Inter-Council Presence, everyone is given the opportunity to leave their comments.
The Synodal Translation (SP), published with the blessing of the Holy Synod in 1876, was originally intended only “for home edification” as a “help for the understanding of Holy Scripture”, but today, outside of worship, it has acquired the status of a general church or even official translation of the Russian Orthodox Churches. At present, this is the most common translation, which is used not only in home reading, but is used in classes in Sunday schools and in seminaries. Starting from the middle of the 20th century. in Orthodox publications, biblical quotations begin to be given according to the text of the SP (previously, exclusively from the Slavic text of the Elizabethan Bible). The SP underlies a number of translations into the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (for example, Kryashchensky, Chuvash). All this, of course, speaks of the importance that the joint venture has today. It can be said with confidence that over the past more than 130 years of its existence, the SP has made a huge shift in Russian culture and ensured the development of Russian-language theology at the end of the 19th and throughout the 20th century. It was this translation that was destined to accompany Russian Christians in the most difficult years of our history, during the years of unprecedented persecution of the Church and the ban on the distribution of Holy Scripture. Largely thanks to the Synodal translation, the Christian faith was preserved in Russia, and it became possible, after the fall of state atheism, the revival of religious life. All this makes the joint venture an inalienable heritage of Russian ecclesiastical and secular history, and also gives it the status of a cultural and historical monument.
Along with this, it should be noted that immediately after the publication of the joint venture, its criticism appears. Already in the first decade after the publication of the joint venture, the translators themselves prepared a list of inaccuracies in the joint venture. Some of the claims made against the JV turned out to be unfounded over time, while others remain relevant. Often the same proper name in different books (and sometimes within the same book) is transferred to the SP in different ways, and vice versa, sometimes different Jewish names coincide in Russian transcription. 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. Inaccuracy is constantly noted in the transfer of realities, everyday and social features ancient world, unknown or misunderstood by science in the 19th century. Frank "absurdities" are also found. For example, in SP 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." Slavic text: “But if you hate it, let me go, says the Lord God of Israel, and the wickedness of your thoughts will cover.” Whereas the Hebrew text allows for the following translation: "For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce." Of course, the SP of the New Testament is executed with greater care, but many claims can be made against it. For example, twice in the epistles of the Apostle Paul (Eph 5:16; Col 4:5) there is a Greek. expression τον καιρον εξαγοραζομενοι buying time(glory. redeeming time), which in the synodal edition receives two different, almost opposite translations: cherishing time in Ephesians 5:16 and taking advantage of the time in Col 4:5. In both cases, the translator(s) does not take into account that the expression τον καιρον εξαγοραζομενοι is borrowed from LXX Dan 2:8, where it is a literal translation of aram. עדנא אנתון זבנין. In the book of Daniel, these words are addressed to the Chaldeans, who, with their questions, are trying, as the angry Nebuchadnezzar puts it, buy, i.e., in direct accordance with the context, delay, gain time. From this it is clear that the expression used by the Apostle Paul τον καιρον εξαγοραζομενοι (lit. buying time) has the meaning taking time, doing something slowly, leaving time for reflection. It can be recalled 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 NT, he answered him with five notebooks of corrections.
However, the most serious criticism is presented to the joint venture from the side of the language, and sometimes from completely different positions. So, K.P. Pobedonostsev believed that the joint venture should be close to the Slavic text. On the contrary, I.E. Evseev, chairman of the Russian Biblical Commission, in his report “Council and the Bible”, which he presented to the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918, criticized the SP for being too archaic and inconsistent with the norms of the literary language: “This translation ... urgently requires revision or, more better - a complete replacement ... The language of this translation is heavy, outdated, artificially close to Slavic, lagging behind the general literary language for a whole century. ... This is the language of the pre-Pushkin period, completely unacceptable in literature, not brightened up either by a flight of inspiration or by the artistry of the text. In order to express in translation respect for the height of the original, in order to raise the translation to the level of literary requirements and give it a corresponding influence, it is necessary to give not a backward handicraft, but an artistic, creative translation, moreover, with constant care for its improvement. Values of national and general church significance require the most careful and constant attention to themselves.
In many ways, it was precisely to resolve issues related to the joint venture at the Council of 1917-1918. It was proposed to create a Bible Council under the Higher Church Administration. Consideration of the report on the establishment of the Bible Council was scheduled for the spring session of the Council in 1919. As you know, this session was not destined to meet, and the whole range of problems related to the improvement of the SP remained unresolved.
It should be noted that already before the revolution, along with the joint venture, there were more than two dozen translations of biblical books into Russian, some of which belong to representatives of the hierarchy (translations of Bishop Agafangel (Soloviev), Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky), Bishop Antonin (Granovsky), Archimandrite Gerasim of Pavsky, Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev), V. A. Zhukovsky, P. A. Jungerov, A. S. Khomyakov, K. P. Pobedonostsev, etc.). Many of these translations are also cultural and historical monuments of great importance; some of them have been republished in recent years by the Russian Bible Society. However, today these translations are as outdated (or perhaps even more so) than the SP.
After the revolution, work on a new translation of the Bible could be carried out, with rare exceptions, only outside the USSR. The most important translation of this period was the translation of the NT, ed. ep. Cassian (Bezobrazov), published by the British Bible Society in 1970 and regularly republished by the Russian Bible Society. It is based on the Nestle-Aland critical edition of the New Testament. This, on the one hand, distances the translation from the Byzantine text of the Bible, traditional for the Russian Orthodox Church (in particular, from the text read at divine services), on the other hand, it reflects the current state of biblical textual criticism.
In a number of educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church, this translation is widely used as a working and educational tool, and in this sense of the word, we can say that, along with the Synodal, it has received a certain authority in church scientific circles.
The striving for literal (sometimes just word-for-word) translation characteristic of this translation can be useful for analyzing individual features of the Greek text with students, but it conflicts with the lexical and stylistic properties of the Russian language and leaves certain difficulties for understanding.
Starting from the Soviet era, author's translations of individual biblical books began to appear, made by philologists - experts in ancient languages, for example, translations of Academician S.S. Averintsev (Book of Job, Psalms, Gospels). Some of these translations were prepared by people far from the Church (like, say, the well-known orientalist I.M. Dyakonov, the author of translations into Russian of the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations of Jeremiah), others by people of the Church (like, for example, Archpriest Leonid Griliches, head of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Moscow Theological Academy, teacher of the Moscow state university named after M.V. Lomonosov, who published translations of the Song of Songs, Ruth, and the first chapters of Genesis). In neither case do these author's translations claim ecclesiastical authority, but they can be recommended as additional reading for an Orthodox scholar, student or teacher who will use them, comparing them with the text of the Bible accepted in the Church.
The most significant project of this kind in terms of coverage of biblical texts is the translation of the books of the Old Testament, commissioned by the Russian Bible Society by philologists from the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Union of Translators and the Institute of Oriental Cultures of the Russian State Humanitarian University under the general supervision of M.G. Seleznev (since 1999, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Esther, Job, Parables, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations of Jeremiah and Daniel have been published in separate editions; a complete translation of the canonical books of the Old Testament, according to representatives Russian Bible Society, ends in 2010). The Masoretic text is chosen as the original, however, in controversial cases, readings of the Qumran manuscripts, the Septuagint (even to a slightly greater extent than in the SP) and other ancient translations are taken into account. The translation is provided with a historical and philological commentary, the language is focused on the modern Russian literary norm; translators managed to avoid the extremes of both the Synodal translation, which is distinguished by a rather archaic language, and some modern Protestant translations with their extremely democratized style.
At the same time, it should be noted that some author's translations or transcriptions of biblical books received a sharply negative assessment in the Orthodox world. Such, for example, is the translation of the New Testament by V.N. Kuznetsova (separate books were published by the publishing house "Eastern Literature" in the early 1990s; since 1997 it has been published by the Russian Bible Society under the title "Glad News"). The language of translation, which is qualified by reviewers as vulgar, is criticized, as well as the fact that Kuznetsova was almost completely replaced by established theological terminology. A negative assessment of the actual philological merits of the translation was given by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev): “we have before us not a translation, but a retelling, and a bad retelling that distorts the meaning and style of the original text.”
Separate mention should be made of the translations of the Bible made by various Protestant communities. Most of these translations were made hastily from English and are distinguished by an extremely low literary and scientific level (the translation made at the Institute for Bible Translation under the guidance of Adventist pastor M.P. Kulakov can be considered an exception). For obvious reasons, translations made by Protestant communities cannot be recommended to members of the Russian Orthodox Church.
All of the above applies to translations into Russian. At the same time, the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church includes speakers of Ukrainian, Belarusian and many other languages, among which are the languages of peoples Russian Federation. Until now, the Holy Scriptures have been translated far from all of these languages, and the main efforts to prepare translations have been undertaken by independent organizations, primarily the Institute for Bible Translation; the participation of Orthodox translators and biblical scholars in this work remains largely their own business. On the whole, one can only welcome the creation of such translations. Obviously, specific translations into these languages should be evaluated primarily by the people for whom they are native.
The linguistic and stylistic problems of the Synodal translation are becoming more and more an obstacle for people who come and come to the Church to understand the meaning and beauty of the biblical text. This is evidenced by a large number of adults who prefer to get acquainted with the Scriptures not according to the Synodal translation, but according to paraphrases like the "Children's Bible". This is also indicated by the growing interest in society in the translations of Scripture into an accessible language, which are now being carried out outside church structures.
It should be especially noted that the modern theory of translation attaches particular importance to the transfer of genre and stylistic features of various biblical books, which was not adequately implemented in the SP.
The experience of Christian churches in other countries shows that translations of Scripture into modern literary language are an integral part of the dialogue between tradition and modernity. In the Catholic Church, this problem has been solved by producing translations that combine accuracy with literary merit, such as the French Bible de Jerusalem or the English Jerusalem Bible.
At the meetings of the Bible Group of the Biblical Theological Commission, as well as at the seminar, which was initiated by the Presidium of the Inter-Council Presence and organized by the Moscow Theological Academy, following the discussion, it was considered timely to start work on the creation of a new church-wide translation of the Bible into Russian, which:
(1) would take into account the achievements of modern science (including biblical archeology, textology, comparative Semitology, etc.) in understanding biblical texts, as well as the historical and cultural realities behind them,
(2) would be based on modern translation theory,
(3) would use the entire palette of means of the classical Russian literary language to convey the beauty and diversity of biblical texts, their spirit, meaning and style,
(4) would not be divorced from the established church tradition.
It goes without saying that work on the creation of a text that claims to be of general church significance is possible only under the auspices of the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church and involves a general church approbation of the texts being prepared.
It seems that the first step in this direction should be the creation of normative document, containing the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Scripture and its interpretation in the Church, as well as reflecting the understanding of contemporary issues of biblical studies by Orthodox biblical scholars.
In addition, at the meetings of the Biblical Group of the Biblical Theological Commission, as well as at the seminar, which was initiated by the Presidium of the Inter-Council Presence, it was recognized that church care for biblical texts cannot be limited only to a new translation of the Bible into Russian. Work with biblical texts should be carried out in five areas:
a) Work with Slavic texts (i.e. texts of the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church):
- a critical edition of individual books and, as a result, of the entire Slavic Bible.
- reprinting of individual monuments of the Slavic Bible (for example, the Gennadiev Bible).
— revision of the liturgical readings from the Holy Scriptures (primarily proverbs and the Apostle as the most difficult to understand).
- preparation of Russian-language lectionaries, with comments revealing the content of the reading, as well as its connection with worship (primarily a collection of proverbs, where Slavonic and Russian texts are placed in two columns, with the necessary comments).
b) Translation into Russian of the Septuagint (i.e. a text that has a centuries-old church reception and underlies the Slavic Bible):
- Russian translation of the Byzantine text.
— Russian translation of the most ancient Greek manuscripts (it is desirable that the edition includes the Greek text).
c) A new translation of Bible books into Russian from the original languages, which was mentioned above.
d) Creation of a detailed scientific commentary on the Bible, including several levels: textological, historical and archaeological, exegetical, theological.
e) Creation of new and editing of old translations into the languages of the peoples cared for by the Russian Orthodox Church, and interaction with organizations that create such translations.
For fruitful work in the field of biblical texts and the revival of Russian biblical studies, it is necessary, firstly, to coordinate and consolidate the efforts of currently working specialists and, secondly, to train new qualified personnel for subsequent participation in both research and teaching activities.
For the successful implementation of the planned tasks, it seems appropriate to institutionalize the activities working group in Biblical Studies at the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, transforming it into a permanent working body.
October 4, 2016 in Moscow took place scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the creation of the Synodal translation of the Bible into Russian. The event was organized by the Christian Interfaith Advisory Committee. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, delivered a report at the conference.
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, to read Scripture in his native language. The anniversary of the Bible 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 annually celebrated the anniversary of the translation of the Bible into Greek, gathering on the island of Pharos (where, according to Tradition, 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 beneficence, which always remains new.”
The Slavic peoples with gratitude 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 Solun brothers is celebrated at the state level - as a day of education, culture and Slavic writing.
The creators of the Synodal Translation deserve no less gratitude on our part. It is in this translation that millions of Russian-speaking people in Russia and abroad know and read the Bible.
At the same time, unlike the situation that often takes place in other countries, where different Christian denominations use different translations of the Holy Scriptures, in Russia the Synodal Translation does not separate, but unites Christians of different confessions. A vivid evidence of this is our today's meeting, which brought together representatives of Christian churches that use 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. The "Protestant" editions omit the so-called "non-canonical books of the Old Testament"; 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 the son of Sirach, the letter of Jeremiah, the book of the prophet Baruch and the three Maccabean books. All of these books were present in the manuscript biblical tradition of the Middle Ages, but did not enter the biblical canon of the Protestant communities due to the fact that they were written later than the rest of the 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 inserts according to the Septuagint, which are present in the "Orthodox" editions, are omitted - places where the translation of the Hebrew Bible is supplemented with inserts made from the Greek text. All these discrepancies, however, are marginal in comparison with the main message of the Old Testament, which for all Christians in Russia sounds in a single translation.
There is no difference between the "Orthodox" and "Protestant" Bibles as far as the core of our faith, the New Testament, is concerned.
2. The beginning of biblical enlightenment in our country dates back to the time of the Baptism of Russia. 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 from the end of the X - the beginning of the XI century, i.e. only one or two decades later than the Baptism of Russia. 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 labors of Saints Cyril, Methodius and their disciples, spiritual literature in the national language existed in Russia 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 Slavonic texts became incomprehensible. 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, but Slavic was already difficult to understand. In November 1824, shortly after his arrival in Mikhailovskoye, Pushkin wrote to his brother in St. Petersburg: “The Bible, the Bible! And French, of course! In other words, Pushkin specifically asks to send him not an incomprehensible Church Slavonic Bible, but a French one written in a language that he understands.
By the end of the 18th century, the translation of Scripture into Russian was on the agenda. In 1794, the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul with Interpretation prepared by Archbishop Methodius (Smirnov) was published, where, in parallel with the Slavic text, a Russian translation was also given. It was the first translation of a biblical text into Russian, understood as a language other than Church Slavonic.
New stage in the history of the Russian Bible falls on 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.
In the same 1812, John Patterson, a representative of the British Bible Society, arrived in Russia. His proposal to form a Bible Society in Russia receives the ardent support of the Russian emperor, unexpected for Patterson himself. On December 6, 1812, Alexander I approved the report of Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn, a supporter of biblical education, on the expediency 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 an interfaith; it included representatives of the main Christian denominations of the Russian Empire. This experience of cooperation between different confessions is an important example for today's Christians in Russia.
The society dedicated itself to translating and publishing the Bible. During the ten years of its existence, it has published over 876,000 copies of Bible books in 29 languages; of them in 12 languages for the first time. For the beginning of the 19th century, these were huge circulations. This was possible only thanks to the attention and personal support Emperor Alexander I. The Russian language was not left without attention.
On February 28, 1816, Prince A.N. Golitsyn reported to the Holy Synod the will of Alexander I: “His Imperial Majesty ... sadly sees that many of the Russians, due to the nature of their upbringing, having been removed from the knowledge of the ancient Slovene dialect, not without extreme difficulty can use the sacred books published for them in this only dialect , so that some in this case resort to the aid of foreign translations, and most of them cannot have this ... His Imperial Majesty finds ... so that for the Russian people, under the supervision of clerics, the New Testament should be transcribed from the ancient Slavic into the new Russian dialect ".
Along the way, however, the plans of the Russian Bible Society became more ambitious: they were talking about translating not only the New Testament, but the entire Bible, and not from the “ancient Slavonic”, 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 as a saint. He developed rules for translators and became, in fact, the editor-in-chief of all translations, the final authority in their preparation for publication.
In 1819, the Four Gospels were published. In 1821, the complete New Testament. In 1822 - the Psalter. Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, one of the first Hebraists in Russia, was in charge of translating 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 issue them together in the form of the so-called Octateuch.
In the meantime, a fatal event occurred for the translation: 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 stop the translation of the Bible into Russian and stop the Bible Society from functioning. Almost the entire print run 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 associates, Emperor Nicholas I by his decree suspended the activities of the Society "until the Highest permission."
Archpriest Gerasim of Pavsky and Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev), who heroically continued during these years as 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 a personal quarrel between Alexander I and Prince Golitsyn. The opponents of translation, primarily the famous Admiral Shishkov, insisted on the special sacred nature of the Slavic language and the inability of the Russian language to convey religious content. “... We can judge what a difference in height and strength of the language should exist between the Holy Scriptures in Slavonic and other languages: in those, one thought is preserved; in our mind, this thought is clothed with the splendor and importance of words,” writes Shishkov. In such a perspective, the question inevitably arose: is it necessary to translate the Bible into Russian at all in the presence of Slavic?
“By an unusually happy coincidence, the Slovene language has the advantage over Russian, over Latin, Greek and over all possible languages \u200b\u200bthat have an alphabet, that it does not contain a single harmful book,” wrote Ivan Kireevsky, one of the most prominent representatives of Slavophilism. Of course, any Slavist will say that this statement is not true: in ancient Russian literature we find many “rejected books” rejected by the Church, various “sorcerers” and “enchanters”, books with openly heretical content. But the opinion about the special - exclusive, almost divine nature of the Church Slavonic language - was expressed in our country again and again. It repeats itself 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 Slavonic. 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 against the so-called "trilingual heresy", whose apologists believed that only three languages were allowed in Christian worship and literature: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. It was by the feat of the Thessalonica brothers that the “trilingual heresy” was overcome.
The ministry of the New Testament, as the apostle Paul writes, is “not the ministry of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). From the very beginning of Christian history, the attention of the Church has been directed to the message, to the sermon, to the mission, and not to a fixed text in a particular "sacred" language. This is radically different, for example, from the attitude towards the sacred text in rabbinical Judaism or in Islam. For rabbinical Judaism, the Bible is fundamentally untranslatable, and translation or transcription can only bring closer to understanding the only true text, which is the Jewish Masoretic text for a believing Jew. Similarly, for Islam, the Quran is fundamentally untranslatable, and a Muslim who wants to know the Quran must learn Arabic. But such an attitude to the sacred text is completely alien to the Christian tradition. Suffice it to say that the Gospels that brought us the words of the Savior are not written in the language that the Savior spoke (Aramaic or Hebrew). The Gospels, the main source of our knowledge of the Savior's preaching, do not contain His speeches in the original, but in translation into Greek. It can be said that the very life of the Christian Church began with translation.
It is very important for us that Orthodox Church never canonized any one text or translation, any one manuscript or one edition of Holy Scripture. There is no single generally accepted text of the Bible in the Orthodox tradition. There are discrepancies between quotations from 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 the different texts in different languages, in different translations, there is a single Good News.
The question of the canonization of the Church Slavonic Bible as a text "self-reliant, like the Latin Vulgate" was raised in the 19th century. Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod Count N. A. Protasov (1836-1855). However, as St. Philaret of Moscow writes, “The Holy Synod on the Works of Correcting the Slavic Bible did not proclaim the Slavonic text to be exclusively independent and thus far-sightedly blocked the way for those difficulties and entanglements, which in this case would be the same or even greater than those that occurred in the Roman Church. from proclaiming the text of the Vulgate independent.
It was thanks to St. Philaret that the issue of the Russian translation of the Bible, pushed aside and as if 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 done by four theological academies. Metropolitan Filaret personally reviewed and edited the books of the Bible as they were being prepared for publication. In 1860 the Four Gospels were published, in 1862 the entire New Testament. 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 in the beginning of the 19th century, a fierce controversy unfolded 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 most widely circulated and most widespread books in Russia.
It can be said with certainty that over the past 140 years of its existence, the Synodal Translation has made an enormous 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 the proponents of translating the Bible into Russian became evident during the times of trials that befell Russian Christians in the 20th century. Thanks to the Synodal Translation, Holy Scripture was with believers even when spiritual education, including the teaching of Church Slavonic, was practically prohibited, when church books were confiscated and destroyed. The Bible in Russian, accessible for reading and understanding, helped people keep 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 asset, it 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. Starting from the middle of the 20th century, in almost all Orthodox publications, biblical quotations began to be cited according to the text of the Synodal Translation (previously, exclusively from the Slavic text of the Elizabethan Bible). The synodal translation formed the basis of a number of translations of the Bible into the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (such as, for example, Kryashen or Chuvash).
3. Paying tribute and gratitude to the creators of the Synodal Translation, we cannot but take into account the 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 vice versa, sometimes different Jewish names coincide in Russian transcription. For example, the same Israeli city of Hatzor is sometimes called Hazor, then Hatzor, then Esorah, then Nazor. 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 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 her go, says the Lord God of Israel, and your wicked thoughts will be covered.”)
The synodal translation of the New Testament is made with greater care than the translation of the Old Testament. However, many claims can be made against the Synodal translation of the New Testament. It can be recalled 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 answered him 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 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 Diopet? (Acts 19:23-35).
We know who Artemis is. But who is Diopet? It could be assumed 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 ("Diopet"), literally means "thrown down by Zeus", that is, fallen from heaven. 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 miraculous. The main pagan shrine of Ephesus was the statue of Artemis of Ephesus, and, probably, Alexander, in his appeal to the Ephesians, pointed to the idea of this statue as not made by hands. Therefore, his words should be translated as follows: “What person does not know that the city of Ephesus is the servant of the goddess Artemis, great and not made by hands?” (or "great and fallen from heaven", or literally - "great and cast down by Zeus"). Not a trace remains of the mysterious Diopet.
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 "from the left" and "from the right" converge. 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.
The Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod in 1880-1905, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, believed that the Synodal translation should be close to the Slavic text.
On the contrary, Ivan Evseevich Evseev, chairman of the Russian Biblical Commission, in his report “Council and the Bible”, which he presented to the All-Russian Church Council of 1917, criticized the Synodal translation for being excessively archaic and inconsistent with the norms of the literary language: “... the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible ... is completed, really , recently - only in 1875, but all the features of not a beloved brainchild, but a stepson of a spiritual department, were completely reflected in it, and it urgently requires a revision or, even better, a complete replacement ... Its original is not sustained: either it transmits the Jewish original, then the Greek text LXX, then the Latin text - in a word, everything has been done in this translation to deprive it of its character of integrity, 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, lagged behind the general literary language for a whole century ... this is a language of the pre-Pushkin period, completely unacceptable in literature, not brightened up either by a flight of inspiration or by 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, easy to understand. Moreover, none of the Russian translations that appeared after him surpassed him either in accuracy, or intelligibility, or in poetic beauty. This is my personal opinion, and someone can argue with him, but I consider it necessary to voice it in this respectable audience.
Nevertheless, 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 respects, it was precisely to resolve issues related to the Synodal translation that it was proposed at the Council to create a Bible Council under the Supreme Church Administration. Consideration of the report on the establishment of the Bible Council was scheduled for the spring session of the Council in 1919. As you know, this session was not destined to meet, and the whole range of problems related to the improvement of 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 Bible translations. For a long seventy years, the Bible was among the banned books: it was not published¹, not reprinted, not sold in bookstores, and even in temples it was almost impossible to get it. To deprive people of access to the main book of mankind is only one of the crimes of the godless regime. But this crime vividly characterizes the essence of the ideology that was planted by force.
4. Today, times have changed, and the Bible in the Synodal translation is freely sold, including in secular bookstores. Books of Holy Scripture are also distributed free of charge, taking advantage of the constant demand. For example, after two years ago Charitable Foundation Saint Gregory the Theologian, in cooperation with the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, initiated a program for the free distribution of the book "The New Testament and the Psalter", more than 750 thousand copies were distributed. Moreover, the distribution was targeted - the book was received only by those who really wanted it, and not by random passers-by on the street.
There were also new translations of individual books of the Bible. These translations are of very different quality. So, for example, in the early 1990s, a translation of the epistles of the Apostle Paul made by V.N. Kuznetsova. Here are just a few quotes: “Ah, you should bear with me, even if I am a little stupid! Well, be patient, please… I think that I am in no way inferior to these most super-apostles. Maybe I'm not a master of speaking, but as far as knowledge is concerned, that's another matter ... I repeat once again: don't take me for a fool! And if you accept, then let me be a fool a little more and brag a little more! What I am about to say is, of course, not from the Lord. In this boasting venture, I will speak like a fool… Let anyone claim anything – I still speak like a fool…” (2 Corinthians 11:1-22). “I'm completely mad! It was you who brought me! You should be praising me! So be it, you will say, yes, I did not burden you, but I was cunning and cunningly got you into my hands. Maybe I managed to profit through one of those whom I sent to you? (2 Cor. 12:11-18). “Food for the belly and the belly for food ... And you want to turn a 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 Patriarchy shortly after the publication of this blasphemous craft (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 Holy Scripture, but you are present during a squabble in the kitchen of a communal apartment. The appearance of this feeling is facilitated by a peculiar set of words (“fool”, “boast”, “undertaking”, “crazy”, “praise”, “dodger”, “profit”, “belly”, “prostitute”) and idioms (“not a master to speak”, “took it into my hands”, “the most that neither is”, “I was brought”). The sacred text is reduced to the areal, bazaar, kitchen level.
Of course, such translations only compromise the work of biblical translation. But this does not mean that work on the translation of the Holy Scriptures should not be carried out at all. Today, celebrating the anniversary of the Synodal Translation, we must think about how we can be 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 St. Philaret and other creators of the Synodal translation.
Constant care that the Word of God be intelligible and close to our contemporaries is the duty of the Church. But in what specific acts should this care be expressed? Do we need a new translation of the Holy Scriptures, or is it enough to edit the existing Synodal? Or maybe you don't need to edit it at all?
Again, I will share my personal opinion. It seems to me that one should not aim at a complete new translation of the Bible today. But it would be possible to prepare an edited edition of the Synodal translation, in which the most obvious inaccuracies (like the mention of Diopet in the book of Acts) would be corrected. It is clear that in order 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 new edition translation must be approved by the ecclesiastical 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, the New Testament textology itself is at a completely different level today than it was 140 years ago. It is impossible not to take into account her achievements 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 reflect on its improvement.
In defense of the Synodal translation of the Bible.
1. A small introduction.
At one of the lectures, touching on some issues of Christian life, the doctor of theology of the Moscow Theological Academy Osipov A.I. a question was asked about the accuracy of the Synodal translation of the Bible. Osipov replied that the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures should be considered Church Slavonic, as historically close to the original text. The Synodal translation, in his opinion, was made from the Hebrew or Masoretic text of the Bible, which had previously been severely “corrupted” by the Jews, while the Church Slavonic translation is an ancient translation carried out by the enlighteners Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century from the ancient Greek translation. The latter is called the Septuagint, or "translation of the seventy," after the supposed number of its translators, or, as they are also called, "interpreters." To prove his words, Osipov mentioned the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls", found in 1947 in a cave near the village of Qumran in Palestine. They allegedly fully confirmed the accuracy of the Septuagint, and, accordingly, the Church Slavonic translation in comparison with the Masoretic text. The synodal translation, according to Osipov, is, as a result, highly distorted, far from the original text in many respects. But is it really so? Let's try to understand this issue.
2. Features of Bible translation.
To begin with, let us consider some essence of what is commonly called a translation of the Bible. Let the linguists forgive me, but as an example, I will give an approximate transliteration from the Hebrew language of the first sentence, from which, in fact, the Bible begins:
“Bereshit bara Elohim gash-shamim ve et ha-aretz” - “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1).
The translation of the first word has never been found. But there is the word "decide," which means "beginning." Then the word "Beresheet" was translated as "in the beginning." But it could well be translated as "from the beginning" or "from the beginning." The second word "bara" or "bar" was translated as a verb meaning "to create from nothing", or simply "to create". But the term "bar" has another meaning - "son". There is an episode in the Gospel where the high priests demanded that Pilate release a robber named Barabbas instead of Jesus Christ (Matt. 21:20). Barabbas in Hebrew means "Bar Abba", that is, "son of Abba." The third word, Elohim, has many meanings. But in the original language it is the plural of the word Eloha or Eloah, which means "Lord", "Creator", "Creator". Last words this proposal means "heaven and earth". This means that the first sentence in the Bible could be translated as "From the beginning, the Son of the Creators of heaven and earth." Quite a different phrase! And in this way it would be quite possible to translate further. And in order to decipher all this, the translators had to use not only their linguistic knowledge, but also ordinary human logic in order to obtain a coherent and consistent literary text. And if you consider that in the Hebrew list, the words consisted only of consonants, and there were no spaces between words, then the task of both early and later translators of the Bible was quite difficult.
From the foregoing, it will be possible to draw a quite definite conclusion that any translation of the Bible is, in essence, an interpretation of the latter, or, as they say, its commentary. We also add that the original text of the Holy Scriptures has not survived to this day, and we are dealing either with translations of the Bible, or with its later lists or handwritten copies. In practice, Christian churches and other religious associations use only different translations of the Bible. The Russian Orthodox Church uses, accordingly, the Church Slavonic translation, and sometimes, by the way, also uses the Synodal translation. The Greek Church uses the modern Greek translation, which is also a translation from the ancient Greek text. The Jews use the Bible, and these are 39 canonical books of the Old Testament, in Hebrew, which, in turn, is also a translation from Hebrew. The Roman Catholic Church uses the Latin translation of the Bible, which is also called the Vulgate, or "folk" - from the Latin word Vulgas (people). The Hebrew, that is, the Masoretic text, is a rather late and already revised list, preserved only in some ancient codices, which are also not older than the 9th century AD. e.
In this regard, it can be said that the main book of Muslims, the Koran, is more fortunate, in which the original Arabic text of this document has been preserved, and it is stored in the Al-Aqsa (Omara) mosque in Jerusalem. All other books bearing the name "Quran" are only copies or translations of it. The Bible, unlike the Koran, has no such original text. And this circumstance allows us to draw the first conclusion that if we assert the closeness of one or another translation to the original, then we can only compare it with the latter. But since it does not exist, then we can only talk about conditional closeness to the original text, and even then based on purely human considerations, but in no case can we assert this.
3. A little about the Masoretic text of the Bible.
Critics of the Synodal translation of the Bible, referring, in their opinion, to one or another accuracy of the translation itself, have in mind, first of all, the text of the books of the Old Testament. The translation of the New Testament, made from ancient Greek texts, is, with the exception of some points, quite flawless and is recognized as quite authoritative among all Russian-speaking Christians. Therefore, we will not touch it for now. But with the texts of the Old Testament, the situation is really ambiguous, and it is worth dwelling on this in more detail. I think it is worth starting here with the Masoretic text, from which many translations of the Bible were made.
The name of this text comes from the Hebrew word "masorah", that is, tradition. It represents, in essence, the only surviving Hebrew text of the Old Testament. And by no means the earliest. Its history spans the period from about the hundredth to the nine hundredth year of our era. It was by this time that there were already many lists of Holy Scripture, which had many discrepancies among themselves. Therefore, the Hebrew scribes - the Masoretes - then took a completely unprecedented step. They destroyed all the ancient copies of this document, while retaining only one version of the Scripture, which was to become generally accepted for them. Subsequently, all his books were revised, where, in particular, vowels were finally inserted in the text. It is worth recognizing that during these eight centuries a truly titanic work has been done, but I will not dwell on it in detail. I will note only a few points.
First, the Masoretic text can no longer be called an exact copy of the original due to its rather late origin. Between it and the original text there is a rather considerable time interval - more than six centuries, if we take into account its earliest date. Naturally, such a text, in the absence of printing, was subjected to repeated rewriting, and many errors could have crept into it. Although then there were special rules according to which such correspondence was carried out, but there was still no full guarantee against such slips of the pen.
Secondly, the Masoretes themselves did not consider the text worked out by them to be absolutely flawless, making no less than a thousand amendments to it - based on possible inaccuracies in it. If we consider that this text is at least 1200 pages, then we get one amendment to less than one page. However, it cannot be said that all inaccuracies are insignificant. Researchers have pointed out, for example, some places in the Masoretic text, where the places of the future coming of the Messiah are implicitly expressed, in contrast to the Synodal translation:
- The prophet Isaiah testified that “the Virgin in the womb will receive and give birth to a Son and will call His name Emmanuel, which means: God is with us” (Is.7,14). “For a child is born to us - a Son is given to us; dominion on His shoulders, and His name will be called: Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
- The Messiah had to be Emmanuel, born of the Holy Spirit, without the participation of the father (Is.7, 14) - and Jesus was born of the Virgin (Lk. 1, 26-35).
- The Messiah was supposed to come exactly after the expiration of Daniel's weeks, 490 years (Dan.9, 24-27), which ended by the beginning of a new era - and Jesus was born on time with an accuracy of a year.
- The Messiah was supposed to be born when not a descendant of the Davidic family, but a foreigner reigns over the Jewish people (Gen.49, 10), - and Jesus was born under the first non-Jewish king in the history of Israel - the Edomite Herod (Matthew 2, 1).
- The Messiah must be sold to the nearest of the disciples for 30 pieces of silver (Ps.40, 10; Zech.11, 12-13) - and Jesus is betrayed by Judas, who received 30 pieces of silver as a reward (Mt.26, 14-16).
- The Messiah had to suffer for His people and endure Death on the Cross (Ps.21:17-19) - and Jesus was crucified on the cross (Matt.27:35,50).
- The Messiah had to rise and conquer death with His Resurrection (Ps.15:10) - and Jesus resurrected on the third day and appeared to His disciples (Mt.28:6-7; Mk.16:9; Lk.24:6).
However, in order to check this, it is not necessary to learn the Hebrew language for this. Anyone can read the Modern Russian Translation of the Bible, made by the Russian Bible Society (RBS) in 2011, right from the very, though later reprinted Masoretic Text. There, all these "ambiguities" are fully observed.
The question of the dating of biblical events indicated in the Masoretic text is also controversial. But I will deal with this later. There are many discrepancies with the ancient Greek texts, that is, with the Septuagint, which were also made from Hebrew. A typical example here is the absence in the Masoretic text of such an ancient patriarch as Cainan (Kenan), who, according to the Septuagint, and, accordingly, the Church Slavonic translation, was the son of Arfaxad (Artashed): Gen. 11,12). Let me remind you that Arfaxad (Artashed) was the son of Shem (Shet), and the latter was the son of Noah. The one who with his family escaped from the global flood. This Cainan, in particular, is also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke when calculating the genealogy of Jesus Christ: “Cainans, Arfaksad, Shem, Noah, Lamech…” (Luke 3:36). But the Masoretic text says otherwise: "Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begat Shelah" (Genesis 11:12). The same is in the book of Chronicles: "Arphaxad begat Shelah, Shela begat Eber" (1 Chron. 1:18). In view of such a discrepancy, one could point to an error in the Masoretic text, but the point is that we do not know how it was actually written in the original source. Therefore, we cannot unequivocally answer the question: was Cainan erroneously included or, conversely, erroneously excluded from the Hebrew text. For example, I can conditionally assume that Cainan was actually not the father, but the elder brother of Salah (Shelah), which is why his birth is indicated first. But since the direct ancestor of Abraham was precisely Sala (Shelah), the ancient scribe could simply not include Cainan in the new text, so as not to get confused in the genealogy. And another scribe could at the same time erroneously indicate Cainan as the father of Sala. Finally, a similar mistake could also have been made in the preparation of the ancient Greek translation. Let's not forget that earlier there were several texts of Scripture, and in this matter they could not coincide with each other. But again, this is just a version. One thing is clear, that since such a discrepancy previously existed in biblical texts, it has every right to exist in the modern Bible as well. By the way, this is exactly what is presented in the Synodal translation in two versions.
4. The main aspects of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint was the first ancient Greek translation of Scripture. The need for such an action was that many Jews at that time lived and were born outside their historical homeland and, accordingly, no longer knew their native language. But in the synagogues, the text of Scripture was read only in the original Hebrew language. And in order for its content to be understandable to those who did not know this language, an interlinear translation close to it was required, which was subsequently done, according to legend, by the work of seventy-two translators more than 100 years before the birth of Christ. But the story of this translation did not end there. For us, the importance of the Septuagint lies in the fact that it was from it that the Church Slavonic translation was made, which is still attributed to Cyril and Methodius. But we will touch on this below. And first, it makes sense to consider the Septuagint.
When this ancient work is touched, it usually means a whole book translated from the original Hebrew text. But actually it is not.
Firstly, the Septuagint was compiled not at all as an independent work, but as an interlinear (more precisely, literal - with the preservation of precisely the "letter of the text") translation of Scripture. As a result, this translation has a number of so-called "dark" passages that can only be explained using the Hebrew text. Some words and expressions could not be translated at all, and they were simply entered into the text in Greek letters. Looking ahead a little, I will say that these ambiguities will subsequently “migrate” to the Church Slavonic translation as well.
Secondly, the original ancient Greek translation has not survived to this day. All further translations from the ancient Greek text were carried out according to its later lists. The translations made by Cyril and Methodius into Old Slavonic were no exception here.
Thirdly, all the surviving lists of the Septuagint were made already in the later Christian era, when this religion was no longer just world, but also within the state. By this time, mankind had not only rewritten, but already fairly revised texts of Scripture.
So, it is known that in the 3rd century. one of the "fathers of the church" - Origen - revised the Septuagint, checking the Greek translation with the Hebrew text. In the IV century. a similar work was undertaken independently by Lucian in Antioch and the Egyptian Bishop Hesychius (Hesychius) in Alexandria. As a result, the Christian world received three versions of the Septuagint, quite significantly diverging from each other, of which the Lucian (or Complutensian) was adopted in Antioch and Constantinople, the Gezichiev (or Alexandrian) spread mainly in Egypt, and the Origen (or Sistine) - in Palestine. Subsequently, in the years 1707-1720, the so-called Oxford version appeared, made, it is believed, from the Alexandrian list of the 5th century AD. e. Currently, the most ancient texts of the Septuagint are considered to be the Lucian version, made in 1514-1517 from the list of the 13th-14th centuries, the Gizikha version of 1518 from the list of the 10th-15th centuries, and the Origen version of 1586-1587 from the list of the 4th century. Therefore, it is definitely impossible to say that the same Cyril and Methodius used the “original” ancient Greek text in the 9th century.
Based on this, we are now quite able to dispel a fairly common myth regarding the aforementioned Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls. After all, many publications already mention ten or tens of thousands of scrolls found then, which confirmed the “truth” of the text of the Septuagint. But what was actually found there?
The scrolls, as it turned out later, were about three hundred, and not all of them, it turns out, contained biblical texts. As for the latter, among them were found the full text of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah and several passages from most other books of the Old Testament. Of these, only 5% accounted for the Torah or the Pentateuch of Moses. At the same time, a quarter of these texts were written by the Essenes themselves, to whom these scrolls previously belonged. In other words, a far from complete text of the Bible was discovered, where some of the scrolls (about 45%) were really in Hebrew, but a considerable proportion of them were in Aramaic, that is, already in translation. There were also scrolls in ancient Greek. Fragments from two books turned out to be ancient apocrypha - the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. Let us also not forget that the Essenes were an ancient sect, and there is no guarantee that the texts they copied were also not subjected to any editing on their part.
It turns out that there was no comparison of the found scrolls with the text of the Septuagint either. Only a small number of found ancient Greek manuscripts could check with it. And with what text to compare, if by this time there were already four versions of the Septuagint? But comparisons were indeed made with the Masoretic text of Scripture, and the discrepancies between them did not exceed 5%, and even those concerned mainly the rules for writing the text that did not affect their content. But even such an assessment cannot be called exhaustive. Indeed, how could one characterize the accuracy of the entire biblical text from far from complete passages? Only 36 psalms were found, out of 150 available in the Bible. No, of course, I understand that these scrolls are of great value to those who study ancient manuscripts, but they didn’t really produce any “revolution” in biblical textual criticism.
5. Stages of development of the Church Slavonic translation.
As we have already said, the missionary activity of the church educators Saints Cyril and Methodius can be considered the beginning of the translation of the Bible from ancient Greek into Old Slavonic. This action took place in the 9th century on the territory of the then Moravia, where the modern Czech Republic is now located. However, according to historical data, their work of translating the sacred books was carried out for no more than six months. But how much material could be translated during this time? For comparison, let's say that the blessed Jerome took at least 15 years to compile and edit the Latin translation of the Bible or the Vulgate. Jerome, however, did not do this work alone, but with a whole group of assistants. What, then, did Cyril and Methodius translate? Historians have found the answer to this question. The translation of the four Gospels, Acts and Epistles of the Holy Apostles was carried out. The Psalter was also translated. But judging by the titles of the translated works, we can say that in fact only one liturgical book was translated. As for the complete translation of the Bible, Russia did not know such a text until the end of the 15th century. The first such collection was the Gennadiev Bible of 1499. Let's trace this story according to M.Rizhsky's book "The Russian Bible".
Gennadiev Bible 1499
It is not surprising that it was in the last decade of the XV century. the books of the Bible aroused particular interest among many people of the most diverse social status, and even turned out to be the subject of fierce controversy. In the end, the prevailing situation forced the church leaders to engage in "putting things in order" in the sacred books. The result of this was the publication of the first in Russia complete collection of all biblical books of both the Old and New Testament, a collection that later received the name Gennadievsky, or the Gennadievsky Bible of 1499 - after its publisher, Novgorod Archbishop Gennady.
The business conceived by Gennady turned out to be very difficult. Of course, it was not his intention to provide a new translation of all the biblical books. Most likely, they meant to collect, calibrate, and appropriately edit the lists of sacred books that were already in circulation. As for those books that the archbishop could not find or whose translations into Slavonic did not exist, Gennady had a way out to turn to the Greek Septuagint, re-translate books from it that were not found in the Slavic translation, and check the others available on it. Gennady had such an opportunity. It is known that among the persons attracted by him to cooperate in the publication of the Bible, there were several people who were sufficiently prepared for the day of this work, educated and knew a number of ancient and newer languages. It is noteworthy that the Gennadius Code thus turned out to include books for which the Eastern, Greek Church, as well as the Russian, traditionally did not recognize canonical dignity and which, therefore, were not considered inspired by God, while the Western, Catholic Church just insisted on their "inspiration".
With such experienced and qualified translators at his disposal, Gennady could obviously follow one of the two indicated paths: either by comparing the books of the Old Testament, originally written in Hebrew, with the Hebrew Bible, and the rest of the books with their Greek versions; or choosing only the Septuagint as the only source for verification and replenishment of the Slavic text of the Old Testament books. Gennady and his entourage, however, chose the third path. Researchers could not fail to note the strong influence of the Vulgate in the work of Gennady. Gennady actually took it as his main guide instead of the Greek Bible. Philological analysis revealed that the Gennadiev Code contains part of the texts, judging by the language and grammar, close to the 11th century. and Cyril and Methodius time, in places with Bulgarian amendments (Pentateuch, books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Psalter). Others - on the same grounds are later translations from Greek. And, finally, the books of Chronicles, Ezra (I, II and III), Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, the non-canonical parts of the book of Esther (10-16 ch.) and I and II Maccabean books are no longer made from Greek, but from the Latin text of the Vulgate, as well as from the Vulgate, a number of insertions were made in the books of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which are absent in the Septuagint; finally, the canonical part of the book of Esther is translated from the Hebrew. The arrangement of the Old Testament books and their prefaces are borrowed from the Vulgate. In addition, many errors and omissions were found in these books, connected in some cases with the inattention of the scribes, in others with blind trust in the corrupted original.
The work on compiling the Gennadiev code was completed, as already mentioned, by 1499. As for the Gennadiev “right” of the biblical text, it is indicative that over the next two centuries its results did not cause any decisive doubts about the meaning of their loyalty to Orthodoxy . The Novgorod-Gennadievsky code was adopted by the Moscow Orthodox Church and received full recognition. His text formed the basis of all subsequent editions of the Church Slavonic Bible.
Ostroh bible 1581
Meanwhile, the Orthodox of Western Russia did not have the Bible in full. The Gennadievsky code, although it had already existed for about a hundred years, there were only a few lists of it in the Muscovite state, while in Western Russia this code could not be found at all. There was also a printed Bible in the Belarusian language, published by Francis Skaryna, but the Orthodox theologians did not approve of this edition, suspecting some Latin and some Protestant influence in it.
It is not known exactly which texts ended up at the disposal of the Ostroh “spravshchikov” and printers, among which the famous Moscow printing pioneer Ivan Fedorov, who published the famous “Apostle” in 1564 in Moscow, took an active part. Undoubtedly, the Latin Vulgate and some other printed editions of the Bible that existed at that time were used, in particular the translation of the Vulgate into Czech, the so-called Prague Bible (1488), and the translation of the Bible into the “Russian dialect” by Francis Skaryna, as well as some South Slavic ( Serbian, Bulgarian) translations of individual books.
It should be noted that, unlike the Prague Bible of 1488, or the Bible of Francysk Skaryna, translated into languages close to the local, folk dialects of that time, the Ostroh Bible retained basically the same traditional ecclesiastical literary Slavic language, in which the Gennadievsky vault, and other even more ancient lists. To a large extent, this explains the fact that later the Ostrog Bible was adopted both by the Moscow Church and the Orthodox churches of other Slavic peoples and for two centuries remained the only version of the Holy Scripture in use in Russia. It became the version that formed the basis of the next, the so-called Elizabethan Bible, still used by the Russian Church, and the language of the Ostroh Bible became the norm of the Church Slavonic language for all subsequent time.
It is known that the work of Ostroh publishers and editors was quite serious. For example, they completely translated the book of Esther from Greek, which was partly translated from the Hebrew, partly from the Latin Vulgate, and made a new translation from the Greek Song of Songs. Some Old Testament books were revised and compared with the Greek and Latin texts, in some places the text was corrected, omissions were filled in, superfluous things were excluded, etc. corrected correctly. Many of the changes introduced by the Ostroh spies are completely erroneous and arbitrary.
In some places of the Ostroh Bible, a greater proximity to the Greek Septuagint, compared with the Gennadius text, is visible, for example, in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah. But more often corrections were made according to the Vulgate. Thus, the book of Jeremiah in the Gennadiev Bible, translated mainly from the Vulgate, was corrected by the Ostroh reference books on the Vulgate. The arrangement of books on the Vulgate was left unchanged, and for the first time in the Slavic Bible the text is divided into chapters, again according to the Vulgate.
Most of the changes in comparison with the text of the Gennadiev Bible are made in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua. But the section of scriptures - the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, the Psalter, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, as well as the New Testament books, almost exactly coincide with the Gennadius text. It is interesting that some passages in the Ostroh Bible have no parallels in any of the lists or versions known to science.
Moscow (first printed) Bible of 1663
When in 1663 the first printed edition of the complete Church Slavonic Bible in Russia was published in Moscow, the editors specifically emphasized in the preface to it that no changes had been made to the printed Bible in comparison with the accepted Church and the usual Ostroh Bible. True, some editorial work was done, however, the corrections turned out to be so few and insignificant that for a not very knowledgeable reader they could go unnoticed. Mostly, some obsolete and obscure words and forms were replaced by more understandable ones. The translators of the Bible of 1663 themselves, in the preface to it, contritely admitted the shortcomings of their edition, explaining them by the fact that they could not find “many and skillful translators and good translations” in the conditions of war and popular unrest, and it was impossible to delay the publication due to an acute shortage copies of the Bible. In fact, in this edition only a few and even the slightest errors were corrected, a much larger number of them, and moreover the most important ones, remained, although they could easily have been corrected by considering the Greek text. But today only the Old Believers use such a translation.
Elizabethan Bible 1751
By the middle of the 18th century, there were already many copies of the Holy Scriptures in Russia, and not all of them were printed. There were many handwritten folios, in the texts of which many discrepancies also managed to “creep in”, which were still noticed during the famous church reform of Patriarch Nikon. It is quite natural that the need arose to create a single text of the Bible suitable for use in the Russian Orthodox Church. And these works began in the time of Peter the Great. But it was already clear to Peter’s interpreters that it was practically impossible to fulfill the imperial requirement to follow exactly the Greek translation of the seventy, since the surviving lists of the Septuagint differed significantly from each other, and the decree did not stipulate which list to follow - “it is difficult to study the composition of the Greek the language of the true seventy translation is contained". There was only one way out: "to testify not with one, but with many seventy Greek interpreters with biblical compositions." At the same time, referees should not be guided by considerations of the reliability of one or another option. A different task was set before the referees: in the event that discrepancies were found between the Slavic and Greek text, “concerning a change in the mind, as well as the multiplication or diminution of verses, or the change of chapters or verses, then ... diligently demolish with different Greek compositions ... and if in any case it would not be contrary to the truth to turn, as in the First Printed, then leave it valid on the row, as if in the First Printed. In other words, the reformers were given the task of using every opportunity to ensure that the newly corrected Bible differed as little as possible from the former.
Faced with innumerable difficulties, the referees now and then refused to take responsibility and preferred to turn to the Synod for clarification. And the Synod, which was also perplexed by these requests, sent them back, demanding "not to offer such requests to the Holy Synod any more, so that from this proposal ... there would be no stop to the matter."
The reformers could not possibly carry out all that they wrote about, if only because deep internal contradictions were hidden in the common task set before them. They could not adhere to any particular system in their work, focus on one of the most reliable Greek lists, on one version, since they usually had to stop at the version that involved the smallest changes in the already existing, familiar Slavic translation, "lest the destruction of the old Russian Bible be done to the texts." Thus, the Psalter, previously translated from Hebrew and according to the Vulgate, entered almost without any changes into the newly corrected Bible. And some books of the Old Testament, translated from the Vulgate in the Bible of 1663, have now been retranslated from the Greek text of the seventy (the books of Tobit, Judith); The 3rd book of Ezra, which was completely absent in the translation of the seventy, due to the fact that it was compiled later than this translation, turned out to be translated from the Vulgate in the Petrine-Elizabeth Bible.
When revising some places, especially important in a dogmatic sense, the correctors turned to the interpretations of the church fathers and famous Byzantine theologians, deviating in such cases from the Greek text of the seventy, so that in these places the Slavic translation took on an essentially “interpretive character”. In other places, especially the "dark" ones in the old translation, the translators in several cases gave a clearer meaning, also moving away from the Greek text. At the same time, it was decided not to refer to the existing discrepancies in the ancient Greek texts, so as not to create unnecessary “speculation” in the interpretation of Scripture. Such a Bible, as is known, came out in 1751 during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, which is why it received the name Elizabethan. She became the Bible that the Russian Orthodox Church still uses.
However, in some cases giving the Slavic text of the newly corrected Bible a rather arbitrary character, in others the translators showed excessive literalism, or, better to say, "copyism". The well-known Orthodox Bible scholar P. A. Jungerov characterizes, for example, the following translation in the Slavic Bible of one of the Old Testament works, the Book of Job: “Our Slavic translation has preserved all the difficulties of the Greek text, increasing them with its “copyism” in declensions, conjugations, word agreements , in genders and numbers: where phrases are appropriate in Greek grammar, ... there they are inappropriate in Slavonic, where one gender is appropriate in Greek, there should be another in Slavonic; in Greek, verbs require one case, and in Slavonic another; but according to "copyism" complete "unity" is observed, which also caused extreme darkness to the Slavic translation.
As examples, P. A. Jungerov cites several completely incomprehensible expressions from this translation from the Book of Job, such as: “the spider web will come true his village” (8:14), “laying me a corpse on a corpse” (16:14), “consider and the way in concussion" (28:26), sadly noting that "there is little clarity in many other places." However, by far not in all cases the blame for the “dark” places remaining in the Slavic Bible can be placed on the Elizabethan correctors. The fact is that even the translators of the Septuagint, as already mentioned, did not understand everything in the ancient language of the Hebrew text and in some cases simply rewrote incomprehensible Hebrew words in Greek letters, leaving them untranslated. Slavic translators had no choice but to do the same. As a result, for example, in the same book of Job, such, in the words of Jungerov, “the most classic in terms of obscurity, got into the place:“ the wings of the merry neelas, if asida and nessa conceives ”(39:13). The words "neelasa", "asida" and "nessa" are untranslated words from the Hebrew original, the meaning of which was not known to the translators of the Septuagint and therefore also left without translation. In the new edition of the Bible, in some places changes have been made in proper names and titles, in some places in genealogy and chronology. They tried to clear the text of random errors and typos, which were more than enough in the previous edition.
Finally, in the newly corrected Bible, the Slavic language is somewhat updated, some obsolete and already completely incomprehensible words and phrases are replaced by more understandable ones: for example, instead of “kamyk” - stone, instead of “required” - sacrifice, instead of “strengthen” - strengthen.
“What is the final conclusion from the above history of the Slavic translation?” asks P. A. Yungerov rhetorically. And he himself answers: “We saw an extraordinary abundance of various corrections to it, guided by different methods, means and goals, sometimes strictly considered, sometimes very hasty, sometimes with knowledge of the case and goals, sometimes without it. After the described documentary history of the Slavic translation, it is difficult to assert the infallibility of the Slavonic translation and the inviolability of its authority. In later exegetical studies, masses of inaccuracies and erroneous readings in the Slavic translation are indicated, and now in Russia there is no longer a single learned exegete who would dare to assert that when interpreting the Bible, one must unconditionally stick to the Slavic translation alone.
It should be added that the author of this work is not at all inclined to belittle the significance of the Church Slavonic translation, considering it a real historical monument of Slavic culture, especially since this text is really very close to the ancient Greek translations. However, the latter, as mentioned above, could be called already conditionally ancient. But at the same time, it cannot be argued that we are now dealing with the “Cyril and Methodius” translation. The Church Slavonic translation known to us has long had nothing to do with the latter. At the same time, we can note that there is no need to talk about its close correspondence to the original text of the Bible either.
6. A question regarding the dating of biblical events.
Before proceeding to the consideration of the Synodal Translation of the Bible itself, it makes sense to dwell a little on the problem of one or another accuracy of the dates indicated in various versions of the Holy Scriptures, especially since the rulers of the Elizabethan Bible faced such a difficulty. The fact is that in different versions of the Septuagint there was a clear discrepancy in the dating of certain biblical events, which caused a big problem in editing the Church Slavonic translation. The first type of dating, which is now called the Masoretic, due to its presence in the text of the same name, has a significant shift compared to the dating called Greek, because it is accepted in the modern Greek translation. The compilers of the Church Slavonic translation accepted precisely this Greek dating of Scripture, since, in their opinion, most of the ancient Greek texts adhered to such. In fact, it was made according to the Gesichian version of the Septuagint. And the Vulgate, for example, adheres to the Masoretic dating. I will try to reveal their essence.
In the Masoretic text we read: "Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot a son in his own likeness, in his own image, and called his name: Seth" (Genesis 5:3). And now let's take the same verse in the Church Slavonic translation: "Adam live two hundred and thirty years and give birth to a son in his own kind and in his own image, and he called his name Seth." The difference, as we see, is already a hundred years. In the date of birth of most subsequent patriarchs, there is the same hundred-year difference. As a result, the year of the Flood has a shift in dates by 606 years, and the year of Abraham's birth by 1386 years. And as a result, we have two different chronologies. In order not to get confused in these dates, I will give them in the following form. According to the dating adopted in the same Church Slavonic translation, the Creation of the world took place 5508 years before the birth of Christ (RH), and according to the Masoretic - 3761 BC. Now let's take a look at each of them briefly.
Let's start with the dating of the Church Slavonic translation. According to her, Jacob was born in 3494 from the Creation of the world (CM), when his father Isaac was 60 years old (Gen.25,26). When he and his family moved to Egypt, Jacob was already 130 years old (Gen. 47:9). This means that this event took place in 3624 AD, or in 1884 BC. This coincides with the era of Pharaoh Senusret II during the reign of the XII dynasty. The Exodus from Egypt, already in the time of Moses, was 430 years after this date (Ex. 12:40), that is, in 4054 AD. This is simultaneously 1454 BC, or the era of Pharaoh Thutmose III, who already belonged to the XVIII dynasty. But this date is also important to us because, according to biblical historians, it is the 15th century BC that is considered the date of the beginning of the compilation of the text of Holy Scripture, just under Moses. Migration to the Promised Land, that is, to the territory of modern Palestine, took place after 42 years: “for the sons of Israel walked for forty-two years in the wilderness” (Josh. 5:6). So it was 4096 AD. This is followed by the era of Judges and Kings, which continues until the beginning of the Babylonian captivity in 1032. This means that this is already the year 5128 from SM. The captivity itself lasted 70 years (2Chr.36:21-22) and then ended in 5198 AD. At this time, the decree of King Cyrus about the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem comes out (1 Ezr. 1, 2-4). But “at the end of sixty-two weeks Christ will be put to death” (Dan. 9:26) after this decree, that is, after 434 years. The Savior was executed at the age of 33. His Birth then took place 401 years after the said decree. We add to the last date and get the year 5599 from the SM. As a result, we have some inconsistency: 5599-5508=91. In a word, the difference is 91 years. Let me remind you that the year 5508 from SM is the year of the Nativity of Christ.
Where did I make a mistake? To answer this question, let's go back to the text of the Bible. We read: “The time in which the sons of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan was four hundred and thirty years” (Ex. 12:40). And here is how it is said about the same in the Church Slavonic translation: “The dwellings of the sons of Israel, who dwell in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, these and their fathers, are four hundred and thirty years old.” This means that for more than 90 years Jacob's family lived in Canaan, and the Egyptian period took approximately: 430-91=339 years. Then the exodus from Egypt took place in 3963 AD, or in 1545 BC. This is already the time of Pharaoh Ahmose, the founder of the same XVIII dynasty. But this date is not only comparable with the approximate date of the beginning of the compilation of Scripture. There is another nuance here. This is the story of the formation of Joseph, the son of Jacob, co-ruler of Egypt, almost the second person after the pharaoh. Indeed, how did this same Joseph, not being an Egyptian, manage to make a truly dizzying career? And the reason is that the time of Joseph's life coincides with the reign of the dynasty of conquerors, who at that time owned Egypt. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the pharaoh entrusted such responsibility to a non-indigenous inhabitant of the country. The indigenous population had to be kept in strict submission, and therefore its representatives were not allowed to high positions. Then came the so-called transitional period in the history of Egypt, when the foreign dynasty was overthrown. But as a result, as they would say now, of the onset of a crisis of power, short-term dynasties succeeded each other at the top of the reign, until the new XVIII dynasty was established, which completed this transitional period.
Settled in the land of Goshen, on the right side of the Nile River, the Israelites could well be perceived by the new dynasty as hostile, as supporters of the very overthrown dynasty of conquerors, during which their settlement in Egypt took place. Indeed, only a representative of the dynasty of conquerors could allow an alien tribe to settle in the country they conquered. It is clear that under the new government they were perceived already clearly unfriendly, that the established power turned them simply into slaves. In the history of this kind of cases have occurred more than once.
Let us now turn to the Masoretic dating. According to it, Jacob was born in 2108 from SM, and when he and his family moved to Egypt, it was already 2238 from SM. The Exodus from Egypt took place, respectively, after 430 years in 2668 from the SM, or in 1093 BC. And this time is already the XX dynasty, probably Ramses XI. According to the Masoretic text, it does not indicate that these 430 years include the period of residence in Canaan (Ex. 12:40). The Exodus itself similarly stretched out for 40 years (Josh. 5:6). So, the date of its completion is 2708 from SM. The era of Judges and Kings lasted until the Babylonian captivity according to the Masoretic dating of 1034, two years longer than according to the Greek, since the Israelites there walked two years less in the wilderness. As a result, we get the date 3742 from the CM. The Babylonian captivity itself also lasted 70 years, and was supposed to end in 3812 AD, or 51 AD. What happens then? Did the Babylonian captivity end already in the Christian era? Did the Savior preach while in Babylonian captivity? And when, then, did the Greek, and then the Roman conquest of Palestine take place? It is clear that there is a clear inconsistency here, and we have the right to recognize this dating as erroneous. And if we take the genealogy of Jesus Christ, given in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Luke, then it corresponds in terms of the number of generations to the Greek dating.
Here, probably, it would be possible to put an end to the consideration of this topic, if not for one “but”. If we open Chapter 1 of the Gospel of Matthew, then there the given genealogy of Jesus Christ according to the number of generations corresponds precisely to the Masoretic dating. These discrepancies between the two gospel texts are, in principle, easy to explain. Matthew and Luke used different sources to compile the genealogy of Christ. This means that each such source also contained a different dating. What can be the conclusion here? Only one. Since both dates were in circulation at the same time back in biblical times, it means that they also have their right to exist now.
What can we do here? Just a little "correct" the Masoretic dating. Let's go then for this in the "reverse" direction. So, the end of the Babylonian captivity in 401 BC. The beginning is for 471 years. Let's add the era of Kings and Judges and get 1505 BC. The beginning of the exodus from Egypt is 1545 BC. Year of the beginning of residence in Egypt - 1975 BC. The birth of Jacob is 2105 BC, and the Creation of the world then is 2105+2108=4213 BC. Of course, there is a difference from the Greek dating, and it still remains considerable. But let's take into account other points.
Firstly, both dates are largely approximate and rely on different methods of chronology. Secondly, if we analyze the dates of birth of a number of ancient patriarchs, it is noticeable that they have a clearly rounded shape. In other words, they are largely indicative. Thirdly, the Bible is not a history textbook at all, and does not have to be absolutely accurate in the specific time of the action of an event. The accuracy of dates is already a matter for historians. The Bible is free to stick to its own dates.
But why did I decide to touch on this issue? The fact is that the Synodal Translation of the Bible was often criticized precisely for the use of Masoretic dating. But here I must make one essential clarification. Not everyone knows that there are two versions of the Synodal translation. We will call one option Orthodox, since it is compiled in accordance with the Greek Orthodox Bible, and we will call the second Protestant, since it is used by various Protestant communities in Russia. Sometimes such a translation is called canonical, since only 39 canonical books are included in its Old Testament. The Orthodox version includes 11 more non-canonical books. True, they entered the Vulgate as canonical, but they became such there only in 1546. But this was already done by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Orthodox version of the Synodal translation differs from the Protestant one in that fragments of text were added to it that are not in the Masoretic List, and some discrepancies with the Greek text are also indicated. Accordingly, in the Orthodox version, there are also two dates of events that we have considered. All these additions are placed in square brackets, and thus we have here, as it were, two texts combined, as it were, into one. Here is how it looks in the Cainan (Kenan) example discussed earlier:
“Arfaxad lived thirty-five years and begat [Cainan. After the birth of Cainan, Arfaxad lived three hundred and thirty years and begat sons and daughters and died. Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat] Sala” (Gen. 11:12).
If we remove what is in square brackets, we end up with a passage from the translated Masoretic text. And if we just omit the square brackets and change the dating, then this will already be a translation of the Greek text. So we get, in fact, two versions of the Holy Scriptures. At the same time, the text of the New Testament remains unchanged in any version. Therefore, if it makes sense to talk about some inaccuracy in the Synodal translation, then we can only talk about its Protestant version. In the future, by the way, I will consider only the Orthodox version of the Synodal translation of the Bible.
7. From the history of the Synodal translation.
After the publication of the Elizabethan Bible in 1751, many researchers drew attention to a number of its shortcomings. One of them, Agafangel (Soloviev), wrote about it this way:
“It is undeniable that in the Slavic translation of the Bible there are many places in which the structure of speech is unintelligible and which require comparison with the original texts - Hebrew and Greek. But, as the knowledge of these languages is not widely spread, many, out of need, turn to foreign translations of the Bible, made outside the Orthodox confession, in the spirit of alien denominations, and can fall into wrong interpretations and become infected with an unfortunate prejudice in favor of someone else. In this regard, many of the parish clergy also need a Russian translation manual "" The Slavic Bible, - historian I. Evseev authoritatively asserted, "is compiled and translated poorly, in places it is completely incomprehensible ... the darkness of the translation in places completely obscures the meaning of the sacred books ... excuses, the commonly held belief that an obscure text can be clarified through interpretation is untenable. Let the text remain covered with a special veil where it expresses the truly hidden mysteries of God, but there is no need to remain vague in the usual, quite understandable places, dark only due to the outdated language, the failure of the translation, or simply due to the clogging of random accretions that have kept pace with prescription. years to take on the character of the sacred fog.
“An Orthodox Christian in Russia,” Agafangel (Soloviev) wrote further, “cannot satisfy himself with a Slavic translation, whose darkness and infidelity in places close the truth from him ... People who have received a secular education have not read the Slavic translation of the Old Testament for a long time and they resort to foreign translations... they turn to troubled waters in order to quench their thirst with something... In the merchant class, some wish that the labor of translation would be undertaken, at least by secular ones. In educational theological institutions, mentors and pupils should also turn to foreign translations to explain texts, since the darkness of the Slavonic translation is so great that the reader not only does not see in the text a relationship to the subject of speech, but also thoughts, while the general direction of the present tense is looking for precisely clarity of concepts.
Agafangel saw a way out of the situation in the publication of the so-called "correct translation", which should "be consistent with the Greek text, as well as with the Hebrew, so that the deviations of the Russian translation from the Slavic would not be too striking." In addition, Agafangel recommended that the text of the translation be accompanied by introductions to each book and explanatory notes so that "unintelligible places do not give rise to false interpretations."
Here Agafangel involuntarily points to previous work on translating the Bible into the then modern Russian language. Such translations, for example, of the Old Testament, were made by Archpriest and at the same time Doctor of Theology G. Pavsky and Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev) within the framework of the recently created Russian Bible Society. But both translated the Bible precisely from the Masoretic text, which, as already mentioned above, has some discrepancies with the ancient Greek translation. That is why both of them were subjected to severe criticism for the lack of comparison with these translations, which was considered unacceptable for the Orthodox Bible. This work remained unfinished, and the Russian Bible Society was dissolved.
It was rebuilt only in 1858. Its new composition differed from the previous one in that it was formed by the decision of the Holy Synod, where representatives of four spiritual Orthodox Academies gathered: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv and Kazan. The structure of the previously abolished RBO included representatives of various Christian denominations. Since there was a need to create a new Russian translation, it was better to take this matter into our own hands. Therefore, back in 1852, the Holy Synod adopted a resolution on the beginning of the translation of the Bible into Russian. At the same time, the Synod developed the main principles that should guide the work on the translation: adhere to the original as closely as possible, but state everything in understandable Russian; follow the order of words accepted in modern Russian; use words and expressions that belong to a high style, and are not in common use. The newly created RBO was headed by Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov), at that time a fairly educated person who owned more than one foreign language. However, other members of this society were also highly educated people, they had the knowledge necessary for this in Hebrew and Ancient Greek.
Therefore, in order to competently and canonically correctly carry out a new translation, the Holy Synod established special “protective rules” for this. Here are just some excerpts from these "rules" as presented by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow:
“Justice, usefulness and necessity require that the Hebrew text be taken into account when interpreting Holy Scripture ... But in order to use the Hebrew text as an aid to the interpretation of Holy Scripture, put in this matter a barrier to deviation from the accuracy of Orthodox dogmas and protect the sacred importance text of 70 interpreters in its ancient purity, for this ... protective rules must be proposed. These are:
If any place in the Old Testament is given by the inspired writers of the New Testament according to the Greek text, in this case, obviously, it is necessary to adhere to the Greek text, preferably over the Hebrew ...
Text 70 must be firmly held until then, until it presents an important reason to come under the leadership of the Hebrew text ...
A special sign of true reading in text 70 is the consideration that reveals that, inconsistent with the Greek, the Hebrew reading gives a false meaning ...
If the text of any place in the Old Testament, read in 70 senses, is determined by the consonant interpretation of St. of the Fathers, as prophetic about Christ, and the current Hebrew text of this place represents a different reading, unfavorable to prophetic reading, then in this case, the consistent testimony of the ancient fathers gives reason not to trust the authenticity of the current Hebrew text ...
If any passage of the Old Testament is cited by the inspired writers of the New Testament from the Hebrew text, it is evident that these infallible witnesses must be followed...
If any of the holy fathers interpreted any place of the Old Testament according to the Jewish text, it is fair and safe to follow this guide.
The presence of these rules gives us good reason to consider the Synodal Translation of the Bible as a fairly clear and competent work, as the work of specialists, one might say, of the highest class. But in order to understand how the Synodal Translation of the Bible was carried out, let us first consider the different types of translations. I note that today there is no single classification for distinguishing between translations, so I will give one that is more suitable specifically for working with Holy Scripture.
1. An interlinear translation is a text in which the words of the translation are in the same form and sequence as in the original text. The translation in this case is a fairly accurate, but, nevertheless, unrelated text, and may be of interest only to a narrow circle of specialists.
2. Literal translation - accurate transmission words and phrases in the original language, resulting in a fully connected text. Here, it is the “letter of the text” that must be observed, where the translated words are put into the appropriate declensions or conjugations and connected by the necessary prepositions and conjunctions, based on the grammatical rules of the target language.
3. Free translation - the transfer of the main idea of the author or the text itself by paraphrasing it. Sometimes it is called free or semantic translation. Such a text may already be more understandable than with the two above translations, but it already "stands" as if further from the original itself.
4. Dynamic translation is also semantic, but here the words and idioms of the original text are presented in the exact equivalents of the modern language. This method of translation is used when transmitting figurative or abstract concepts and expressions from the original language.
It is sometimes difficult to say which of them should be given preference, but in relation to the Synodal Translation of the Bible, all four types were used in combination, depending on the type of verses to be translated. This use of different types of translations makes such a translated text as close as possible to the original being translated. Most biblical translations of this type, sometimes called educational, are usually classified as moderately literal, allowing deviation from the letter of the source text in cases where the literal translation is either completely incomprehensible to native speakers of the target language or distorts the meaning of the source text. And this approach is certainly justified.
Therefore, on March 20, 1858, the Holy Synod decided: “The translation into Russian, first of the books of the New Testament, and then gradually of other parts of the Holy Scriptures, is necessary and useful, but not for use in churches, for which the Slavic text should remain inviolable, but for the mere benefit to the understanding of Holy Scripture. This translation should be started with all possible diligence through persons experienced in the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages, according to the election and approval of the Holy Synod.
For the Orthodox clergy, for obvious reasons, it seemed very desirable, of course, that the Russian translation should differ as little as possible from the Church Slavonic Bible. But there was no point in making a Russian translation from the Church Slavonic text. In the Old Testament part, this would be a translation of the third stage - after all, in the Church Slavonic Bible, the Old Testament was mainly a translation from the ancient Greek Septuagint, the source for which, as you know, was the Hebrew text. In addition, the numerous shortcomings of the Slavic text were only too well known. They decided to choose a compromise path: to translate the Bible from the language in which it was originally written, that is, the Old Testament books from Hebrew and Greek, and the books of the New Testament - only from the Greek language. Of course, different translations were used here, including the same Church Slavonic. And it justified itself.
“Translators,” notes one of the Bible scholars I.A. Chistovich, “treated the Hebrew text very freely, widely using both Greek and other ancient translations, for example, Syriac, Arabic, Chaldean and the Vulgate, to restore the original text”76 . But the fact of the matter is that in reality, as we already know, quite definite boundaries were outlined for the “arbitrariness” of translators - let us recall the “protective rules”. The leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church, which undertook the publication of this translation, was far from being interested in restoring the "original text" in all cases. But this work was successfully completed, and in 1876 the first complete edition of the translated Bible was published. Because the this work was released with the blessing of the Holy Synod, and then he received the name of the Synodal.
8. Comparative examples from the Synodal translation of the Bible.
As you know, the Bible consists of two main parts - the Old Testament and the New Testament. As for the latter, his Synodal Translation is considered quite flawless, except for minor nuances, and is practically not the object of anyone's criticism. But with the translation of the Old Testament, things are no longer so simple, and therefore it was he who became the reason for the critical attitude towards him. Therefore, here we will touch on the analysis of individual verses, mainly of the Old Testament.
Any translation has its own characteristics, due to different approaches to the translated text. With regard to the Synodal translation, these features can be divided into two types. In the first case, such nuances relate to comparison with the Church Slavonic translation, and in the second - with the ancient Greek. Therefore, we will begin the comparison with the Church Slavonic translation, which is often referred to as more accurate.
As such an example, a quotation is sometimes given from the book of Job, which is taken from Chapter 19. The version from the Russian translation of the Septuagint looks like this:
“For I know that he is eternal who delivers me on earth; he will restore my skin that endures this, for from the Lord this has happened to me” (Job 19:25-26).
The Slavic Bible almost exactly follows the Septuagint: “We know, as if it is eternal, whoever has to redeem me and on earth resurrect my suffering skin, from the Lord God this will be done.”
And now let's compare how it looks in the Modern Russian translation of the Bible from the RBO:
“25. But I know that my Redeemer lives,
and in the end He will rise above the earth;
and when my skin falls off me,
26. I will still see God in my flesh…”
This example is interesting in that it was made directly from the Hebrew text. As you can see, there are differences, especially in verse 26. But then where is the correct translation? Since we do not have the original text as such, we will also have to compare with translations. We will look at the answer to the question posed by us further in the text. We read the following verse 27 from the same chapter in the Church Slavonic translation:
“While I am in myself, even my eyes are seen, and not in: all of us are accomplished in the bowels” - “Which I know in myself, which my eyes will see, and not strangers, and all this will be done inside me” (translated me). It is clear that this is taken from the Septuagint. And there, in the Russian translation of the Septuagint, it looks like this:
“Which I know well in myself, which my eye has seen, and not the other, is nevertheless fulfilled in my breast.”
As we see in the previous verse (26), the next verse does not fit, although it is its continuation. And this is how it is presented in the Modern Translation of the RBO:
“27. I myself will see Him and I will not be a stranger to Him,
I will see Him with my own eyes.
How my heart languishes in my chest!”
Here, as we see, a clear continuation of the previous verse. So, whether we like it or not, in this particular case, it is the Hebrew text that will have to be recognized as correct. Well, now let's see how it looks in the Synodal translation:
“25. But I know that my Redeemer lives, and on the last day He will raise my decaying skin from the dust,
26. And I will see God in my flesh.
27. I will see Him myself; my eyes, not the eyes of another, will see Him. My heart melts in my chest!”
Here, as we see, not only one verse is a continuation of another, but also a completely different quality of translation. But critics turned, nevertheless, their attention to one nuance. The translators, they say, "attributed" to Job the belief in the general resurrection of the dead. On the one hand, those who made such a remark are indeed right. Neither the Hebrew text nor the Greek text speaks of the "last day", and here, of course, one should recognize the presence of a little liberties in the implementation of the translation. The influence of the Vulgate is not excluded here. This is how Jerome translated it here: "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last day I will rise from the earth, and put on my skin again, and in my flesh I will see my God." But is faith itself ascribed? Here in it it is possible to doubt quite. Read the passage from the Gospel of John:
“Martha said to him, I know that he will rise on the resurrection, on the last day” (John 11:24).
But that's in the New Testament. But the reference to the general resurrection was undoubtedly taken from the Old Testament. Reading:
“Your dead will live, dead bodies will rise! Rise up and rejoice, cast down in the dust: for your dew is the dew of plants, and the earth will vomit up the dead” (Is. 26:19).
“And you will know that I am the Lord when I open your graves and bring you out of your graves, My people, and put My Spirit in you, and you will live and place you in your land, and you will know that I, the Lord, have said this - and did, says the Lord "(Ezek.37,13-14).
“And many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awaken, some to eternal life, others to eternal reproach and shame. And those who are wise will shine like the luminaries in the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like stars forever and ever” (Dan. 12:2-3).
As you can see, various prophets speak of such a phenomenon. Then why should we deny that the belief in the general resurrection, which then already had its place, was not peculiar to Job, especially since in the Bible he is presented as a righteous man? The fact that the Book of Job does not explicitly mention this does not mean that it did not take place at all. In addition, the following verses say that it is Job's eyes that will see God (Job 19:27), which in fact already means that Job at that time should already be in a new body, that is, resurrect. And this suggests that this faith was not attributed, but characteristic of Job, which only confirms the correctness of such a translation.
It was said above that the Church Slavonic translation of the Bible has many "dark" places, that is, verses that were incorrectly translated from ancient Greek, due to the erroneousness of the previous translation. Let's consider some of them. By the way, they also concern the Book of Job.
First, let's take the expression: "the wing of the merry ones is neelas, if it conceives asida and ness" (Job.39,13) The meaning of such an expression, you see, is practically incomprehensible. But here in the Synodal Translation we find a completely “deciphered” version, however, not without the “participation” of the Masoretic text: “Did you give beautiful wings to a peacock and feathers and down to an ostrich?” True, there are assertions that a slightly free translation takes place here. I do not argue, but one more important factor should be taken into account. The book of Job is a work of a poetic nature, which is characterized by somewhat figurative phrases that could not be literally translated. But the translators, as we see, quite coped with this task. And if we look at this verse in the context of the entire chapter, then it is clearly in its place there.
Well, now let's compare other obscure verses from this series, citing more quotations from the Modern Translation of the RBO for greater clarity.
1) “Spider will come true his village” (Job 8:14).
“His hope is cut off, and his confidence is the house of a spider” - Synodal translation.
"Their hope is fragile,
their safety is a spider web” - A modern translation of the RBO.
2) “Lay me corpse upon corpse” (Job 16:14).
“Punches a gap after a gap in me, runs at me like a warrior” - Synodal translation.
“Punches a hole in me after a hole,
rushes at me like a warrior ”- A modern translation of the RBO.
3) “Count the way in concussion” (Job 28:26).
“When he appointed a charter for the rain and a path for thunderous lightning” - Synodal translation.
“When He decreed a rule for the rain
and paved the way for lightning" - A modern translation of the RBO.
I believe that these examples once again confirm the correctness of the Synodal translation of the Bible.
Now I ask the reader to make his own comparison of two verses, of which the first refers to the Church Slavonic translation, and the second to the Synodal, according to the quality of the presentation of the same text.
1) “And the captives came and took them captive, and the youths beat them with the sword…” (Job 1:15);
“... how the Sabeans attacked and took them, and struck the youths with the edge of the sword ...”
2) “You were called a slave; do not be negligent: but if you can be free, then enslave yourself more” (1 Corinthians 7:21).
“If you are called a slave, do not be embarrassed; but if you can become free, then use the best.”
As for the accuracy of this or that translation, here I will confine myself to a small example. In the Church Slavonic translation we read:
“And the king lay down gold and silver in Jerusalem like stones…” (1 Kings 10:27).
And now the same phrase from the Synodal translation:
“And the king made silver in Jerusalem equal to common stones…”
As you can see, in the latter case we are talking only about the depreciation of silver. At first glance, the Church Slavonic translation seems to be more accurate, especially since the Book of Chronicles seems to confirm its version:
“And the king made silver and gold in Jerusalem equal to a simple stone…” (2 Chronicles 1:15). But if you look at the text of the Bible above, it will still not be difficult to notice that gold there, apparently, was accounted for almost to the last talent, that is, the measure of weight used then:
“The weight of the gold that came to Solomon each year was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold…” (1 Kings 10:14).
So we have the right to say here that the Synodal translation, in this case, also turned out to be more accurate.
9. On discrepancies with the Greek translation of the Bible.
We have already shown that it is unfair to claim that only the Masoretic text was used for the Synodal Bible. No, both texts were then translated. This can be seen at least from the titles of the books that are given according to the Greek Bible, the same order of their arrangement. The numbering of the psalms is also given according to the Greek translation. In the same way, the names of cities are given, as well as the names of biblical characters. Finally, the Orthodox version of the Synodal Translation itself was impossible without the Greek text. When the Synodal Translation itself was carried out, its developers not only had to sort of join the Hebrew text with the Ancient Greek in places, but also make a certain choice when there were noticeable discrepancies between them. Some of them are listed directly in the footnotes. But not all discrepancies, however, were taken into account. The translators here, apparently, were guided by somewhat different considerations. For example, from two options, they chose the one that is better stated in a particular text, or better fits in the context of the chapter they are currently translating.
Here is one typical example that critics of the Synodal Translation like to refer to:
“When she had nursed him, she went with him to Shiloh, taking three calves and one ephah of meal and a skin of wine, and came to the house of the Lord in Shiloh; the lad was still a child” (1 Samuel 1:24).
Both in the Greek and in the Church Slavonic translation, instead of the phrase “three calves”, there is “a three-year-old calf”. Let me remind you that here we are talking about a sacrifice on the part of Elkana, the father of the then recently born and future prophet Samuel. Critics cannot understand on what basis such a strange sacrifice was made - three calves. After all, there is no mention of such a sacrifice in the Mosaic Law. But I would advise such critics to read the Bible better. If we follow further along the text, it will not be difficult to notice that Elkana sacrificed only one calf:
“...and slaughtered the calf; and brought the boy to Elijah” (1 Sam. 1:25).
What then is the matter? Let's look at Leviticus for the answer:
“... in order for this to acquire favor from God, the victim must be without blemish, male, from cattle, from sheep and from goats; do not bring any animal on which there is a defect; for this will not win you favor” (Lev.22:19-20).
Anna, the wife of Elkana, drove to the Holy Tabernacle, which was then in Shiloh, according to the text, three calves, or bulls, so that her husband would choose one of them as the most suitable for the sacrifice. There were two main conditions for choosing a future victim. The first condition is that the sacrifice must be original, and the second must not contain bodily defects. The second condition was more important than the first:
“Cursed is the deceitful one who has an uncorrupted male in the flock, and he made a vow, but sacrifices the damaged one to the Lord: for I am a great King, and My name is terrible among the nations” (Mal. 1, 14).
The first condition was easier to meet:
“... separate for the Lord everything that opens the bed; and all the firstborn of the livestock that you have, male, - to the Lord ... ”(Ex. 13:12).
At the same time, I should note that nowhere in the Bible is the age of the bullocks intended for sacrifice. But, given that we are talking specifically about the firstborn offspring, we can say that the age of the required victim should, apparently, be no more than a year. Yes, and what was the point in this case to raise a calf to three years? No, the case of bringing a three-year-old calf, or rather a heifer, or just a cow, is still present in the Bible, but here, most likely, we are talking about an exceptional case when Abraham had such an assignment directly from the Lord:
“The Lord said to him: Take me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle dove, and a young dove” (Gen. 15:9).
I note, just in case, that the Law of Moses did not yet exist, and Abraham then followed exactly the direct instructions of the Almighty. So this time there was no contradiction in the Synodal translation.
Another discrepancy with the Greek text we find in the Book of Isaiah:
“The Lord sends a word to Jacob, and it descends on Israel…” (Is. 9:8).
In the Greek translation, instead of the term "word" is "death". It would seem that there is already a different meaning. But let's not jump to conclusions.
In the Hebrew text, this term is given only in consonants, which in Russian transliteration can be given as "dbr". Either this is “dabar” - the word, or “deber” - death. The Septuagint translated it as "death." The same is true in the Church Slavonic translation. But if we consider all this in the context of the entire text given in the Bible, then the “word” will still be correct. Why? Yes, because here the "word" is used as a warning. That is, Jacob - the people of Israel - is given a warning for not believing in the prophecy given to them, that they will be punished for this as another invasion of conquerors. And the Bible says it directly (Is.9,11-12). It turns out that here too the accuracy is beyond the Synodal translation.
There is also a discrepancy in the Book of Jonah:
“And the Lord God brought forth a plant, and it rose up over Jonah, that there might be a shadow over his head, and to deliver him from his vexation; Jonah was overjoyed at this plant” (Jon. 4:6).
In the Greek translation, the word "plant" is translated as "pumpkin", that is, even its biological species is indicated. But is it translated correctly? In the Modern Russian translation of the RBO, this plant was also translated, by the way, from the Hebrew text, as castor bean. The same castor bean from which the well-known castor oil is obtained. But we can question this translation as well. Well, how do we know which plant the author of the original text had in mind, if there was no generally accepted systematization of plants then? The author could simply use the name in the text taken from the local dialect. In a neighboring area, the same plant could well be called differently. So the developers of the Synodal Translation turned out to be right here too, taking simply the word “plant”. And this does not contradict the main text at all. After all, the main thing here was not what the plant itself was called, but how Jonah first rejoiced at him, and then experienced his sudden death (Jon. 4.9).
As a last example, let us briefly consider the words of Job's wife, spoken by her on the occasion of her husband's illness sent down to test her:
“And his wife said to him, You are still firm in your integrity! blaspheme God and die” (Job 2:9).
The fact is that the Greek text contains a longer translation, where the wife simply scolds Job for the firmness of his faith, which is why her speech looks rather rude. The reader himself can familiarize himself with its content in a footnote to the same chapter of the Synodal translation (Orthodox version), or in the Church Slavonic translation. Here I just want to say that this verse, taken from the Masoretic text, looks shorter, more concise and meaningful here. It can be said that there is no error in the Synodal translation here.
10. A little about the shortcomings of the Synodal translation of the Bible.
Any translation, as a rule, is never perfect. Along with its certain advantages, it always has certain disadvantages due to the different qualities and approaches of the translator or a group of translators. The Synodal translation of the Bible is no exception here either.
Usually there are shortcomings of phraseological and lexical character. The first drawback implies an incorrect placement of words included in a particular phrase. Here, one sentence is usually taken from the entire text and the arrangement of words in it is discussed. There was a similar approach to the Synodal translation. But here, in my opinion, the critics themselves made a clear mistake, considering individual verses from the books of the Bible. At first glance, their reasoning seems to be correct, but when you read such a verse already inside the text itself, then everything immediately falls into place. So, such an approach, in fact, is not suitable for the Synodal translation, and I will not dwell on it here in detail. But as for the lexical nature of the shortcomings, which consist in the use of incomprehensible or obscure words, they really exist in the Synodal Translation.
The very first thing that people pay attention to is the frequent use of so-called "Slavinisms", or words that have long been outdated, and therefore often really obscure. Well, tell me, will such words and expressions be clear to everyone: “opening the bed”, “under the stegno”, “in the green pastures”, “in the past”, “to the exalted ones”, “leviathan”, “with the Urim and Thummim”, "right"? Apparently, it is time to replace them with more modern ones, or to provide each Synodal translation with a brief reference book of such words. Also in the Book of Proverbs of Solomon, such a word as "earphone" is often found. Here it is used in the meaning of "gossip", "slanderer". But not every reader will now be able to correctly understand its meaning. After all, under this name they now mean a completely different term.
Another shortcoming of the Synodal translation is associated with the not always successful combination of the Masoretic text with the Greek. In some places, such a combination may well confuse its understanding. For example: “After the birth of Salah, Arfaxad [Cainan] lived four hundred and three years and begat sons and daughters [and died]” (Gen. 11:13). If you read the Masoretic version of the text, then "Arphaxad lived four hundred and three years", and if the Greek - "Cainan lived three hundred and thirty years." But not everyone can understand it either.
The next drawback, which also takes place in the Synodal translation, is not always an exact match of the Old Testament citations given in the New Testament in the text of the Old Testament itself. For example, a passage from the Book of Isaiah that Jesus Christ read in the synagogue:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; for He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, and sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to bring sight to the blind, to set the tormented free, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19).
And this is what the passage from Isaiah himself looks like:
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and to the captives the opening of prison…” (Isaiah 61:1).
If you understand the essence, then there is no error here either. The fact is that Luke, as the author of the Gospel, and perhaps even a later scribe, quoted in this case precisely the ancient Greek text. But in the synagogues, the text of Scripture was read only in Hebrew, and given that this event took place precisely in Galilee, then it could also be read in Aramaic. Therefore, in the scroll that Jesus then held in his hands, the text could well have looked like the one given in the Book of Isaiah itself. However, a person who reads the Bible for the first time will most likely not be able to understand such a discrepancy either. So, probably, it makes sense to sort of "level" these and similar quotes in the Bible.
Another drawback of the Synodal Translation is that the word “Jehovah” was mistakenly translated from the ancient Greek, which is similar to the Hebrew “Yahweh”. In principle, this term denotes in the Bible one of the names of God, more precisely, if I can express it this way, one of His designations. In translation, it means "Existing" or "Existing". This is how the Lord introduced himself to Moses when he asked for His Name: “God said to Moses: I am who I am [Jehovah]. And he said: thus say to the children of Israel: The Jehovah who is has sent me to you” (Ex. 3:14). In essence, this meant: "Tell them, the Israelites, that I am the one who exists." That is, it was not really about the name in the literal sense of the word, but about the fact that He is the only real Lord, Who should be worshiped. And this, alas, is also repeated in other places in the Bible: “But the Lord is the God of Hosts; Jehovah (Jehovah) is His name” (Hos. 12:5). Here we can pay tribute to the Church Slavonic translation, where the same verse is indeed translated correctly: "The Lord God Almighty will be his memory." In principle, I probably would not have anything against the use of this term in the Synodal translation, especially since many famous names mentioned in the Bible are formed from the root of this word, such as: Jezenia - heard by the Lord, Jeremiah - exalted by the Lord, Ezekiel - Strengthened by the Lord, Judas - praise the Lord, Yeshua, that is, Jesus - the Lord will save. But the fact is that this word has been used more than once and used as the only name of the Lord, which is actually not true. Apparently, it makes sense to leave only “Existing” or “Existing” in the text, so that no more associations arise.
There are critics who point to the confessional nature of the Synodal Translation, that it was made through the efforts of the Orthodox Church. But let's not forget that the Bible is a religious book, and therefore will always have a connotation of the religious beliefs of its translators. By the way, this applies to almost all translations of the Bible.
The developers of modern translations of the Bible into Russian refer to such a shortcoming of the Synodal translation as the obsolescence of some turns of speech, presentation of thoughts, ways of perceiving words and expressions. But let's not forget that the Bible itself was written more than two thousand years ago, and therefore its presentation of the texts must inevitably closely correspond to the perception characteristic of that time. Modern analogues should be used very carefully here, since they can very easily distort an older text, and sometimes even significantly. That is why, despite the presence of various modern translations into Russian, the Synodal Translation of the Bible still remains unsurpassed, and therefore it is increasingly recognized in the religious world, including representatives of other religious movements. And one can hope that this Synodal Translation will continue to take its rightful place among books of religious content.
As for the more specific future Synodal translation of the Bible, some changes still need to be made to it. And it's not just changing a few words and expressions. It makes sense to decide what concept of translation this work should correspond to, ancient Greek or Hebrew. As for the texts of the New Testament, there is no such question here. As they were translated quite qualitatively from ancient Greek books, they will remain so. There really is no alternative here. It's only about the Old Testament.
If one adheres to the Hebrew or Masoretic concept, then the expressions included in square brackets remain, but at the same time, all discrepancies must be introduced as footnotes or additions, including those that were not indicated earlier in the text of the Synodal translation, both with Greek and Church Slavonic translation. With the exception, of course, of the so-called "dark places", which we have already discussed above. If we adhere to the ancient Greek concept of translation, then the square brackets should be removed, and the "Greek" additions, thus, "fully" will enter the main text, and the existing discrepancies with the Hebrew text should be changed in favor of the ancient Greek. In this case, of course, it will be necessary to make footnotes or additions to discrepancies already with the Hebrew text. If, so to speak, we do not have the original text of the Holy Scriptures available, then let's create our own, Russian original text of the Bible, and its Synodal translation may well become a real full-fledged basis for this. But this kind of problem should be solved at a completely different, as it were, at a higher level. Whether we wanted it or not, but the time will still require certain changes in the text of the Holy Scriptures, and now we no longer have the right to ignore this aspect.
Question 387:
Is the synodal translation of the Bible correct? And are there canonized saints among the translators of this translation? The Old Believers say that this translation is incorrect and the text of this translation does not coincide with the Slavic.
Answer:
The synodal translation of the Bible into Russian in 1876 is one of the best translations of the Bible among other translations in Europe. If Cyril and Methodius, the Greeks, for whom the Slavic language was not native, were translated into Slavic, then 4 theological academies in Russia translated into Russian. And the best translators of these institutions were engaged in translation. One of the three days of attendance at the Synod was specially dedicated to the new translation, which they carefully checked and then sent to Metropolitan Philaret. When translating, they used both the Slavic translation and the Hebrew original, from which the translation of the Old Testament was made. Several translations of Greek, Septuagint, Arabic translation and other works of the Holy Fathers. The world has never known such a careful and careful approach to translation. Only an ignorant person can compare this translation into Russian with Slavonic. You can compare only and only with the original, and not with some kind of translation. The Slavic translation was made from the Greek, and not from the original Hebrew, which had to be done for the accuracy of the translation. When the brothers Cyril and Methodius translated, after the Russians began to use their translation, no one considered these brothers to be saints for a long time. What a great thing they have done for us. The time will come for the blind, who do not have a translation in Russian, and they will understand what they were refusing. The Old Believers do not have literate people and have never had anyone who could translate the Bible from the original. They use the synodal translation and are crazy about cleverness. They themselves could not translate a single chapter in 300 years. And the devil is cunning: you cannot use two “And” in the name Jesus. This is de Nikonian. And with one “I” they were never released in Russian, which means no. They remained with belt ladders and pillowcases, and so it will be forever and ever. Canonization is a purely human matter. Bearded grandfathers have gathered and decide before the Judgment of God who is a saint, who is not yet a saint. They decide to rank Anna Kashinskaya as a saint, then reckon it (that is, they cross it out). It is restored again. So it was with Euphemia the all-praised and with Chrysostom. All this can not be called anything other than madness. Who knows which translators are saints? And canonization does not mean that he will necessarily go to heaven. Sometimes canonized after hundreds of years; But where was this man during those years without canonization?
P. Marchenko, A. Kozin
ABOUT "OLD RITE"
(Second edition. Revised and expanded)
Vyshny Volochek
2012
This brochure was originally conceived as an article that we intended to publish in the Orthodox media, which was never done. The reason for this was that we could not find a suitable newspaper or magazine. It did not work out mainly due to the fact that the modern religious press most often treats the Old Believers with great sympathy. Then we had the idea to expand our article and publish a pamphlet based on it, which was done.
The first edition of the brochure came out in a very small circulation, and after a while we began to receive requests from believers to reprint it. This second edition has undergone minor revision and differs little from the previous one.
What prompted us to publish and republish this pamphlet?
Today, many Orthodox who are departing from the MP because (as the majority sees) the fall of this structure into heresy inevitably face the questions “what to do?” and "where to go?". Instead of just sitting at home for some time, asking the Lord for enlightenment, calmly studying the history and rules of the Orthodox Church, as well as the history of their homeland, these people begin to frantically rush from side to side.
In the end, these throwings lead to the fact that after a while most of them end up in some other pseudo-Orthodox structure, which in essence differs little from the MP.
It would be appropriate here to recall the case of Rev. Macarius the Great, when in the desert near the monastery he met the devil walking in a human form and hung all over with pumpkins like pots. He told the monk that he was going to the monastery to seduce the brethren, and if some brother did not like, for example, food from one pot, he would offer him the next one (see for more details: Lives of the Saints, Moscow, Synodal Printing House, 1904, reprint edition, month of January, part 2, life of Macarius the Great, day 19, p.131).
Also now, it’s simply amazing how many of these “pots” we have in Russia and with what ease the current believers accept them. Do you not like the MP headed by the ecumenist Kirill Gundyaev? - welcome to ROCOR. Don't like ROCOR? - welcome to the catacombs. Well, if the catacombs don’t suit you, then welcome to the “most canonical”, to the “super-pious” structure - the Old Believers! With regret, we have to state that many end up on the last "pot".
This happens for only one simple reason - now there is practically nowhere to find literature denouncing this so-called. “Old Believers” (we take this word in quotation marks, since there has never been any old rite, according to the teachings of the Church of Christ, all these are inventions of people deceived and drugged by false teachers). The trend towards the growth of this heresy is simply appalling.
Recently, starting around the end of the 90s of the 20th century, in Russia, both in the periodical press and in book publications, the topic of the so-called "Old Believers" has been increasingly raised. Many well-known and little-known authors have gone out of their way to praise the “Old Believers”, while all sorts of blasphemy and accusations will certainly fly at the Orthodox Church. The most amazing thing is that all this is happening with complete, one might even say deathly, silence of the Orthodox community. Moreover, now, it seems, it has already become fashionable on the pages of periodicals to publish some kind of “Old Believer” “tender” story or, even worse, an outright maliciously slanderous article.
One gets the impression that someone skillfully designed and planned organized persecution of Orthodoxy is going on. What is going on? Why and who is trying to wash away the "Old Believer" heresy, and even with the help of the "Orthodox" themselves, while slandering Holy Ecumenical Orthodoxy?
However, it was not so difficult to figure out what and why. To do this, it was necessary to compare only a few well-known facts.
So. After the death of the Russian Empire and the Greek-Russian Local Church, the apostate hierarchs who betrayed the Anointed One of God and Holy Orthodoxy created several church jurisdictions - the MP, ROCOR and the so-called catacomb churches. Despite the numerous divisions in views that existed between these structures, almost all of them were united in their renovationist-ecumenical faith. And therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that they, after each other, in a race, began to correct the Orthodox rules and canons. They touched upon their innovations and relations with the "Old Believers".
In 1971 and 1973 anathemas were lifted from the "Old Believers" by the heresiarchs of the MP and ROCOR. Then, when, after the collapse of the USSR, catacomb churches began to revive and be created, the same was done by the heresiarchs of many catacomb churches.
However, much to the surprise of these apostates, the "Old Believers" were in no hurry to take reciprocal steps towards reconciliation. By their position, they clearly hinted that the above actions were not enough for them. They demanded public repentance before them. Such a reaction, apparently, few people expected.
But are there any fortresses that ecumenists would not take? Moreover, if there is also an order from above? Here you want - you do not want. But first, of course, you need to prepare the people, because they do not accept various innovations very well. There may be undesirable excesses. Let's prepare the people, and then you can repent.
Apparently, after such reflections, a plan was devised to indoctrinate the Russian people in the spirit of loyalty to the "Old Believer" heresy. Custom-made articles and little books rained down on the heads of the people. Moreover, the customer of all this is by no means "Old Believers", but high-ranking dignitaries from the MP.
For example, in the commentary to the article by A. Yuryev “Tsar, Nikon and Schism” of the magazine “Church” No. 3 for 2000, it is openly stated that the authors of the “Old Believer” articles: V. Rubtsov, B. Kutuzov, A. Kartashev are far not “Old Believers”: “All these authors are united by the fact that, not being Old Believers, and sometimes very far away from the Old Believer Church (as, for example, Kartashev), they are trying to objectively understand” ... It turns out that the official position of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church regarding the "Old Believer" heresy is not enough for these authors, they still lack something. Wouldn't it be more honest to admit that they are simply pouring water on the mill of the "Old Believers" on the instructions of the ecumenists, gradually preparing the Orthodox people to merge with this heresy.
It can be assumed that someone is being used in the dark, without revealing the secrets of the world government. However, the essence of the action does not change from this - we must try to push the Russian people, if not into the MP, then into some other heresy, and then, united, gather all the heretics into a heap under the arm of the Patriarch of the MP, and later - the world ruler, whom apostates from God of all stripes will glorify with one mouth and one heart.
Of course, it is a pity not for heretics, they are already going to perdition, and it is impossible for them to be saved. It is a pity for those people who, having read these articles and little books, naively taking all this at face value, reject Holy Orthodoxy and cling to the "Old Believer" heresy. They are deliberately pushed into this swamp, knowing in advance that the unification of the MP with the "Old Believers" is not far off.
At the "bishops'" council of the MP in 2004, the start of work on the preparation of this unification was already announced.
So, having figured out the true causes of the "Old Believer" boom, I would like to explain what the "Old Believer" really is and why it is better for sane people to stay away from this fetid heresy.
From the first days of its inception, our imaginary "Old Believers" was not unified and monolithic. Dissatisfied not only with the fact that the Great Russian Church returned to the correct rites, used before 1551, flocked to the "Old Believers" (it was in this year that the Great Russian Church was transferred to two-fingered at the Stoglavy Cathedral). Dissatisfied fugitive priests and monks also poured into it, who, long before the schism, fled from their bishops and abbots because of some disciplinary issues. There were also representatives in the “Old Believers” who considered the Great Russian Church to be the only true and pure one, who believed that other local Orthodox churches fell into heresy and therefore should repent and take an example from her in everything. Pouring into the "Old Believers", these people filled it with their stupid sophistication and crushed it into many parts. Therefore, it should be noted that there is no such thing as a “single Old Believer Church” and never has been. Various “Old Believer” opinions and consents (sects) that have arisen over time can be divided into three more or less similar groups in terms of teaching.
These are directly schismatics; priestly papists; and bezpopovtsy Protestants. But in order to understand what the teaching of these groups is and how they differ from each other, it is necessary to talk about the reasons for the split.
You need to start with the fact that the general misconception of all "Old Believer" sects is the assertion that the Great Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich and His Holiness Patriarch Nikon are the perpetrators of the schism. In fact, and there is plenty of evidence for this, the split was slowly ripening, dragging Great Russian society deeper and deeper into its stinking quagmire.
According to the version of the “Old Believers”, until the middle of the 17th century, Russia flourished and was fragrant, everything in it was according to God, and if it were not for the “villains” Nikon and Tsar Alexei, then to this day there would be an Orthodox Kingdom in Russia with an “Old Believer” tsar in chapter. Unfortunately, not only "Old Believers" believe in this idyllic fairy tale, but also many "Orthodox" who are infected with their odor. What really happened?
In fact, everything was far from what the “Old Believers” describe in this idyllic fairy tale of theirs. Both Russia and the Russian Church were subjected to many sorrows and dangers, sometimes overcoming them, and sometimes, alas, not. Shortly after the baptism of Russia, Martin the Armenian appeared to us, similar to the current schismatics, then Strigolniki, Judaizers, Molokans, whips and other heretics. Moreover, the heresy of the Judaizers had such an influence in society that even the Great Russian Metropolitan and some of the close associates of the Grand Duke professed it. But these are not some hard-to-recognise heresies. Among Judaizers, for example, it is easier to enumerate what they did not deny in Orthodoxy, rather than vice versa. Strigolniki, for example, did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.
So why was the people so easily seduced by these frankly blasphemous teachings, if, according to the "Old Believers", in Russia until the 17th century their spiritual state was at an extreme height? Something does not fit in this beautiful fairy tale. The whole ideology of the "Old Believers" is idealized to the limit, but everything should be considered not as they or someone else wants, but as it really was. So let's start in order.
Everyone knows that Russia received holy baptism from the Byzantine Empire, but the role of this state in the fate of our country, of course, was not limited to this one action. Byzantium and after that played a huge role in the fate of our fatherland. Before the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, Russia had a political ally, there was a state of the same faith, with which it was possible to verify the correctness of certain, both religious and political actions, to clarify controversial points. With the death of Byzantium, Great Russia found itself in unusual isolation, there were enemies all around: Mohammedans, pagans, papists, Protestants. This provision left a definite imprint on the further state of the entire Great Russian society. The well-known Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) reveals this moment in history very well:
“Until the 15th century. The Russian Church was the obedient daughter of Byzantium, its metropolis. From there, she received her metropolitans and bishops, church laws, the entire rank of church life. The authority of Greek Orthodoxy has stood unshakably among us for many centuries. But from the 15th century on, this authority began to waver. The Grand Dukes of Moscow, sensing their national importance, hurried to introduce this feeling into church relations, and did not want to depend on outside authorities, either from the emperor or from the patriarch of Constantinople, in church affairs. They started the custom of appointing and consecrating all-Russian metropolitans at home, in Moscow, and only from the Russian clergy...
And then the Greek hierarchy in the 15th century terribly lowered itself in the eyes of Russia, accepting the Florentine Union of 1439, agreeing to the union of the Orthodox Church with the Catholic, arranged at the cathedral in Florence. We held on to the Byzantine hierarchy with such confidence in the struggle against Latinism, and she, this hierarchy, herself surrendered to the pope, betrayed Eastern Orthodoxy with her head ... A few years later, Tsargrad was conquered by the Turks. Even before, in Russia they were accustomed to look down on the Greeks with suspicion and condescension. Now, in the fall of the walls of Constantinople before the godless Agarians, they saw in Russia a sign of the final fall of Greek Orthodoxy... The light of the Orthodox East then faded in the eyes of Russia... The old luminaries of the Church went out, Greek piety was shrouded in darkness.
Orthodox Russia felt lonely in the entire heavenly world... Moscow threw off the Agarian yoke almost at the same time when Byzantium put it on her neck. If other kingdoms fell for treason to Orthodoxy, then Moscow will stand unshakably, remaining faithful to it. She is the third and last Rome, the last and only refuge in the world of the Orthodox faith, true piety ... Such a view became the belief of an educated ancient Russian society, even penetrated the masses and caused a number of legends about the flight of saints and shrines from both fallen Romes to the new one, the third Rome, to the Muscovite state... In addition, people who came from the devastated Orthodox East to Russia to ask for alms or shelter, strengthened this national conviction in Russians...
All these phenomena and impressions set the Russian ecclesiastical society in a very peculiar way. By the beginning of the 17th century, it was imbued with religious self-confidence; but this self-confidence was brought up not by religious, but by the political successes of Orthodox Russia and the political misfortunes of the Orthodox East. The main motive for this self-confidence was the idea that Orthodox Russia remained in the world the only owner and custodian of Christian truth, pure Orthodoxy. From this thought, through a certain rearrangement of concepts, national self-conceit led the conviction that Christianity, which Russia possesses, with all its local features and even with the native degree of its understanding, is the only true Christianity in the world, that there is no other pure Orthodoxy, except for Russian, and there will not be. . But according to our dogma, the guardian of Christian truth is not any local, but the Universal Church, uniting in itself not only those living at a certain time and a certain place, but also all the faithful who lived anywhere and anyone. As soon as the Russian ecclesiastical society recognized itself as the sole guardian of true piety, it recognized the local religious consciousness as the measure of Christian truth, i.e., the idea of the Universal Church closed itself within the narrow geographical limits of one of the local churches; the universal Christian consciousness was enclosed in the narrow outlook of the people of a certain place and time...
AUTHORS' COMMENTS: It should be noted here that although Klyuchevsky does not attempt to classify the doctrine that arose from a religious point of view, it is clearly evident from his explanations that self-conceit born in ancient Russia has the same root with papism. It is the Catholic Church that holds the doctrine that it alone is the model to follow and the pillar of truth, and that all other local churches must bow before the authority of the Roman Church. This heresy, due to historical events unfavorable for Ecumenical Orthodoxy, as we see, also penetrated into ancient Russia, saturating a significant part of society and preparing a future schism.
With the help of rituals, texts and rules, religious thought deepens into the mysteries of dogma. These rites, texts, and rules do not constitute the essence of a creed; but due to the property of religious understanding and education, in every church society they are closely merged with dogma, they become for each society forms of religious worldview and mood, difficult to separate from content. However, if in a certain society they distort or deviate from the original norms of dogma, there is a means of correcting them. Such a means of checking and correcting, correcting the understanding of Christian truth for each local church society is the religious consciousness of the Universal Church, whose authority corrects local church deviations. But as soon as Orthodox Russia recognized itself as the sole owner of Christian truth, there was no such way of verification for it. Recognizing itself as the Ecumenical Church, Russian ecclesiastical society could not allow its beliefs and rituals to be tested by outsiders...
In their naive form, these were common people's views, however, they also captured the mass of ordinary clergy, white and black. In the ruling hierarchy, they were not expressed so rudely, but they were implicitly part of its ecclesiastical mood. In concelebration with a visiting Greek bishop, even a patriarch, vigilantly following his every movement, our “authorities” immediately pointed out to him with magnanimous indulgence the deviations he allowed in particular from the liturgical rite accepted in Moscow: “We don’t conduct that rite, ours the true Orthodox Christian Church has not accepted this rank.” This maintained in them the consciousness of their ritual superiority over the Greeks, and, pleased with this, they no longer thought about the temptation they produced among the worshipers, interrupting the sacred rites with ritual bickering.
There was nothing unusual in the attachment of Russians to the church rites in which they were brought up ... The organic vice of the ancient Russian church society was that it considered itself the only truly orthodox in the world, its understanding of the Deity was exceptionally correct, the Creator of the universe represented its own Russian God , belonging to no one else and unknown, put its local Church in the place of the universal. Self-satisfied with this opinion, it recognized its local church ritual as an inviolable shrine, and its religious understanding as the norm and corrective of theology” (V.O. Klyuchevsky, “Russian History”, excerpts from the chapter “Church Schism”).
REFERENCE:“Forty-five years after the Union of Florence, it was officially rejected in Constantinople... In 1484, Patriarch Simeon, in his third and most stable patriarchate, convened a council of the Patriarchal Church of Pammakaristos with the participation of representatives of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem... But since it was a council with the status of an Ecumenical after Florentine, his first act was to proclaim that the Council of Florence was not canonically correctly convened and held, and therefore its decisions were invalid ”(Stephen Runciman. The Great Church in Captivity. The History of the Greek Church from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821 - S-P, 2006 - P. 234).
Of course, such an arrogant understanding of the role of the Russian Church by Great Russian society - a kind of papism in the Russian way - developed in it not only because of the development of historical events in the world. There were a number of other reasons that served to strengthen the split that arose in the future. So, the small literacy of both the common people and the priesthood itself played a big role. The "Old Believer" ideologists especially do not like it when someone starts talking about the inertia and illiteracy of the medieval Great Russian society, they categorically reject even this very possibility. It makes no sense to cite statements on this subject by any well-known historians of the imperial era, they will be immediately slandered and ranked among the category of Tsar's hirelings. Therefore, it is better to turn to personalities, whom the "Old Believers" will not succeed in slandering with all their desire.
Here is what the well-known fighter against the heresy of the Judaizers St. Gennady of Novgorod († 1505) says about Great Russian ignorance. “Here,” he writes to the metropolitan, “they bring me a peasant to be ordained to the priesthood; I order them to give him the apostle to read, but he does not know how to step; I order them to give him a psalter, but he hardly wanders along that one. I refuse him, and complaints are made against me: “The land, sir, is like this; cannot get anyone who could read and write. So he cursed the whole earth, as if there was no person on earth who could be appointed to the priesthood! They hit me with their foreheads: "Perhaps, sir, they ordered me to teach." I order you to teach the litany, but he cannot even stick to the word; You tell him one thing and he another. I order them to learn the alphabet, but they, having learned the alphabet a little, ask to leave, they do not want to learn it. And I lack the spirit to put ignoramuses into priests. Ignorant peasants teach the children to read and write and only spoil: meanwhile, for the teaching of Vespers, bring the master porridge and a hryvnia of money, the same or more for Matins; especially for hours ... And he will leave the master, and he can’t do anything, he barely wanders through the book; but does not know the church order at all.
More than one Bishop Gennady sounded the alarm about the illiteracy that reigned in society. The first to raise the issue of books spoiled by scribes, a direct consequence of this illiteracy, was the holy Monk Nilus of Sora († 1508), who endured many sorrows and attacks for his position. However, the first who decided to start editing books were Metropolitan Varlaam and Saint Rev. Maximus the Greek († 1556).
“When Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich, wanting to sort out a collection of Greek manuscripts in his library and see some of them in translation, asked the authorities of the Athos monasteries to send him a learned Greek, Maxim was pointed out as the person most capable of fulfilling the desire of the Grand Duke. Maxim did not want to part with the silence of the Holy Mountain, but, obeying the will of the elders, in 1516 he went to Moscow. Here he was kindly received: he was instructed to live in the Chudov Monastery and receive the maintenance of the Grand Duke. The treasures of Greek learning delighted him; there were many works that were not translated into Slavonic. For the first time, he was assigned to translate the interpretation into the psalter. To help him, who was little familiar with the Slavic language, translators from Latin Dimitri Gerasimov and Vasily were given, and monks of the Sergius Lavra Siluan and Mikhail Medovartsev were given to write. A year and a half later, the translation of the sensible psalter was completely finished; Maximus was showered with favors and left for new labors. Then he was instructed to revise the liturgical books, and he set to work on this matter, as before, with the help of translators. The well-informed Maxim found many gross errors introduced by ignorant scribes into church books, and "ignited," as he says, "by divine zeal, he cleaned the tares with both hands." But a blind passion for antiquity took his comments about the mistakes of scribes as an insult to the shrine. At first the murmuring was secret. Metropolitan Varlaam, who was asked for permission for important changes, understood St. Maxim; the Grand Duke distinguished him with his love. And slander did not dare to openly rebel against the worker.
At the end of 1521, a new metropolitan, Daniel, ascended the chair of the primate, left by the truthful and judicious Barlaam. Blessed Maxim soon realized that he could no longer work for the truth with the former freedom and peace, and he turned to new objects of activity: he began to write against papism, Mohammedans and pagans. Metropolitan Daniel demanded that Maxim translate the church history of Theodoret. The prudent Maxim imagined that this essay, based on the letters of Arius and other heretics contained in it, could be dangerous “for simplicity” (and most likely he had a presentiment that this translation could later be used against him - approx. Authors). Daniel took this answer for unforgivable disobedience and remained in great annoyance. He not only did not bring Maxim closer to him, but, as can be seen from the consequences, he was very dissatisfied with him for the correction of books, which was carried out under Varlaam. The Grand Duke continued to be favorable to Maxim. Using this love, Maxim freely denounced the vices of the nobles, the clergy and the people. He wrote that it was indecent, unprofitable, and very dangerous for monks to own immovable estates. This greatly offended Daniel and those like him.
When Grand Duke Vasily set out to proceed with the annulment of his marriage, the Monk Maxim sent him an extensive work: “Instructive chapters for the rulers of the faithful,” which began with a conviction not to submit to carnal passions. The enraged sovereign ordered that the accuser be imprisoned in the dungeon of the Simonov monastery, weighing him down with chains.
From that time on, the rest of the life of Saint Maximus was a long and uninterrupted chain of suffering. At first they tried, but in vain, to convict the righteous man of imaginary complicity in the cause of the guilty boyars; then they showered him with accusations of spoiling books, insulting to the faith. The prisoner was seized from Simonovo, sent to the Volokolamsk dungeon, forbidding him not only to partake of the Holy Mysteries, but also to enter the church as an unrepentant heretic; here, from smoke and stench, from fetters and beatings, at times he came to death. There, Maxim wrote a canon to the Holy Spirit the Comforter with charcoal on the wall. Six years later (in 1531) they again demanded Maxim to the spiritual court in Moscow. This is because in Moscow the best people they began to speak for Maxim and against Daniel, and Maxim himself did not plead guilty to anything when they exhorted him to repent in the monastery. Maximus was left even after the trial under a church ban; but it was no small relief for him that they sent him to Tver under the supervision of the good-natured Bishop Akakiy, who received him graciously and treated him kindly. (“History of the Russian Church”, M. V. Tolstoy (1812-1896)).
As can be seen from the above, the first attempt to start editing spoiled books ended in complete failure and the victory of the "Old Believers". Moreover, it should be noted that the “Old Believers”, who accuse the Orthodox of cruelty, in fact turned out to be not great humanists themselves. It seems that if the best people of that time had not interceded for the Monk Maxim, then he would have been rotten in chains in the Volokolamsk dungeon.
However, spoiled books, although they were a huge evil for Russia in the 16th century, the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551 became a real tragedy for her.
The subjects of the deliberations of the Council were divided into one hundred chapters, and therefore the Council was called Stoglavy. The Council reasoned, denouncing disorder and disorder, about divine services and the charter of the church, about icons, about liturgical books ah, about prosphora, about deanery in churches, about the rite of performing the sacraments, about the sign of the cross, about the pronunciation of "alleluia", about the election of clergy, about the deanery of the black and white clergy, about the court of the church, or hierarch, about the maintenance of churches, about the correction of public mores and customs. Among other things, the issue of the unwillingness of the inhabitants of the city of Pskov to be baptized with two fingers and their persistence in the desire to be baptized with three was especially considered. Here is how L. N. Gumilyov writes about this in his work “From Russia to Russia”: “During the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, which forced the Pskovites, who used three-fingered, to return to two-fingered ...”. Gumilyov himself was a supporter of the "Old Believer" version, and therefore his expressions "return to two-fingeredness" are in line with his views. We need his quote to understand and confirm the fact that Russia in 1551 had not yet completely departed from the traditions and rituals of the Ecumenical Church, there were areas in which they were still preserved.
If you look at the geographical map of Russia in the 16th century, you can see that Pskov was located on the northwestern outskirts of the state. It is not clear why and how, according to the version of the "Old Believers", the custom of being baptized with three fingers flew into this remote corner of Russian land from the far south (from the Greeks and Bulgarians). After all, if the Greeks used to be baptized, as the “Old Believers” claim, with two fingers and only then switched to three-fingering, then Pskovians from all Russians in general should have been the last to know about the very existence of three-fingering. And they, it turns out, have long been baptized by it and did not want to refuse it.
The most plausible here is a completely different version. Apparently, at the moment of the greatest cooling between the Greeks and Russians (for sure, some time after the Union of Florence (1439), in which the Greek Church, although it did not stay for long, pretty ruined its reputation), views alien to Orthodoxy began to penetrate into Russia and rites. By 1551, having been saturated with them, the Great Russian society unilaterally, without consultation with other local churches, legally introduced them into use throughout Russia. Where did these innovations come from?
As the conciliar mind of the Church explains, a certain part of these innovations was born from the excessive conceit of some Great Russian would-be theologians, but others, for example, the custom of being baptized with two fingers, came to Russia from afar. At about the same time, when Orthodox Byzantium fell under the onslaught of the Agarians, the Turkish-Armenian wars began. Under the blows of the Turks, Great Armenia (a state that existed until the beginning of the 18th century) was first dismembered, and then finally conquered. Thousands of Armenian Monophysites fled from the Mohammedans, many of them settled in Russia. The Armenian Church arose in the second century after the birth of Christ, but in the fifth century it fell into the Monophysite heresy. It was the Monophysites who had the custom of being baptized with two fingers, it seems that it was from them that the old Russian society adopted this bad habit. Armenians, of course, first of all settled in the southern and central regions of our state. This explains that the remote northern lands of Russia (Pskov, and, probably, others) preserved the ancient Orthodox custom of being baptized with three fingers for the longest time. However, let us return to the acts of Stoglav.
Stoglav, as is known, introduced a number of innovations in the Great Russian Church, and without consultation with other local Orthodox churches. So, everyone was prescribed to be baptized not with three, but with two fingers; a norm was introduced into the service not to triple the “alleluia”, but to read it twice. The original acts of Stoglav were not preserved in the annals, so it is impossible to rely on any completely reliable texts. But the fact that this council has introduced a bad habit in Russia to take unauthorized corrections and novelties that are important, concerning the whole of Ecumenical Orthodoxy, is a deplorable and indisputable fact.
It cannot be said that Stoglav had only negative significance for the Russian Church. Many issues related to the life of Russian society, analyzed at it, were of a positive nature, but from the eschatological side, he created a very dangerous precedent - to change the rites and traditions established in the Ecumenical Church without consultation with other local churches.
However, for us there is one very important positive moment, which follows from the very fact of holding the Stoglavy Cathedral. None of the "Old Believer" ideologists can give an example of such a council, which would take place in other local Orthodox churches. Even the very topic of the transition to the two-fingered or the three-fingered was never closely discussed in any of the other local churches. While in Russian history the fact of the introduction of two-fingered is obvious. It turns out among the “Old Believers” that all other local Orthodox churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Bulgarian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Little Russian, etc.) somehow imperceptibly, secretly, without conciliar consideration, took and switched to triplets (and introduced new rites). At the same time, he meanly concealed his non-canonical step from the Great Russians. When you study the "Old Believer" arguments, this stretch is striking. They have everything somehow in common, and it is the Greeks who are to blame for everything. Somehow it is not clear how the Greeks took and switched to triplets, but when exactly and after which council is unknown. Moreover, there is a deliberate complete suppression of the fact that the Greek Church is far from being the only one in the Universal Church. If we assume that the Greeks hid their "innovations", then where, say, did the Moldovans get them from? The “Old Believers” assure that Stoglav only confirmed the legitimacy of the two-finger, but did not introduce it, however, for the 350-year period of the existence of their heresy, they cannot find a single historical example of holding such a council in any other local church. If our ancestors needed to confirm, because of some Pskovites, the legitimacy of two-fingeredness, then how did all the other Orthodox churches and peoples not say a word, moving from two-fingered to three-fingered. It is simply impossible to believe this.
Immediately after Stoglav, the era of book printing began in Muscovite Russia. And without that a difficult situation with the books into which Russia was brought by illiterate scribes, was aggravated by the fact that for a long time book printing was without proper centralized control by the Church and the State. So, the first Slavic church books were often printed anywhere and by anyone.
The first book in the Slavic language, Oktoih, was generally printed in Krakow by Schweipolt Fioll, a Catholic by religion, in 1491. Two years later, a book with the same title was published in Montenegro. The first Russian first printer (according to the researchers of this issue) was the Belarusian Francysk Skaryne. Educated at the University of Krakow and supplemented in Italy, he received a doctorate in medicine. Settling in Prague, and then moving to Vilna, he began his experiments in printing books with the publication of the Bible. It is believed that his student was the Belarusian Pyotr Mstislavtsev (according to another version, his last name was Mstislavets), a friend and assistant of Ivan Fedorov. Arriving at the invitation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in Moscow, Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavtsev, at their own peril and risk, set about printing their first book, The Apostle, which they began to print on April 19, 1563. There is evidence that some kind of printing house had already worked in Moscow before them: “There are several books that were published at that time, but called “no way out”, that is, without indicating the printing house, printers, year of issue ... The publications differed for the worse from the future books of the pioneer. The state was in no hurry to take these experienced workshops under its own hand. Whether Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets took part in them is unknown. (Sergey Narovchatov "Unusual Literary Studies", chapter "Printing in Russia", Moscow, 1973, ed. "Young Guard").
But even Ivan Fedorov failed to create a more or less solid centralized printing base in Moscow. After the release of The Apostle in 1564 (and according to other sources, two more books: The Clockworker and the Altar Gospel), his printing house was destroyed and burned, and he, along with Peter Mstislavtsev, had to flee from Moscow. Here is what Ivan Fedorov himself writes about this event: “We set up a printing press in Moscow, but often we began to be subjected to the most severe anger not from the tsar himself, but from many bosses, clergymen and teachers who, out of envy of us, suspecting us in various heresies, wishing to turn good into evil and completely destroy the cause of God, not because they were very learned and filled with spiritual intelligence, but in vain they uttered an evil word about us. This envy and hatred forced us to leave our land, clan and fatherland and flee to alien, unfamiliar sides.
It is unlikely that anything else could be expected from the Great Russian society of that time. Everything new in Russia was often perceived with caution, and in some cases openly hostile. However, it is impossible to recognize the complete correctness in the position of the first printer. Such an approach that the printing of church books could be carried out without control by the hierarchies and the Orthodox community is also deeply wrong. It was this position that eventually led to the fact that for a long time church books were published without proper supervision. The typing was carried out according to unverified and, for sure, not the best samples. The first printers did not recognize any authority over themselves except themselves, and this self-confidence led, in the end, to very deplorable results.
The expulsion of Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavtsev from Moscow gave rise to another unpleasant phenomenon. The offended first printers were the distributors of the first private printing houses. Having fled to the city of Zabludov (Lithuania) under the arm of Hetman Hryhoriy Khodkevich, they published the Teaching Gospel there. After that, Peter Mstislavets left for Vilna, where he set up a printing house for the Mamonich merchants, who soon after that expelled him, and turned the business he had set to their own advantage. Ivan Fedorov, having published another book, The Psalter, in Zabludovo, was forced to move to Lvov because of Khodkevich's refusal from the idea of printing, where he tried to start his own business, but went bankrupt. Then, at the invitation of Prince Konstantin of Ostrog, he moved to Volyn (located north of the Lviv region), where in the city of Ostrog he publishes, still very revered by the "Old Believers", the so-called. "Ostrog Bible" and "Psalms and the New Testament".
Printing in Moscow is continued by the students of Ivan Fedorov. By order of Ivan the Terrible, the burnt printing yard was rebuilt again, and Andronik Nevezha and Nikita Tarasiev, the successors of the first printers, resume work in it. Andronik Timofeyevich Nevezha from 1589 to 1602, also without much control from the Church, published ten editions. As historians admit, the figure was large for those times. Then his son Ivan continued printing. The size of the Russian Empire founded by Grand Duke Ivan Vasilievich III (Great) is growing, more and more books are needed. After 1615, there were already several machines at the Moscow Printing Yard, and the number of artisans increased. In 1629, printers were completely transferred to piece work, which caused a strong protest on their part, it is clear that with this approach, the quality of books left much to be desired.
All these data on the first experiences of first printing are given for a better understanding of the fact that the control and censorship of printed publications before His Holiness Patriarch Nikon was not properly established in Russia. Patriarchs Philaret and Joasaph I, although they tried to influence the course of book printing, did not have much success in this. Damaged books from various types of printing houses continued to flood Russia almost uncontrollably. The absence of a center for control and censorship of printed publications, the inattention of the Church and the State to this process led to the fact that all books of that time, without exception, both printed at the Moscow Printing Yard, and printed by anyone and anywhere, were accepted as normal and suitable for use. Instead of putting under strict control both their own and newly printed books coming from abroad, there was a clear frivolity.
So we see that the "Ostrog Bible", which is especially revered by the "Old Believers", was printed by Ivan Fedorov, who was expelled from Russia, in Catholic Poland. Moreover, the hierarchy of the “Old Orthodox Church”, so revered by the “Old Believers”, expelled him. Fedorov printed the "Bible" without any control on the part of the Great Russian hierarchy, and this fact does not worry the "Old Believers" in the least. They do not allow even a shadow of a doubt that it was printed with inaccuracies and from unverified samples. Thus, almost anathematized by the "Old Orthodox" hierarchs, Fedorov has no less authority for the "Old Believers" than these hierarchs themselves. Such an approach from the standpoint of sanity is completely incomprehensible. The persistence of the "Old Believers" in their downright unbridled veneration of all, without exception, old printed books causes deep amazement.
Facts and logic suggest that inaccuracies in the printing of books could well have taken place. To eliminate these inaccuracies, a competent and centralized approach and strict censorship on the part of the Church were needed. And thank God that in Russia there was a person who was not afraid to do this. Otherwise, we would still be praying for spoiled books of various types. Honor and praise to His Holiness Patriarch Nikon for his courage and zeal for Holy Orthodoxy.
But before Patriarch Nikon, another attempt was made to correct the books. Unfortunately, this attempt subsequently led to tragic results. It can be said with certainty that if it were not for her, for sure, there would be no schism in the Great Russian Church. Patriarch Joseph, the predecessor of Patriarch Nikon, ascended the primatial throne, already in advanced years. “Patriarch Joseph, due to old age and weakness, could not even maintain his own church authority: under him we see a strong domination of patriarchal clerks and Moscow archpriests, publishers of damaged liturgical books ... The patriarch decided to entrust the task of supervising the printing of books to persons who enjoyed his special confidence. According to Metropolitan Ignatius, they were: Archpriest Avvakum, John Neronov, Suzdal priest Lazarus, priest Nikita (later called Pustosvyaty), the royal confessor Archpriest Stefan Vonifatiev and some others. (“History of the Russian Church”, M. V. Tolstoy).
Mikhail Vladimirovich Tolstoy speaks very unflatteringly about these unfortunate rulers, calling them "ignorant ..., deluded ..., cunning ..., hypocritical, etc." people. But main conflict between Patriarch Nikon and the "Havvakumites" probably did not arise because of these, in general, natural for many people, character traits. When a person is not touched and they try to live in peace with him, then the person does not have the desire to show his worst qualities. But when a person sins in something, and this sin affects the interests of the whole society, then the ability of a particular person to behave either like a Christian or like a demon is manifested here.
Let us imagine what happened when all the works of the “Avvakumites” were rejected and new people were appointed by the church hierarchy to correct their mistakes. Initially, all of them, for sure, were offended by the patriarch and, probably, their thoughts were set up something like this: “Well, then we are bad rulers. Okay, let's see how your good guys handle this case. And we, rest assured, will not be silent, even if they don’t make a single mistake, we will still find something to complain about. ” As reality shows, the majority of Avvakumovites failed to suppress this resentment. For a while they hid, but when books corrected from errors began to appear, there was no end to their gloating and revenge on their part.
As we see main mistake Patriarch Nikon was that, for the badly done "Abvakumov" editing of books, they were not imprisoned or burned at the stake (which in the end had to be done anyway, only now it was too late), but left in their places and given the opportunity revenge and rebellion. However, it would be more correct to impute this mistake to their noble intercessors than to the most holy patriarch.
The “Old Believers” assure that the books corrected by the “Havvakumists” are no worse and even better than the books corrected under Patriarch Nikon. It is very difficult to believe this statement. It can be seen with the naked eye that His Holiness Patriarch Nikon spent much more effort and money on correcting books. He convened two Councils of the Greek-Russian Local Church, at which actions were coordinated for editing books; ancient books were brought to Moscow from Kyiv and Greece (including from Athos), according to which it was more correct to compare texts; a group of highly educated rulers for that time was created, who were provided with all the conditions for fruitful work. In addition, the rulers were strictly controlled by both the patriarch himself and the bishops responsible for this matter. And vice versa, the "Avvakumovites" had much less opportunities for detailed editing of books; their choice of old books was much smaller; the work was carried out in an artisanal way, without the involvement of competent translators; they were not controlled by anyone, which means they could be more subject to the predilections of their opinion. Facts are a stubborn thing, and they testify against the "Old Believer" version.
Figuratively speaking, it is rather difficult to believe that a person who is less educated and has fewer opportunities could do a better job than a person who is more literate and has more means to achieve the goal. You can, of course, persist and continue to assert that it was so. But will sane people believe in these arguments ?! Any illusory hypothesis, the more stupid it looks, the more evidence it requires. For 350 years of their insane perseverance, the "Old Believers" did not come up with anything, but they managed to deceive only illiterate or overly gullible people.
On July 25, 1652, His Holiness Patriarch Nikon ascended the Moscow primatial throne. It so happened that close to this date is the date of the unification of the Russian lands. The celebration of the reunification of Great Russia with Malaya took place on January 8, 1654. But this triumph brought along with it very significant problems. Thus, the Little Russian Church had rites identical to those of other local Orthodox churches. The Great Russian Church had very significant differences from the generally accepted ecumenical Orthodox tradition. These differences have created significant tensions. In addition, the Little Russian Metropolis was then subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. There was a threat that the Greek Patriarch, due to the difference in rites, could refuse to transfer this metropolis to the jurisdiction of Russia. The Great Russian state power and the power of the Church did not want to have two Orthodox churches in one state. An inter-Orthodox conflict was brewing, it was aggravated by the fact that there was news that monks appeared on the holy Mount Athos, who taught from Russian books that one should be baptized with two, not three fingers. “The news came from the holy Mount Athos that one of the Serbs, Hieromonk Damaskinos, appeared there, teaching openly that every Christian needs to be baptized with two, not three fingers. The fathers of the Athos monasteries, with the blessing of Patriarch Parthenius of Tsaregrad, sent to them in writing, compiled a Council, called to account Damaskinus himself and the Russian book (probably our “Studyed Psalter”) from him, and in it it is written taco, as if teaching that one, and burning that book in a conciliar manner; but those who create and teach are anathematized” (“History of the Russian Church”, M. V. Tolstoy).
In order to heal the problems that arose and the beginning of the confrontation, first in 1654, and then in 1655, the cathedrals of Russian archpastors were assembled by Patriarch Nikon. Patriarchs Macarius of Antioch and Gabriel of Serbia, Metropolitans Gregory of Nicaea (from the Greek Church) and Moldavian Gideon were invited to the Council of 1655.
In fact, the Russian hierarchs had only two choices: either to admit that the Great Russian Church had deviated from the Ecumenical ritual tradition and correct the accumulated errors, or to follow the path of the Roman Catholic Church, elevating their mistakes to the rank of truth, and proceed, like the papists, to forcing other local churches (and there was such a possibility) to recognize the correctness of the Great Russians. Neither the first nor the second way, for sure, were not particularly pleasant for our hierarchs, but the first one removed the barrier to unity, and the second one would lead to a new schism in the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. Fortunately, among the Russian hierarchs, only one (Bishop Pavel Kolomensky) adhered to the papist position, the rest, perhaps even breaking their pride, chose the path of unity with the Orthodox.
“The patriarchs and metropolitans recognized the need to correct the books, since the ancient Greek books, then revised, turned out to be dissimilar to the later Slavic ones. After reading the acts of the councils of Moscow and Constantinople in 1654, it was unanimously accepted by all to follow their decisions ... Patriarch Macarius declared that the two-fingered sign belongs to the Armenians and from ancient times it was customary to “create the sign of the honest cross with three fingers of the right hand.” He pronounced an excommunication against the two-fingered and signed his review with his own hand. The same voice was given by the Serbian Patriarch and both Eastern Metropolitans” (M. V. Tolstoy).
Thus, at the council of 1655, a conciliar decision was made, in fact, on a universal scale, on the unity of the ritual tradition for all local Orthodox churches. The disobedient were excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. The national pride of the Great Russians should be attributed to the fact that the Greek-Russian Local Church did not follow the path of papism, a new schism, like the one that occurred in 1054, did not occur. Of course, the greatest merit in this is the Sovereign of Russia Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov and His Holiness Patriarch Nikon. The unity of Ecumenical Orthodoxy was preserved, the Russian Church returned to the correct rites, did not fall into the heresy of papism - we must thank God for this mercy. But instead, the "Old Believers" raised a grumble and blasphemy against the best representatives of the Russian people.
In 1666-67. another council was held in Moscow, at which the topic of "Old Believers" was considered, but this council did not introduce anything new. It only confirmed the decisions of the councils of 1654 and 1655. This cathedral itself was perpetrated by noble boyars (which had been striving for power since the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible), with the aim of overthrowing His Holiness Patriarch Nikon. Patriarch Nikon, as the protector of the autocratic system, was the main obstacle to the nobility, eager to correct Russia, and therefore he was eliminated. In the 17th century, self-interested revolutionaries overthrew His Holiness Patriarch Nikon, in 1917 their descendants overthrew the Anointed One of God, Tsar Nicholas II - all these are links in one chain. The Council of 1666-67, due to its political intrigue, has no authority in the Orthodox world.
“Nikon demanded a sober life, exact execution of church canons, forced people to read teachings to the people in churches, which the priests most of all opposed because of their ignorance ...” (Viktor Karpenko “Patriarch Nikon”).
The main instigators of the split, as events showed, were the "Avvakumovites" offended by the fate.
It was they who were the fuse of the split that broke the Great Russian medieval society. People of different views and faith joined the organizers of the schism. Among them there were many illiterate, confused poor fellows, for whom two fingers and familiar books and rituals were very dear and even holy, but were in the ranks of schismatics and rebels with experience, who had long been waiting for only the moment to revolt. All these people drugged by "Avvakum" people were driven to extreme degrees of insanity. Those who, believing that the last times had come and Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich was the Antichrist, were burned along with their families, and sometimes entire settlements (with the blessing of no less crazy “elders”, who for some reason were in no hurry to be burned themselves). Who fled to remote, inaccessible and impassable places, leaving their usual work and settled villages. And who organized conspiracies against the Sovereign and the Church (the Solovetsky rebellion, the uprising of archers under Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna).
“In the forests near Vyazniki, a whole colony of “forest elders” was formed who preached suicide by starvation. Hundreds of fanatical stainers locked people in huts, but they themselves did not participate in hunger strikes. By 1665, fanatics began to call on the peasants to be burned” (V. Karpenko, “Patriarch Nikon”).
Unfortunately, the state authorities, with a great delay, began to liquidate the leaders of the schism. Avvakum, exiled in 1667 to Pustozersk, lived there for 14 years, preaching about his "faith" almost unhindered. During this time, he even managed to write his own "life" himself, a fact in history completely unheard of in its impudence and arrogance. Finally, the authorities, apparently remembering how the leaders of the Judaizing heretics were destroyed, did exactly the same with Avvakum and his three like-minded people. They were burnt in Pustozersk on April 1, 1681. Regarding this execution, the "Old Believers" came up with an incredibly touching story about how courageously Avvakum accepted death, how he supported his comrades and did not utter a single word during death throes. However, none of this actually happened, since Avvakum and his friends were burned in a log house, and there were simply no witnesses to how he behaved during the execution. One interesting case is connected with the execution of Avvakum.
The workers of one of the Ural fishing villages sent their delegates to Avvakum to ask whether the last times had come and whether they should be burned so as not to fall into the clutches of the Antichrist. Avvakum blessed them to be burned. But when the delegates informed the workers about this blessing, they asked them: “And when did Habakkuk bless to be burned”? The delegates replied that he did not say when. Then the settlers sent the same delegates back to Habakkuk so that they could specify a specific date. Arriving in Pustozersk, the delegates did not find Avvakum alive. Thus, the large settlement remained intact, hundreds of people did not commit suicide, thanks to the destruction of one Habakkuk. How many troubles could have been avoided if he had been executed at least a few years earlier, and similar strict measures would have been applied to other organizers of the split in a timely manner.
However, although Avvakum and some of the instigators of the schism were executed, the authorities still did not dare to take strict measures against most of the schismatics. In about half of the Moscow churches, the schismatics felt at home and preached without hindrance, while in the other half they were received sympathetically. The government was fluctuating. This indecision, as one would expect, led to tragedy.
On April 27, 1682, the Sovereign Feodor Alekseevich (the eldest son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich) died childless. arose controversial situation with the legacy of the throne. Patriarch Joachim proclaimed the ten-year-old Tsarevich Peter Tsar, under the supervision of his mother Natalia (nee Naryshkina) and the boyar Matveev. However, the archers also demanded rights for the older, sickly Tsarevich John and his sister, Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna (Tsarevich Peter was their half-brother). As a result, a bloody feud broke out. The side of Tsarevich John and Princess Sophia was defended by the Miloslavskys related to them, and the schismatics, led by Prince Khovansky, also supported it. The schismatics understood that if the royal environment changed, then they would have the opportunity to reverse the entire ecclesiastical position of the state. The forces were too unequal, during the three-day confrontation, Matveev, the Naryshkins and all the former supports of the reign of tsars Alexei Mikhailovich and Feodor Alekseevich became victims of the rebellion, the patriarch himself almost died. As a result, both princes ascended the throne under the regency of Princess Sofya Alekseevna.
Having changed state power through murder, the schismatics realized that the moment had come for a change in state church policy. However, not relying on their arguments, they decided to resort to forceful pressure. The schismatics prepared the archers of the Titov regiment to "stand up for the old faith." Here is how Count Mikhail Vladimirovich Tolstoy describes the unfolding events:
“Never has a split, apparently, had a better time to carry out the most reckless designs. The head of the archers was Prince Khovansky, a secret supporter of the schism ... They wanted to give themselves more than complete freedom: they wanted to get all power into their own hands and avenge both the Solovetsky siege and the execution of Avvakum and his accomplices. Khovansky gave them Nikita Pustosvyat, who had already been convicted several times for schism, as their leader. The Solovki fugitive Savvaty and others like Nikita were purposely summoned to Moscow... Nikita and other vagabonds went among the people, calling for the defense of the old piety. The elected Titov regiment went with the same to the archery regiments. The excitement became general, although most of the archers did not agree to sign under the petition, compiled by the tramp monk Sergius.
At the insistence of Khovansky, a day was appointed for listening to the petition - July 5, 1682. On this day, crowds of schismatics burst into the Kremlin with noise. Carrying lecterns, images, lit candles in front of them, and stones in their bosoms, they approached the Archangel Cathedral and settled down on the square. Sergius went up to the bench and read aloud the Solovki petition. The people excited by the fanatics were terribly worried. The primate with the cathedral of saints prayed for the pacification of the rebellion. From the temple he sent the archpriest with a printed exhortation to the people and with a denunciation of perjurer Nikita. The schismatics nearly killed the messenger. Prince Khovansky more than once sent to demand that the patriarch come to the square; with the same demand he appeared in the palace, where the patriarch was invited by Sophia. Sophia and the patriarch saw the intentions of the conspirators; Yes, and a terrible experience was so recently. Sophia, Tsarina Natalia, the two princesses announced that they would not leave the church and its pastors without protection. Khovansky was told that the meeting would be in the Palace of the Facets in the presence of royalty; the petition will also be heard there.
For a long time the conspirators did not want to part with the square, but the Cathedral was opened in the chamber. Near the ruler, queen and princesses sat with the Patriarch 7 metropolitans, 5 archbishops, 2 bishops, between them St. Mitrofan. Several archimandrites and presbyters, boyars and elected troops stood. The schismatics, at a sign from Khovansky, entered the ward noisily, carrying icons, lecterns, and candles. They filed a petition. Sophia ordered to read it.
“They beat with their foreheads,” this is how the petition began, “the priestly and monastic rank and all Orthodox Christians, oprichnina those who follow Nikon’s books, but the old ones blaspheme.” The patriarch remarked: “We do not blaspheme the old books, on the contrary, later spoiled books are corrected according to them and Greek; you, the judges of the old and the new faith, have not yet touched grammar, but you take it upon yourself to judge the faith that belongs to the shepherds. The insolent Nikita, despite the fact that he was forbidden to speak, said rudely: “We have not come to talk about grammar with you, but about church dogmas,” and continued to make noise in the same tone. Archbishop Athanasius of Kholmogory, himself formerly in schism, noticed Nikita's insolence and rudeness. The drunken defrocked in a fit of rage rushed at the archpastor, wanted to beat him, and was barely restrained by one of the elected. Further in the petition they wrote: “The kings are exhausted, the bishops are fallen; we ask that the great sovereigns seek the piety of their old great-grandfather and grandfather.” The doubt expressed in these words about the Orthodoxy of Tsars Alexei and Theodore especially irritated the ardent Sophia: she jumped up and threatened that the entire royal family would then leave Moscow. The archers were afraid of this threat, because if the royal family left Moscow, all the troops and all the land would rise on them; they hurried to calm the angry ruler. The patriarch took in one hand the Gospel of St. Alexis, in the other - the conciliar establishment of the patriarchate. He showed the first as evidence of stubbornness, unwilling to change a single letter in the old. In the latter, I read the Creed, where it was written without adding the word about the Holy Spirit “and the true one,” while this revision was printed under Patriarchs Filaret and Joseph. In relation to the image of the holy cross, he pointed to the vessels of St. Anthony the Roman. Several other indications were made in ancient books on the main points of the dispute.
Feeling that they had done nothing for themselves, the ignoramuses raised a frantic cry: “That's it, that's it!” they shouted, raising the two-fingered sign. The rebels are told that the decision will be announced to them. The royalty retired; they were followed by the Patriarch and others.
The ignoramuses were returning from the Kremlin shouting: “We won!”. On the frontal place they once again placed a lectern and shouted: "Believe in our way, we have argued all the bishops." The bells rang for the Yauza."
In fact, the events of July 5 showed that it would not be possible to negotiate with the rebels, further delay could lead to unforeseen events. If the schismatics felt that the power was trembling, then new bloody events would not have to wait long. It became clear that the one who would act bolder and more decisively would emerge victorious from the confrontation. And here we must pay tribute to the courage and determination of Tsarevna Sofya Alekseevna, she did not hesitate for a minute. Already on the morning of July 6, the defrocked Nikita Pustosvyat, who was handed over by the Streltsy’s elected representatives, had his head cut off at the frontal place. The rest of his henchmen were either arrested or fled.
“After such an obvious and such a violent rebellion in the very chambers of the tsar, the government was forced to resort to the most severe, according to the spirit of the times, measures to pacify the schismatics; split was completely forbidden in the state; those who rebaptize those who have been corrupted are to be put to death, even if they repent; for harboring schismatics, beat the guilty with a whip and impose a fine on them. (M. Tolstoy).
The events of the Streltsy rebellion of 1682 are considered in detail above in order to make it clear that the government took strict measures against the schismatics for a reason. The ideologists of the "Old Believers", tearfully groaning, reproach the tsarist government for unjustified cruelty towards the schismatics. Meanwhile, it is clearly seen that before the Streltsy rebellion, the attitude towards the split was, unfortunately, unjustifiably tolerant. The schismatics preached without hindrance in Moscow and other cities, sympathy was expressed to them, they repeatedly said goodbye and were released from arrest. And the only cause of their troubles was themselves, or rather the rebellion they had arranged. The relatively short period of persecution of schismatics under Princess Sofya Alekseevna and at the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great was, of course, full of cruel treatment of them (such were the customs of that time, not only in Russia, but throughout the world, humanism was not yet in fashion), however, their treatment is well deserved. But this period was quite short in time and, having approximately punished the rebels, the Tsarist government, alas, again returned to the practice of tolerance towards them. Already in 1706, Tsar Peter the Great appointed hegumen of the Pereyaslavl Nikolsky Monastery Pitirim responsible for the return of schismatics to the bosom of the Church. Accordingly, automatically, due to the start of this work, there was a softening of the government's position towards them. The schismatics were allowed to pray according to their custom, but for this right they had to help the state in its great financial need, they had to pay a double monetary tax.
In general, the attitude of the Orthodox to the schism of both the hierarchy and the common people from the very beginning surprises with its condescension. In addition, the "Old Believer" teaching only at first corresponded to the parameters of the schism. Over time, it degenerated into a real malicious heresy.
“Meanwhile, the schism, having rejected ecclesiastical authority and left to its own devices, broke up into many interpretations. First of all, as a result of the rejection of the Orthodox hierarchy, a difficult question arose among the schismatics: where to get priests from? Some began to take them from the Church, luring drunken and impoverished priests to their place and in various ways purifying the grace of ordination from "Nikon's filth" in them. Others suggested that it was possible to do without the priesthood, leaving all the corrections to the elected laity. Thus, two main sects arose in the schism - clergy and non-priests, which in turn broke up into many great sects, separated from each other by ritual differences or the degree of their negative attitude towards the Church and the state. Unbridled denial often assumes in them the character of not a schism, but pure heresy. The heretical nature of the schismatic denial was mainly expressed in the rejection of the Orthodox hierarchy, the rejection of the Sacraments of the Eucharist, the Priesthood and Marriage, or in a false idea of the power and methods of performing these and other Sacraments, in mixing them with rites, distributing, for example, instead of the Eucharist, Easter bread (artos) and epiphany water. The extreme degree of denial was expressed in “netism”, which completely rejected all the Sacraments and rituals and, desperately lowering its hands, left everything to God: “Let him save as he knows” (M. Tolstoy).
The division of schismatics into heretics of "priests" and "non-priests" noted by Count Mikhail Vladimirovich above must be supplemented with another important element. Among the "Old Believers" another, third, group stood out, which adhered not to heretical, but to pure schismatic teaching. Representatives of this group, at least in words, did not deny the grace of the Orthodox hierarchy of the Greek-Russian Local Church, they recognized both Orthodox and "Old Believer" rites as equally graceful. However, due to the fact that they were used to praying in their own way, they asked the hierarchs of the Church to allow them to pray in their temples according to their usual books and rituals. They also asked the hierarchs of the Greek-Russian Church to appoint priests from the "Old Believer" environment, and pledged that these priests would offer up prayers for the Sovereigns and Orthodox hierarchs. Over time, these requests became more insistent and insistent.
Finally, in 1800, Metropolitans Gabriel of St. Petersburg and Platon of Moscow, with the assistance of hieromonks Nikodim, Joasaph and Sergius, embarked on, as they would say today, a rather risky experiment. They formed a "university".
Metropolitans Gabriel and Platon themselves saw in the new institution created a kind of intermediate step, with the help of which the "Old Believers" could reconcile themselves with Orthodoxy and return to the correct religion. "Fellow-believers" were strictly forbidden to receive the Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, to attend Orthodox services, and in general to have any prayer contacts with the Orthodox. The Russian primal hierarchs hoped that “one faith” would melt the “Old Believer” pride and push the schismatics to realize their fall into sin.
From a canonical point of view, this experiment looked rather controversial, if not even more harsh. On the one hand, discrepancies in the ritual part, which do not entail dogmatic violations, could well suggest any options for healing the disease. But be that as it may, in Orthodoxy there are generally accepted rules in relation to schismatics, and it is not permissible for anyone to violate these rules. What would we say if Greeks, Romanians or other Orthodox started to create some intermediate churches and institutions in their countries? In any case, this issue should have been at least brought up for discussion by the entire Ecumenical Church and considered conciliarly. But for some reason everything was done spontaneously and, as a result, nothing outstanding came of it. A tool that effectively destroys the "Old Believers" did not come out of the "Edinoverie".
Having existed until 1918, the “fellow believers” received from the hands of Patriarch Tikhon the long-awaited “bishops” (he ordained as many as 33 of them!) And calmly separated from the Tikhon Patriarchate, actually returning to the “Old Believers”. These bishops created several Edinoverie-Old Believer catacomb churches, which, like other church structures not under the jurisdiction of the Soviet regime, were ruthlessly destroyed by the Bolsheviks starting from the 1920s. But some remnants of them survived.
Today, there are several more parishes of the same faith under the Moscow Patriarchate, but since this organization from the very beginning of its formation has nothing in common with the Church of Christ, it turns out that these parishes differ little from their “mother”. In connection with the forthcoming unification of the Patriarchate with the "Old Believers" and other dear "sisters", apparently, they will dissolve into the emerging ecumenical brotherhood of all religions.
However, positive points as a result of the creation of "one faith" also took place. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was a clear division of the "Old Believers" into schismatics and heretics. The schismatics went over to the "one faith", and the heretics set off on their own separate voyage. The Greek-Russian Local Church has managed, albeit partially, to overcome the schism. The schismatics were given the opportunity, though not completely, to make an attempt to join Orthodoxy. The schismatics, everyone who wanted to, embarked on the path of reunification with Orthodoxy. The schism died, passing into another, more peaceful, phase. The remaining irreconcilable "Old Believers" created two heresies, although similar in spirit, but differing in teaching - "papist-priestly" and "Protestant-priestless".
Already at the beginning of the 18th century, many of the "Old Believers" formed rumors and agreements, which at first had the name "beglopopovtsy". Such rumors included: “Afinogenovtsy”, “vodyaniks” (or “Staropopovtsy”), “Vetka consent”, “Dyakonov consent”, “Epiphanius consent”, “Luzhkovites” and many others. Their teachings differed from each other mainly because of the different ways of accepting fugitive priests from the Greek-Russian Church into their midst. However, realizing that there can be no Church without a hierarchy, the “priests” constantly tried to lure some Orthodox bishop to them in order to restore their “Old Orthodox” hierarchy. They even tried to persuade Patriarch Paisius II of Constantinople, in 1730 they tried to convince him to ordain a bishop from among them. However, nothing has been achieved.
However, in the forties of the 19th century, the “Old Believers”, who, having fled from Russia, settled in the Austrian village of Belaya Krinitsa, managed to get permission from the Austrian government to establish an episcopal department in Belaya Krinitsa. The same West, which the “Old Believers” “hate” so much, gave them the green light to fight against Ecumenical Orthodoxy. An intensified search for the traitor bishop began. He was unexpectedly soon found in the ranks of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it was Metropolitan Ambrose, who was taken out of state and banned from serving. This apostate in 1847 ordained several "bishops" for the "Old Believers". We will not describe here either this person himself or the reasons that prompted him to become a traitor (anyone who wishes can familiarize himself with the materials about him on his own). From a canonical point of view, his actions still made no sense. No matter how many bishops you ordain in heresy, they will not become bishops because of this.
As fallen into the "Old Believer" heresy, Metropolitan. Ambrose, of course, automatically, according to the rules of the Orthodox Ecumenical Church, fell under the anathema of the Councils of 1654-55. The “hierarchy” established by him did not receive any canonical succession, and the “bishops” of the Belokrinitsky or Austrian sect that arose in 1847 (as they are commonly called) remained as they were laymen. St. Theophan the Recluse describes this moment very well.
“Some of them (“Old Believers” - author’s note) say: “Now we have found the priesthood, or have brought the root of the priesthood.” They brought a root, but rotten - barren. Judge for yourself. Ambrose, whom they lured to them, was bound by prohibition - bound by legal authority. The Lord promised this lawful authority: if you bind on earth, they will be bound in heaven (Matt. 18:18). Therefore, Ambrose, too, was bound in Heaven. If he is bound in Heaven, then how could he, bound in Heaven, communicate Heavenly grace? Where did he get her?! He could not tell her and did not tell; and all who were ordained by him, as they were laymen, have remained laymen, even though they are called priests and bishops. These are the same names, as when children, while playing, give themselves different titles - colonels, generals, commanders in chief.
“Let them,” they say, “was forbidden. The elders allowed him." Wonderful business! Ordinary laymen permit the bishop and return to him the power to episcopate. Don't you know that only the one who has the power to ordain can authorize. Their old men did not even have a deacon's consecration, how could they return episcopal power to a bishop, when this is the same as ordaining? They did not return - and Ambrose remained banned, despite the rituals that were ridiculous over him. If it is forbidden, then grace in it is stopped; if it is stopped, then it could not be poured out on others. When, for example, water flows through a trough, it overflows from it into other troughs and vessels; and when the gutter is closed, the water will not flow through it and will not overflow onto other places and things. So Ambrose, until he was forbidden, was like a trough overflowing water; and when he fell under the ban, he became like a dry, closed trough, and could no longer impart to others the blessed water, which he himself did not have. Thus, some of the schismatics deceive themselves and others in vain, thinking that they have obtained the priesthood. Names were brought, but there is no case. (From the book "The Word of Faith", June 16, 1864. Sermon in the city of Sudogda, in the cathedral).
However, most of the "priests" considered the job done. With the formation of the Austrian sect, crowds of them poured into it, and in a short time it became the most numerous among all their sects and consents. Approximately 2/3 of all "priests" joined it.
Basic hallmark The teachings of the “Austrians”, as one would expect, became the papist assertion already mentioned above that it is their “Austrian, or Belokrinitskaya, hierarchy” that is the “Old Orthodox” “hierarchy”, which forms from itself, together with its children, a single Holy Cathedral and the Apostolic Church.
Here are some excerpts from the “Austrian” rite of denial, which they use when baptizing those who come to them from Orthodoxy:
“Az, name, from the Nikonian heresy with all my soul I proceed to the true Orthodox faith, the one, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ... Nikon, the Moscow Patriarch, who outraged the ancient ecumenical Orthodoxy of the Holy Church, and who became the culprit of many strife and schisms, and all the supporters him, who reject the Apostolic and patristic traditions contained by the ancient Orthodox universal Church, may they be damned” (an excerpt from the book “Reception of those who come from heresies and the rites of holy baptism”, released with the blessing of the head of the “Austrian persuasion”, “metropolitan” Alimpiy. - Translation from Church Slavonic into Russian authors).
As can be seen from the above text, the "Austrians" indeed, without a shadow of hesitation, consider their own kind to be the Ecumenical Orthodox Church. That is, like the Roman Catholics, they recognize themselves as the successors of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the only champions of the truth. And this despite the fact that it was they who rejected and continue to reject the Ecumenical Orthodox Church and with none of the many local Orthodox churches have been able to establish not only Eucharistic, but simply any relations in the 160 years of their existence.
In the above paragraph, the papism of the "Austrians" is expressed quite clearly and concretely. And although they mention the rest of the local churches rather vaguely, with the phrase “and all his companions,” it is clear that these Churches, in their opinion, also fell away from the “Universal Church,” that is, from them. In fact, while cursing the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church in the person of His Holiness Patriarch Nikon, they confess the papist heresy of rejection from Ecumenical Orthodoxy.
This impudent statement that our Lord Jesus Christ blessed and was baptized with two fingers, as if the "Austrians" saw it with their own eyes, very colorfully characterizes their deceit. By the way, the amazing “awareness” of the “Old Believers” in this matter is simply amazing. And Basil the Great was baptized, it turns out, with two fingers, and John Chrysostom, and Sergius of Radonezh, and many other saints too. True, the "Old Believers" apparently forget to indicate the source of their knowledge.
It should be noted that, as follows from the text, all Orthodox are cursed, including, of course, the sovereigns of Russia - the Anointed of God. After all, they, too, were baptized with three fingers. There is also a royal heresy.
In general, it was the "Old Believers" who were the active initiators of the tsarist heresy in Russia. Many of their rumors ceased to commemorate the Anointed of God as early as the 17th century, moreover, they began to incite the people against the Sovereigns. An interesting fact is that the only community in Moscow that welcomed Napoleon in 1812 with bread and salt was the community of "Old Believers". The overthrow of the Monarchy in 1917 was also very actively financed by the rich "Old Believers".
In addition to the "Austrian persuasion" in the 20th century, in 1923, with the consent of the Bolsheviks, another so-called "Novozybkov persuasion" was created by the Renovationist hierarchy for the "priests of the Old Believers". It included a part of the "Old Believers", who, for one reason or another, were not satisfied with the Belokrinitskaya "hierarchy". The Novozybkovites call their head the Archbishop of Novozybkovsky, Moscow and All Russia. However, it is clear that the heretical Renovationist hierarchy could not convey any grace to this "archbishop" and his entire "hierarchy", since the Renovationist Church itself was an unauthorized pseudo-church organization.
The name "Novozybkovsky" this sense received from the city of Novozybkov (Bryansk region), in which their "archbishop" is located. The teachings of the Novozybkovites are not much different from the teachings of the Austrians, so it makes no sense to analyze it separately.
It is known that in addition to these two major clerical sects - Austrian and Novozybkovsky - the "hierarchs" of the ROCOR after the Second World War also consecrated a "bishop" for the "Old Believers" living abroad. His fate is currently unknown to us. But since ROCOR, like the Renovationists, is an unauthorized organization that arose in 1922, it is clear that this consecration was also illegal and non-canonical.
Perhaps some other pre-revolutionary priestly rumors have survived.
As can be seen from the above, at least two or three priestly rumors are known today, although there may be more.
The other part of the “Old Believers”, believing that the entire church hierarchy, having ceased to be baptized with two fingers, fell into heresy and apostasy, not recognizing later both the “Austrians” and the “Novozybkovites”, formed from themselves many interpretations, which received the common name “bezpopovtsy”.
These heretics include: “Aaron's consent, or Anufrievism”, “Akulinovism”, “Aristovtsy”, “grandmothers, or self-baptists”, “stranglers”, “holes”, “lyubushkin consent”, “non-molyakov sect”, “newlyweds”, “Novospasovo consent, or netovtsy”, “onesimovism, or consent of the razin”, “osipovshchina”, “pomorsky sense, or Danilovtsy”, “ryabinovshchina”, “sredniki”, “stefanovshchina”, “wanderers, or runners, otherwise underground”, "Titlovshchina", "troparshchiki", "Philippovites", "Christianity", etc.
The teachings of these priestless sects, similar in their basic “Old Believer” approaches (two-fingered, ritual elements, etc.), differed from each other in various outlandish inventions. So, for example, the "holes", rejecting all kinds of icons, both old and new, taught that one should pray to the east. And since in winter time and at night it is not very convenient to go out into the street to pray, and they considered it a sin to pray to the east through the wall and through the windows, they usually made a hole on the eastern wall and, when necessary, sticking a plug out of the hole, prayed through it. The "stranglers" taught that every Christian should be martyred and at the end of his life give himself into the hands of a strangler. “Akulinovshchina” is an agreement founded by Baba Akulina, in which men and women, upon entering it, exchange crosses and kiss icons, priests and monks cut their hair, and then everyone, indiscriminately and shamefully, lives fornication. "Christianity" - an agreement in which a simple man represented the face of Christ and accepted worship, and 12 other men presented themselves as 12 apostles. (Information about the non-priestly rumors is taken from S. Bulgakov's book "Handbook of a clergyman").
From the very beginning of the split, all these rumors were filled with people who had a natural predisposition to anarchy and selfishness. So, for example, the "life" of the "old man" Kapiton, who, for sure, nailed to the bezpopovtsy, is very indicative.
This "ascetic", long before Patriarch Nikon, from 1639 ran away from the "Old Orthodox" hierarchy so beloved by the "Old Believers", did disobedience and persuaded the monks to such actions. It is not surprising that he joined the schism, for spiritually he had been in it for so long (for more details, see the article “They Suffered for the Faith”, published in the journal “First and Last”, No. 5, May 2007).
Many Russian theologians noted that the teachings of the “bezpopovtsy” are similar in some elements to the teachings of various Western Protestant sects. Indeed, having rejected the priesthood, the “priestless” rumors involuntarily took on the same forms as the “priestless” Western ones. Thus, out of the seven sacraments professed by the Orthodox Church, the “priestless”, like most Protestants, have one sacrament of baptism left, and even then in a truncated form due to the lack of priests. The sacrament of marriage among them is not performed in all consents, and it is clear that without the priesthood and the sacrament, it cannot really be called. For example, we can compare two sects that are extreme in terms of views: “netovtsy” among “priestless” and “adventists” (adventus - advent) among Protestants.
"Netovtsy" are divided into several accords: "Netovtsy" - "deaf", "singing", "Novospasov" and "deniers". "Adventists" are also divided into several communities: "Society of Life and the Second Coming", "Evangelical Adventists", "Adventists of the Coming Age", "Seventh Day Adventists", etc.
"Netovites of Novospasov consent" deny the baptism of children, replacing it with putting on a newborn cross. "Adventists" also deny the baptism of children. Both those and others recognize baptism only by immersion and only in adulthood.
“Netovites” teach: “Now there is no Orthodox priesthood in the world, no sacraments, no grace, there are no means of salvation, for the Antichrist destroyed all the sacraments,” they also say: “as there is no shrine on earth now, then those who want to keep the old faith remain only to resort to the Savior, Who Himself knows how to save us poor.” They do not have confessions, Vespers and Matins either, but only the psalter with prayers and canons is read and bows are made along the ladder (“Old Believer” rosaries). "Adventists" reject church rituals, veneration of the cross, icons and relics. Their religious gatherings consist of reading books of the Holy Scriptures, sermons, impromptu prayers and the singing of Baptist ("Adventists" - people from "Baptism") hymns and psalms. They believe that all the prophecies have already come true, and the Second Coming of Christ should be expected soon.
"Netovtsy" recognize only the sacrament of baptism, and "netovtsy-deniers" still take a blessing for marriage from their parents. "Adventists", in addition to the sacrament of baptism, also perform the breaking of bread, preceded by the washing of the feet.
As can be seen from these far from complete comparative features of “netism” and “Adventism”, there are a lot of similarities between them. But the main similarity is the rejection of the dogmas of the Church of Christ.
After the seventy-year rule of the Bolsheviks, a significant part of the "priestless" sects ceased to exist. It is difficult to say which of them survived and which did not. However, recently, due to the apostasy events taking place in the world, new "priestless" rumors began to appear, which were not previously known.
Thus, many believers who are departing from the apostate Moscow Patriarchate, being subjected to the indoctrination of the "Old Believers", begin to believe that the apostasy began in the 17th century. As a rule, such a distorted assessment of information leads them to false conclusions. They begin to assume that the true priesthood has been gone for a long time, that you need to save yourself without the Church, that you need to be baptized with two fingers, and that the modern "Old Believer" has long betrayed the "true old" faith and that the real "Old Believer" must be revived anew. In many ways, this still emerging sense of views is similar to the "netovites", who also argued that there is no priesthood, there is no Church, and now it is possible to be saved without Her. But the “new Netovites” also have their own characteristics, although the main ideology of the “Old Believers” is fully accepted by them.
It cannot be said that the “new netovites” are completely wrong and there is no rational grain in their judgments. Of course, there is a retreat in society, it did not begin today, and it is simply not reasonable to deny this. But the main mistake of the "Old Believers", both "new" and "old", is that in their judgments they use not all, but only part of the available information. This bias led them to false starts in the 17th century and to misguided actions in modern times.
The “Old Believers” perceived what happened in the 17th century as an apostasy, as a sign of the last times, as a retreat from Christ. But are the signs of the fall of the Church and the world such as the schismatics paint them?
The signs of apostasy and the end of the world are very fully revealed to us by the Apostle Paul in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians: nor from a message, as if sent by us, that the day of Christ is already coming. Let no one deceive you in any way: for that day will not come until the apostasy comes first and the man of sin, the son of perdition, is revealed... And now you know what does not allow him to be revealed in due time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work, but it will not be accomplished until the one who now restrains is taken out of the midst” (2 Thess. 2:1-3, 6-7).
As can be seen from the words of the Apostle Paul, the mystery of iniquity and signs of apostasy have existed in the Church since apostolic times, but the main obstacle to their spread was the “Restrainer”. As the holy fathers of the Church explain, the “Restrainer” is the Emperor, the Anointed of God, the Head of the Roman state, together with this state itself, He is an obstacle to the coming of apostasy and the Antichrist. This is the main fact that the "Old Believers" did not accept, and to this day they do not want to recognize it.
Because of the simple normalization of the church rite, their minds were so shaken, they fell under the seduction of false teachers, that they took canonically correct actions within the Church of Christ for apostasy and caused a terrible schism. By cursing and declaring “Antichrist” the Anointed One of God who restrains the retreat, they thereby voluntarily went over to the side of the satanic forces.
Of course, the good thing is the one who closely follows the spirit of the times, who tries not to fall under the influence of teachings alien to Orthodoxy. But in this important matter, great attentiveness is needed, the fear of God is needed, so that, due to a mistake or an incorrect wavering of the mind, one does not fall into the opposite state. This sobriety of thought, prudence was not then found among our imaginary "Old Believers", they cannot find them to this day.
As can be seen from the foregoing, all the "Old Believers" is a collection of numerous priestly and non-priest sects. The canonical, dogmatic, moral divisions between these sects are very, very great. The only thing that united them at all times was their fanatical opposition to everything connected with the name of Sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich and His Holiness Patriarch Nikon. In all other respects, they have - who is what much.
Is salvation possible in such a motley "Old Believers"? The answer is obvious. Where the age-old laws of Christ's Church are violated, where they do not even want to hear about the recognition of their mistakes, where rebels and madmen are introduced into the saints, where blasphemy, lies and immorality reign - salvation is impossible.
Therefore, we want to warn all compatriots who are now, despite the vigorous activity of the outstanding "elders", "elders" and "faithful masters", are still beginning to see clearly, we want to warn about this devilish pot - "Old Believers".
The "Old Believers" pay special attention to St. Seraphim of Sarov. They do not understand where such a lamp of piety could come from among the Orthodox. Realizing that they will not be able to get around this topic - the authority of the saint is great and indisputable - they indulge in various philosophies. They have two versions prevailing here.
According to the first one, the Reverend was a secret "Old Believer". They assure that "Rev. Seraphim was persecuted all his life by his superiors “for the poorly concealed Old Believers”, that the robbers who almost killed him were hired by the hegumen, that he died not in voluntary seclusion, but in prison” (Bulletin of the co-religious “Old Believer” St. Andrew’s Catacomb Church “Russian Orthodoxy ", 2000, No. 4 (21)). “From the hitherto unknown “papers of Motovilov” kept by Seraphim (Zvezdinsky), it followed that the image of St. Seraphim of Sarov was falsified, ”they assure. True, they again forget about the main thing: the “unknown papers of Motovilov” they “found” are not quoted or shown anywhere, which means they are simply invented by them. We are invited to believe them, the "Old Believers", who are famous for their abilities in inventing all sorts of false versions and theories, at their word. But if you believe all their nonsense, then soon all Orthodox saints will become secret "Old Believers."
Understanding all the insanity and stupidity of this version, the other part of the "Old Believers" is repelled from the other extreme. They claim that Father Seraphim was delusional. “Which normal person can stand on a rock for a thousand nights in a row? It is clear that it could not have done without demonic charm, ”they assure. And although this version is as crazy as the first one, it must be admitted that it is at least consistent. If you reject the "damned" Nikonians, then to the end.
To show all the inconsistency of both the first and second madmen, we will quote the words of the denunciation of the “Old Believers” of Father Seraphim himself:
“Once four Old Believers came to him to ask about a two-fingered sign, with a certificate of some kind of sign. And before they had time to cross the threshold of the cell, as Fr. Seraphim, seeing through their thoughts, took the first of them by the hand, folded his fingers in the Orthodox way and, baptizing him, said this: “Here is the Christian laying of the cross! So pray and tell others. This constitution was betrayed by the holy apostles, and the two-fingered constitution is contrary to the holy statutes.
And then he spoke with force: “I ask and I beg you: go to the Greek-Russian church. She is in all the power and glory of God! Like a ship with many rigging, sails and a great helm, it is controlled by the Holy Spirit ... (The quote is from the Chronicle of the Seraphim-Diveevo Monastery).
Pointing out that the trinity comes from the holy apostles, we Orthodox, unlike the schismatics, also cite specific facts. Before the revolution, anyone could see with their own eyes and venerate the right hand of the holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, whose fingers are folded three-fingered. This fact is confirmed by many people and is indicated in the following psalter from the time of Emperor Alexander II. Before the revolution, the hand of the Apostle was kept in the Church of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos in Moscow. Where she is now, unfortunately, we can not specify. But this fact remains an undeniable denunciation of the "Old Believers".
(Sermon by St. Theophan the Recluse before the Judgment flock.
From the book. "St. Theophan the Recluse. Word of faith. Words and SermonsOur Lord and Savior in the present Gospel warns believers against false teachers, saying: Heed from the lying prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are predatory wolves (Matt. 7:15). That is, look, do not trust these humble ones, whose flattery will entrap your souls into destruction, not bringing you a sound doctrine, but always speaking perversely (Compare: Acts 20, 30), in order to tear people away from the unity of faith after themselves. The Lord foresaw that wolves of gravity would enter the midst of the children of His Church... not sparing the flock (Compare: Acts 20:29), therefore, it arouses vigilant vigilance: "Look, do not be carried away."
And you know how many of these evil wolves were! Some wanted to damage Christianity with an admixture of Judaism, like Judaizing heretics, others attempted to eclipse it with dreams of pagan sophistication - the Gnostics, the Manichaeans; others perverted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, like Paul of Samosata; they rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ, like Arius; but these profaned in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, like Macedon. Behind them rebelled the Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, iconoclasts, and then the papists and Lutherans with all their offspring. And here in Russia, shortly after accepting the holy faith of Christ, Martin the Armenian appeared, similar to the current schismatics, then strigolniki, Judaizers, Molokans, whips and schismatics with all their "disagreeing" consents and "stupid" rumors.
The Holy Apostles and their successors, fulfilling the warning word of the Lord, strictly watched over all these deviations from the true teachings of Christ and, immediately after their appearance, denounced them - both privately and even more so at cathedrals, announcing all the faithful: “Look,– here and there lies; don't follow it." Thus the ancient heretics were denounced and rejected: Arius, Macedonian, Nestorius, Eutychius, the iconoclasts, and so our schismatics were also denounced and rejected. The sound teaching of our Lord and Savior, received from Himself by the Holy Apostles and their successors everywhere, is approved and protected, and preserved in its undamaged integrity by the Holy Orthodox Church. It has come to us whole and undamaged and is our precious property. Let us thank the Lord for this inscrutable gift of His!
The Holy Church is now enjoying the world, there is no persecution, and no influential false teachers are visible! The humble children of the Church, listening with obedient faith to her holy teaching and being sanctified by her Divine Mysteries, all work out their salvation according to their strength, hoping to receive eternal bliss at the end of their lives.
But lies are not peaceful, and false prophets have no rest for themselves. And so, excited by the enemy of all truth, they rise up against the Lord and His Christ, and by their false interpretations want to eclipse the luminous teaching of Christ and corrupt the minds of the simple-hearted believers and honestly live according to the laws of the holy faith.
To a greater or lesser extent, these false teachings, of course, reach your ears. Why, fulfilling my duty, on my first visit to you, I do not find it indecent to turn to you with the word of the present Gospel: listen to the false prophets (Compare: Matt. 7, 15) - beware of the distributors of false teachings. Saying this, I also mean any kind of lie in general, of which there are many now in the writings and speeches of men, but more so, schismatic lies. Any other lie is immediately visible. It is contrary to our Creed and is preached in the name of reason, for which believers are not disciples, but teachers; and a schismatic lie can deceive, for it is preached in the name of the Apostles and the Holy Church, as if some kind of “ancient” teaching. The sectarians falsely hide behind the sim title. The Lord said to the apostles: behold... I am sending you like lambs in the midst of wolves (Compare: Luke 10:3) - and the schismatic teachers, hiding behind the name of the apostolic teaching, appear in lamb clothes, but as they preach a lie, then they are truly wolves in this sheep's clothing. Take heed from these predatory wolves. They humbly sneak into houses, and just as the serpent once seduced Eve with its cunning, so they corrupt the minds of the unconfirmed.
They all repeat that their interpretations are the "ancient" tradition. What ancient? These are all new inventions. The ancient patristic tradition is contained by the Orthodox Church. We borrowed the holy teaching from the Holy Orthodox Greek Church, and all the sacred books passed from it to us. These books in antiquity contained everything as we now contain. But about a hundred or one hundred and fifty years before the blessed Patriarch Nikon and the most pious sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich, inexperienced scribes began to spoil them, and during this time they spoiled and spoiled everything, and finally, they spoiled everything so much that it was no longer possible to endure. These corruptions introduced into the books, all without exception, were novelties. When later they were canceled and the books were put in the same form as it was from ancient times, did this mean that novelty was introduced into books ?! They did not introduce a novelty, but returned them to the old. In our books now everything is as it is in the Greek and as in our ancient ones, after the Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir. Go, who wants to, look in the Patriarchal Library, in Moscow, old books, and - see for yourself. So, the old books are with us, and not with the schismatics, and the ancient patristic tradition is also with us, and not with them. They have all the novelties: the books are new and the tradition is new. Let me explain this to you with an example. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv - the oldest cathedral - was originally painted on the walls. Sometime later, no one will remember, this painting was plastered over and the temple was painted again on the new plaster. Old painting remained below. But recently, this new plaster and with the timetable were beaten off and the timetable that was under it was restored - the oldest. What is it: did they introduce novelty into the St. Sophia temple or put it in its ancient form? Of course, they put it in the ancient form. Now the St. Sophia Church is in the same form as it was in antiquity, and not in the way it was twenty years ago. That's how it was with books. When they threw out everything newly introduced from them, they did not renew them, but returned them to the ancient one - and our corrected books are truly ancient, and not schismatic - corrupted.
So reflect when one of the schismatics begins to explain to you that they have ancient books. Their books are no more than two, many three, hundreds of years old; and ours has a thousand and more. And when they begin to assure that they have an “ancient patristic” tradition, ask them: “Where is your ancestral tradition?” - among the priests or bezpopovtsy, - among the Filippovtsy or Fedoseevtsy, at the Spasov consent, or among the perekrestsenes, or among the new Austrian rogues. Are there ten ancestral traditions? After all, it is one. When they have more than one, it has become, it is not ancient patristic, but all human inventions. With us it is one and completely in accordance with our most ancient tradition, in accordance with the Greeks and all Orthodox Christians existing throughout the earth. We are in agreement everywhere, but they are in disagreement everywhere. In another village, there are three or four senses - and even in the same house the same thing happens - and they do not communicate with each other. Where is the One Church of Christ? What is the body of the Church when all the members have broken up and dispersed into different sides? Where is this one herd? And how can one say that the One, True, Divine Shepherd is their shepherd?
Judging by this, it is clear as day that they have no truth, no following of Christ, no Church. And when there is no Church, there is no salvation, for only in the Church is salvation, as in Noah's ark. The Church of Christ has a priesthood. They don't have a priesthood; there was no Church. The Church of Christ has the Sacraments. They have no one to perform the Sacraments; therefore, they do not have a Church either. How dare they still open their mouths and, approaching the Orthodox, seduce them! "We want to save," they say. How to save when they themselves are dying?! They themselves perish and others are dragged into ruin, and not saved. Note to yourself: salvation without grace is impossible; grace is not given without the Sacraments; The sacraments are not performed without the priesthood. There is no priesthood, no sacraments; no sacraments, no grace; no grace, no salvation.
Some of them say: “Now we have found the priesthood, or have brought the root of the priesthood.” They brought a root, but rotten - barren. Judge for yourself. Ambrose, whom they lured to them, was bound by prohibition - bound by legal authority. The Lord promised this lawful authority: if you bind on earth, they will be bound in heaven (Matt. 18:18). Therefore, Ambrose, too, was bound in Heaven. If he is bound in Heaven, then how could he, bound in Heaven, communicate Heavenly grace? Where did he get her?! He could not tell her and did not tell; and all who were ordained by him, as they were laymen, have remained laymen, even though they are called priests and bishops. These are the same names, as when children, while playing, give themselves different titles - colonels, generals, commanders in chief.
“Let them,” they say, “was forbidden. The elders allowed him." Wonderful business! Ordinary laymen permit the bishop and return to him the power to episcopate. Don't you know that only the one who has the power to ordain can authorize. Their old men did not even have a deacon's consecration, how could they return episcopal power to a bishop, when this is the same as ordaining? They did not return - and Ambrose remained banned, despite the rituals that were ridiculous over him. If it is forbidden, then grace in it is stopped; if it is stopped, then it could not be poured out on others. When, for example, water flows through a trough, it overflows from it into other troughs and vessels; and when the gutter is closed, the water will not flow through it and will not overflow onto other places and things. So Ambrose, until he was forbidden, was like a trough overflowing water; and when he fell under the ban, he became like a dry, closed trough, and could no longer impart to others the blessed water, which he himself did not have. Thus, some of the schismatics deceive themselves and others in vain, thinking that they have obtained the priesthood. Names were brought, but there is no case.
Yes, Orthodox Christians! Do not listen to these flattering words! There is no truth in them, but only lies and deceit. They deceive themselves and plunge others into the same deception. The truth of God is clear. She does not hide, but goes openly and presents all the evidence of her truth. We are standing on a solid stone (Matt. 7:25), - the building was formerly on the basis of the Apostle and Prophet, I am the cornerstone of Jesus Christ Himself (Compare: Eph. 2, 20). Knowing this, courageously stand in the faith and boldly testify to its truth - and not only do not succumb to schismatics, but on the contrary, try to win them over to your side, sincerely convincing them that they have fallen into lies and error and stand on the path of disastrous, holding on to novelties. which, by deceit, are considered old. Amen.
In the city of Sudogda, in the cathedral
Strigolniki, Judaizers - pseudo-Christian sects.
Take heed - beware
Among priests ... bespopovtsy ... Filippovtsy ... Fedoseyevtsy ... Spasova consent ... rebaptized ... new Austrian - among various Old Believer sects.
Back the former - having been approved
How to disable ads on Android: remove pop-up ads
The Russian received a term and a million fine for "piracy Negative consequences of the law
Identification of key factors
The criteria for classifying organizations and individual entrepreneurs as small and medium-sized businesses have changed
See what "Royalty" is in other dictionaries Pitfalls of legislation