitably arose: is it even necessary to translate the Bible into Russian in the presence of Slavic?

“By an unusually happy coincidence, the Slovenian language has this advantage over Russian, over Latin, Greek and over all possible languages ​​that have an alphabet, that there is not a single harmful book in it,” wrote one of the most prominent representatives of Slavophilism, Ivan Kireyevsky. Of course, any Slavist will say that this statement is incorrect: in ancient Russian literature we find many “renounced books” rejected by the Church, various “magicians” and “charmers,” books with openly heretical content. But the opinion about the special - exceptional, almost divine nature of the Church Slavonic language - was expressed in our country again and again. It is repeated even today.

In order to give this opinion an ecclesiastical assessment, it is necessary to recall, in particular, the history of the translation of the Bible into the Slavic language. We know that attempts to declare some languages ​​“sacred” and all others “profane” have been repeatedly made. Saints Cyril and Methodius, the founders of Slavic writing, had to fight the so-called “trilingual heresy,” whose apologists believed that only three languages ​​were acceptable in Christian worship and literature: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It was through the feat of the Thessalonica brothers that the “trilingual heresy” was overcome.

The ministry of the New Testament, as the Apostle Paul writes, is a ministry “not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). From the very beginning of Christian history, the attention of the Church has been drawn to the Message, to the sermon, to the mission, and not to a fixed text in a specific “sacred” language. This is radically different from, for example, the treatment of sacred text in rabbinic Judaism or Islam. For rabbinic Judaism, the Bible is fundamentally untranslatable, and translation or transposition can only bring us closer to understanding the only true text, which is the Jewish Masoretic text for a Jewish believer. In the same way, for Islam, the Koran is fundamentally untranslatable, and a Muslim who wants to know the Koran must learn Arabic. But such an attitude towards the sacred text is completely alien to the Christian tradition. Suffice it to say that the Gospels, which brought to us the words of the Savior, were not written at all in the language in which the Savior spoke (Aramaic or Hebrew). The Gospels, the main source of our knowledge about the preaching of the Savior, contain His speeches not in the original, but in translation into Greek. One might say that the very life of the Christian Church began with translation.

It is very important for us that the Orthodox Church has never canonized any one text or translation, any one manuscript or one edition of the Holy Scriptures. There is no single generally accepted text of the Bible in the Orthodox tradition. There are discrepancies between the quotations of Scripture in the Fathers; between the Bible accepted in the Greek Church and the Church Slavonic Bible; between the Church Slavonic texts of the Bible and the Russian Synodal translation recommended for home reading. These discrepancies should not confuse us, because behind different texts in different languages, in different translations, there is a single Good News.

The question of canonizing the Church Slavonic Bible as a text “authentic, like the Latin Vulgate” was raised in the 19th century. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N. A. Protasov (1836-1855). However, as Saint Philaret of Moscow writes, “The Holy Synod on the work of correcting the Slavic Bible did not proclaim the Slavic text to be exclusively independent and thus shrewdly blocked the path to those difficulties and confusions, which in this case would have been the same or even greater than those that occurred in the Roman Church from declaring the text of the Vulgate independent.”

It was thanks to Saint Philaret that the question of the Russian translation of the Bible, pushed aside and seemingly forgotten after the closure of the Bible Society, was again put on the agenda when the social stagnation that characterized Russia during the time of Nicholas I was replaced by the time of reforms associated with the name of Alexander II. On March 20, 1858, the Holy Synod decided to begin, with the permission of the Sovereign Emperor, a Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures. On May 5, 1858, Alexander II approved this decision.

The translation was made by four theological academies. Metropolitan Philaret personally reviewed and edited the books of the Bible as they were prepared for publication. In 1860, the Four Gospels were published, and in 1862, the entire New Testament. The complete Bible - in 1876, after the death of St. Philaret. In total, the translation of the New Testament took 4 years, the Old Testament - 18 years.

As at the beginning of the 19th century, fierce controversy arose around the translation. However, the need for a Russian translation for the very existence of the Russian Church was already so obvious that the publication of the Synodal translation was supported by both ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Almost immediately after the appearance of the Synodal Translation, the Bible became one of the largest circulation and most widespread books in Russia.

It is safe to say that over the past 140-year history of its existence, the Synodal Translation has made a tremendous shift in Russian culture and ensured the development of Russian-language theology at the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century.

The historical correctness of supporters of translating the Bible into Russian became obvious during the trials that befell Russian Christians in the 20th century. Thanks to the Synodal translation, the Holy Scriptures were with believers even when spiritual education, including the teaching of the Church Slavonic language, was practically prohibited, when church books were confiscated and destroyed. The Bible in Russian, accessible for reading and comprehension, helped people maintain their faith during the years of persecution and laid the foundation for the revival of religious life after the fall of state atheism. Many of us still remember how old yellowed books were carefully kept in the families of our parents, how thin “Brussels” editions of the Bible on tissue paper were smuggled from abroad. The Synodal translation is our precious heritage, this is the Bible of the New Martyrs.

After the abolition of the persecution of the Church, since the 1990s, the Bible in the Synodal translation again becomes one of the most widely published and distributed books in Russia. Since the mid-twentieth century, almost all Orthodox publications begin to cite biblical quotations from the text of the Synodal Translation (previously exclusively from the Slavic text of the Elizabethan Bible). The Synodal translation formed the basis for a number of translations of the Bible into the languages ​​of the peoples of the Russian Federation (such as Kryashen or Chuvash).

3. While paying tribute and gratitude to the creators of the Synodal Translation, we cannot fail to take into account constructive criticism addressed to it.

There are numerous editorial shortcomings in the Synodal translation. Often the same proper name in different books (and sometimes within the same book) is rendered differently in the Synodal translation, and on the contrary, sometimes different Hebrew names coincide in Russian transcription. For example, the same Israeli city of Hazor is sometimes called Hazor, sometimes Hazor, sometimes Esorah, sometimes Natzor. Often proper names are translated as if they were common nouns or even verbs, and in some cases common nouns are transcribed as proper names. There is an inaccuracy in the transfer of realities, everyday and social features of the ancient world, unknown or misunderstood by the science of the 19th century.

Some passages may mislead the reader. For example, in the Synodal translation of the book of the prophet Malachi (2:16) we read: “... if you hate her (that is, the wife of your youth), let her go, says the Lord God of Israel.” However, both the Hebrew and Greek text here say the opposite—that God hates divorce. (Slavic text: “But if you hate, let you go, says the Lord God of Israel, and will cover your wickedness.”)

The Synodal translation of the New Testament was carried out with greater care than the translation of the Old Testament. However, many claims can be made against the Synodal Translation of the New Testament. One may recall that when the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, asked N.N. Glubokovsky to compile a list of inaccuracies in the Synodal Translation of the New Testament, he responded with five notebooks of corrections.

I will give just one example of such inaccuracy, which recently caught my eye while reading the book of the Acts of the Apostles. This book tells how during the stay of the Apostle Paul in Ephesus, “there was no small rebellion against the way of the Lord.” The head of the guild of silversmiths gathered a crowd who expressed their indignation at the preaching of Christians by shouting for two hours: “Great is Artemis of Ephesus!” Then, in order to calm the people, a certain Alexander was called from the people, who, among other things, said: “Men of Ephesus! What person does not know that the city of Ephesus is the servant of the great goddess Artemis and Diopetus? (Acts 19:23–35).

We know who Artemis is. But who is Diopetus? One might assume that this is one of the Greek gods or heroes of ancient mythology. But you will not find such a god in the Greek pantheon, and there is no such hero in Greek myths. The word διοπετής/diopetês, erroneously translated as a proper name ("Diopetus"), literally means "cast down by Zeus", that is, fallen from the sky. Euripides in the tragedy “Iphigenia in Tauris” uses this term in relation to the statue of Tauride Artemis, meaning that it fell from the sky, that is, it is not made by hands. The main pagan shrine of Ephesus was the statue of Artemis of Ephesus, and, probably, Alexander, in his address to the Ephesians, pointed to the idea of ​​​​this statue as not made by hands. Consequently, his words would have to be translated as follows: “What person does not know that the city of Ephesus is a servant of the goddess Artemis, great and not made by hands?” (or “great and fallen from the sky,” or literally “great and cast down by Zeus”). There is no trace left of the mysterious Diopetus.

Most often, when discussing the shortcomings of the Synodal Translation, they point to its textual and stylistic eclecticism. On this point, critics of the Synodal Translation “on the left” and “on the right” agree. The textual basis of the Synodal Translation is not Greek, but not entirely Jewish either. The language is not Slavic, but not quite Russian either.

Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1880-1905, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, believed that the Synodal translation should be closer to the Slavic text.

On the contrary, Ivan Evseevich Evseev, chairman of the Russian Biblical Commission, in the report “The Council and the Bible”, which he presented to the All-Russian Church Council of 1917, criticized the Synodal translation for being too archaic and not conforming to the norms of the literary language: “... The Russian Synodal translation of the Bible... is completed, really , recently - only in 1875, but it fully reflected all the features not of a beloved brainchild, but of the stepson of the spiritual department, and it urgently requires revision or, even better, a complete replacement... Its original is not consistent: either it conveys the Jewish original, or the Greek text LXX, then the Latin text - in a word, everything has been done in this translation to deprive it of its integrity and homogeneity. True, these properties are invisible to the average pious reader. Much more significant is his literary backwardness. The language of this translation is heavy, outdated, artificially close to Slavic, lagging behind the general literary language for a whole century... this is a completely unacceptable language in literature of the pre-Pushkin era, and, moreover, not brightened up by either a flight of inspiration or the artistry of the text...”

I cannot agree with this assessment of the Synodal Translation. Even today, a hundred years after Evseev made his criticism, the Synodal translation remains readable, accessible, and easy to understand. Moreover, none of the Russian translations that appeared after him surpassed it either in accuracy, or in comprehensibility, or in poetic beauty. This is my personal opinion, and someone may argue with it, but I consider it necessary to voice it in this respectable audience.

However, it should be noted that Evseev, in fact, proposed to the All-Russian Church Council a whole program of work on the Slavic and Russian Bibles. In many ways, it was precisely to resolve issues related to the Synodal translation that the Council proposed the creation of a Biblical Council under the Supreme Church Administration. Consideration of the report on the establishment of the Biblical Council was scheduled for the spring session of the Council in 1919. As you know, this session was not destined to meet, and the entire range of problems associated with improving the Synodal translation remained unresolved.

The tragedy that befell Russia after 1917 pushed aside for a long time many issues discussed at the Council, including issues related to the translation of the Bible. In a situation where the very existence of Christianity in Russia was threatened, there was no time to improve the existing biblical translations. For seventy years, the Bible was among the banned books: it was not published¹, not reprinted, not sold in bookstores, and even in churches it was almost impossible to get it. Depriving people of access to the main book of humanity is just one of the crimes of the godless regime. But this crime clearly characterizes the essence of the ideology that was propagated by force.

4. Today, times have changed, and the Bible in the Synodal Translation is freely sold, including in secular bookstores. The books of the Holy Scriptures are distributed free of charge and are in constant demand. For example, after two years ago the Charitable Foundation of St. Gregory the Theologian, in collaboration with the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, initiated a program for the free distribution of the book “New Testament and Psalms,” more than 750 thousand copies were distributed. Moreover, the distribution was targeted - only those who really wanted it received the book, and not random passers-by on the street.

New translations of individual books of the Bible have also appeared. These translations are of very different quality. For example, in the early 1990s, a translation of the letters of the Apostle Paul appeared, made by V.N. Kuznetsova. I’ll give just a few quotes: “Oh, you should bear with me, even if I’m a little stupid! Well, please be patient... I believe that I am in no way inferior to these very super-apostles. Maybe I’m not a master at speaking, but as far as knowledge is concerned, that’s a different matter... I repeat once again: don’t take me for a fool! And if you accept, then let me be a fool a little longer and boast a little! What I will say now, of course, is not from the Lord. In this boasting business I will speak like a fool... Let anyone pretend to anything - I still speak like a fool...” (2 Cor. 11:1-22). “I'm completely crazy! You got me there! You should be praising me! Let it be so, you will say, yes, I did not burden you, but I am a trickster and got my hands on you by cunning. Maybe I managed to make money through one of those whom I sent to you? (2 Cor. 12:11–18). “Food for the belly and belly for food... And you want to turn part of the body of Christ into the body of a prostitute? God forbid!" (1 Cor. 6:13–16).

As I wrote in a review published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate shortly after the publication of this blasphemous work (in other words, it is difficult for me to call this “translation”), when you get acquainted with such texts, you get the feeling that you are not reading the Holy Scriptures, but you are present during an altercation in the kitchen of a communal apartment. The appearance of this feeling is facilitated by a peculiar set of words (“fool”, “boast”, “venture”, “crazed”, “praise”, “dodger”, “profit”, “belly”, “prostitute”) and idioms (“not a master talk”, “took it into his hands”, “in the worst possible way”, “they brought me down”). The sacred text is reduced to the square, market, kitchen level.

Of course, such translations only compromise the cause of biblical translation. But this does not mean that work on translating the Holy Scriptures should not be carried out at all. Today, celebrating the anniversary of the Synodal translation, we must think about how we may prove worthy of our great tradition, dating back to Saints Cyril and Methodius, who, despite the “trilingual heresy” and persecution by the Latin clergy, gave the Slavic Bible to the Slavic peoples, as well as to Saint Philaret and other creators of the Synodal translation.

Constant care to ensure that the Word of God is clear and close to our contemporaries is the duty of the Church. But in what specific actions should this care be expressed? Do we need a new translation of the Holy Scriptures, or is it enough to edit the existing Synodal one? Or maybe there is no need to edit it at all?

I will share, again, my personal opinion. I think that today we should not attempt a complete new translation of the Bible. But it would be possible to prepare an edited edition of the Synodal Translation in which the most obvious inaccuracies (like the mention of Diopetus in the book of Acts) would be corrected. It is clear that to prepare such an edition of the Synodal Translation, a group of competent, highly qualified specialists in the field of biblical studies is needed. It is also obvious that the new edition of the translation must receive the approval of the church authorities.

The Synodal translation is not a “sacred cow” that cannot be touched. The inaccuracies of this translation are obvious and quite numerous. And besides, New Testament textual criticism itself today is at a completely different level than it was 140 years ago. It is impossible not to take her achievements into account when working on the translation of the Holy Scriptures.

I hope that the celebration of the 140th anniversary of the Synodal Translation will be an occasion to think about its improvement.

______
¹With the exception of small, low-circulation publications of the Moscow Patriarchate, available only to a narrow circle of church workers. The first such publication appeared in 1956.

Original post: http://mospat.ru/ru/2016/10/04/news136578/

3.338. Anatoly (anatvk@???.lv) writes: “As an Orthodox believer, I think that the compilers of the canonical text created a logically complete structure, and for a deeper understanding of the meaning of the verse (and not just to connect different parts of Scripture) parallel passages were introduced. The Orthodox Bible has some differences from the Synodal edition: - in terms of punctuation; - in the absence of a table of contents at the beginning of each chapter; - in abbreviations of book titles, etc. How serious are these differences for the Orthodox? After all, the table of contents at the beginning of each chapter in the Synodal edition and numbering, given in the Orthodox version, do not coincide, i.e. are divided into different semantic groups. Is it useful for an Orthodox believer to study Scripture on the Internet resource http://home.delfi.lv/anatvk (isn’t this a perversion, and wouldn’t it be is it taken against me), or is it (the resource) intended for other faiths?”

In the beginning, certain councils of believers compiled the canon of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (at different times). These Scriptures consisted of books written in ancient languages ​​- Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. The letter was complete, without punctuation, without divisions into sentences, chapters, verses, and even more so, without tables of contents and parallel passages. All this was supplemented over time. Moreover, if the division into chapters and verses can still be called canonized (although it would be more correct to say “standardized”, because in this division there is no “holiness” or “inspiration”), then the table of contents and parallel texts are purely editorial processing.

The Synodal version and the Orthodox version are absolutely the same thing, because the Synod that blessed the Synodal edition of the Bible is the ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Perhaps you wanted to compare the Church Slavonic Bible with the Russian; or compare the pre-revolutionary edition with hard signs and “yats” with the modern edition; or Canonical (Protestant) edition with Synodal (non-canonical)? Please clarify. For now, I will briefly point out the main differences between the publications I mentioned.

Church Slavonic Bible - The Russian Orthodox Church considers Church Slavonic the preferred language for worship and Bible reading. But since it is less understandable to people, the use of Russian in preaching is allowed. Moreover, the only difference in the text of the Bible is translation.

Pre-revolutionary edition - in the Russian language there were several additional letters of the alphabet and some spelling rules that were outdated and abandoned. This does not in any way affect the text itself, or even its sound (pronunciation). The only visible difference is in the spelling.

Synodal Bible - contains non-canonical (apocryphal) books and additions to books, as well as insertions and discrepancies in the text of the Old Testament that are absent in the Hebrew original, but are present in the Greek version of the Old Testament. Such inserts are marked with rectangular brackets.

The Canonical Bible differs from the Synodal Bible only in the absence of non-canonical additions and insertions from the Greek text. The rest of the text is absolutely identical.

There are also modern translations of the Bible and the New Testament. These modern translations have some advantages, but their accuracy remains to be determined. Therefore, they are not authoritative and generally accepted (at least not yet).

There can be a variety of editions of the Bible, both with and without tables of contents; both with parallel places and without them; with applications, maps, comments, and without any applications. All these additions are provided only for the convenience of using the Bible, but do not in any way affect its text or its inspiration. Parallel passages are a personal addition, not part of the text of the Bible, and are intended only for the convenience of the user of the Bible. There are all sorts of different sets of parallel links compiled by different people. Use any of them.

The Holy Scriptures can be studied in any form, as long as the text itself is not distorted. Sometimes people add a commentary that misinterprets the Scripture itself. Then you can come to error, not to truth. But if you study only the text, then there is nothing reprehensible in this. As for the resource you cited, this is a completely normal electronic Bible, of which there are many. I use another Bible program, but the only difference between such programs is that they have different ease of use and different prices. The Bible is always the same for all denominations, so there is no need to be afraid that studying the Bible will somehow harm you.

Read more on the topic "The Bible. About the Book of Books":