The Bible is a modern Russian translation edited by Kulakov. Bible zaokskaya - kulakov-desnitsky. Explanations, symbols and abbreviations

Prologue At the beginning Total there was the Word,

1 and the Word was with God, andItself It was God # 1: 1 Friend. possible per .: and the Word was Divine, in meaning. possessed a divine nature..

2 Word from the beginning already was with God.

3 Through Him everything acquired its being,

and without Him, nothing that exists came into being.

4 There was life in the Word# 1:4 Another punctuation, supported by many manuscripts and the Church Fathers, gives grounds for a friend. possible lane:and without Him nothing arose. What has arisen 4 in Him was life.and this life is Light to people.

6 The time has come andthere appeared a man named John. He was sent by God7 and came as a witness to the Light to testify so that everyone who heard him could believeinto the Light. 8 MyselfHe was not Light, buthe was destinedtestify of the Light.

9 And the Light itself, the true Light that illuminates every person,

already was included then in our peace # 1: 9 Friend. possible per .: was the true Light, which enlightens every person who comes into the world..

10 He was in the world,

but the world, which owes its origin to Him,

did not recognize Him.

11 To their # 1:11 Lit .: in their own (possession); or: to Your home. He came,

but their own did not want to receive Him.

12 Those who received Him, who believed in Him# 1:12 Lit .: in his name.,

He gave the right# 1:12 Or: power / power.be children of God -

13 children, not in the usual wayborn,

not from the attraction of the flesh and not from the will of man# 1:13 Letter: who are not (born) of blood, not of the desire of the flesh, not from the desire of her husband.,

but of God they are born.

14 The Word became a Man# 1:14 Or: incarnate.and He lived among us# 1:14 Or: spread a tent among us.,

full of truth and grace# 1:14 See Dictionary of Grace..

We have seen His glory

that glory which from the Father him,

like the only one incomparable# 1:14 Or: like one of a kind / unique; the same in Art. 18.Son.

he spoke publicly about Him:

“Here is the One about whom I said:

“The one who follows me is higher than me,

for even before my birth He was already# 1:15 Letter: the one who follows Me in front of me became, because before me there was; the same in Art. thirty.“».

16 From completeness grace His

we all received blessing after blessing# 1:16 Letter: grace for grace.;

17 through Moses Law# 1:17 See Dictionary Law. was US Dan,

but through Jesus Christ grace and truth appeared.

18 No one has ever seen God.

But the only one incomparableA son,

God # 1:18 In some. manuscripts: A son.Who is at the very heart of the Father,

opened Its us.

John's testimony

19 This is how John testified when the Jewish authorities# 1:19 Here and below, in similar cases, letters: Jews.that were in Jerusalem sent [to him] priests and Levites to ask him who he was.20 John, without evading an answer, bluntly announcedthem, openly declared: “I am not the Messiah# 1:20 Hereinafter, Greek: Christ.».

21 “Well,” they asked him, “may be are you Elijah? "

"No!" - he said.

« Then aren't you the one prophet # 1:21 See the Dictionary of the Prophet., which are we waiting for? " - there was a question.

And to thishe replied: "No."

22 "Who are you, finally?They asked. - What answer should we give to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself? "

23 He answered themthe words of the prophet Isaiah# 1:23 See Isaiah's Dictionary.:

„ Prepare# 1:23 Lit. make it straight.Lord's way!“» # 1:23 Is 40: 3 (LXX).

24 Others from Pharisees # 1:24 See Dictionary of the Pharisees.that were among the sentto John, 25 they asked him: "Why do you baptize, if you are not the Messiah, you are not Elijah and you are not a prophet?"

26 "I am water # 1:26 Or: in the water ; the same in Art. 31 and 33.I baptize, - John answered them. - But here already, next to yousomewhere, The one you don't know.27 He follows me, [I]evenI am not worthy to untie His sandals. "28 It was at Bethany# 1:28 In some. manuscripts: in Bethavar., beyond the Jordan, whereusually baptized by John.

Lamb of god

29 The next day John sees Jesus walking towards him and says: “Behold the Lamb of God! The sin of the worldthis He puts an end # 1:29 Lit .: beret , in meaning. takes away, removes.. 30 This is the One about Whom I said: “There is a Man following me, Who stands above me, for even before mybirth He was already. "31 I myself did not know Him, but I came to baptizeyouwater to lead# 1:31 Lit .: revealed / revealed.He became Israel. "

32 “I saw,” John testified, “how the Spirit, like a dove, descended from heaven and remained on Him.33 I Didn't Know Him more, but the One who sent me to baptize with water said to me: "On whom you will see, the Spirit will descend and on whom the Spirit will abide, the same will baptize with the Holy Spirit."34 I saw it and I testify: He is the Son# 1:34 In some. manuscripts: Chosen One. God's ".

Jesus' first disciples

35 The next day stood againthere John and with himtwo of his disciples.36 Past themJesus passed. Seeing Him, John said: "Behold the Lamb of God!"

37 Hearing this, the two disciples followed Jesus.38 He looked around and when he saw that they were following Him, asked them: "What do you want?"

"Rabbi # 1:38 See Rabbi's Dictionary.(it means "teacher") where do you live# 1:38 Or: where you stopped? The same in Art. 39.? " They said.

39 "Go follow meand you will see, ”He answered. They went (it was about four in the afternoon)# 1:39 Lit .: it was about ten o'clock... During NT, day (as well as night) was divided into 12 hours, while the length of an hour depended on the length of the day from sunrise to sunset. The end of 6 o'clock always fell at 12 o'clock in the afternoon of our time.) and saw where He lives.The whole remainderthey spent that day with Jesus.

40 One of the two who heard what John said and followed Jesus was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter.41 He immediately # 1:41 Friend. possible per .: he is the first ... In this case, John writing about this probably means that after this he himself also found his brother James. In some. manuscripts:the next day, early in the morning.found his brother Simon and announced to him: “Imagine, we met # 1:41 Lit .: found; the same in Art. 43.Messiah ?! " (In translationfrom Jewish"Messiah" means "Anointed One# 1:41 Greek: Christ.»).

42 Andrew brought his brother to Jesus; He looked at him and said: “You are Simon, son of John# 1:42 In some. manuscripts: son of Jonah., from now on your name will be Kifa "(which means" stone# 1:42 Greek: Peter ... Both of these words ("Peter" and "Cephas") mean "stone" and are derived from Greek and Aramaic, respectively.»).

Philip and Nathanael

43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. Having met Philip, He called him: “Come with Me# 1:43 Lit .: follow Me.!»

44 (Philip was from Bethsaida, fromonecities with Andrey and Peter.)45 Philip sought Nathanael and said to him: “We have found the One about whom Moses wrote in the Law andpredictedprophets: Jesus, son of Joseph, of Nazareth! "

According to my calculations, this edition is at least the seventh complete translation of the Bible into Russian. I will not list everything, only those with which it makes sense to compare it. These are, first of all, high-quality translations and, at the same time, addressed to different audiences. There is no point in talking about the first of them, the Synodal one, it is well known to everyone.

The second was published in 2007 without any announcements and is called simply "The Bible", it was published by the International Bible Society (IBO), as well as a translation of the New Testament called "Word of Life", released in the very early 90s.
Much more famous is another translation of the Russian Bible Society (RBO), consisting of two different parts: in 2001, a translation of the New Testament was published under the title "Good News", its only translator was V.N. Kuznetsov. The Old Testament was prepared by a whole team led by M.G. Seleznev and on slightly different principles (he, shall we say, translated more conservatively). And in 2011, both translations came out under the same cover.

And now another translation into modern Russian has come out, done at the proper level. Writing a review about this translation can be somewhat difficult for me as one of the project participants (I translated the prophetic and historical books of the Old Testament). And, nevertheless, I can talk about what is in this edition besides my own work.

The lack of an original name is somewhat upsetting. The IBO translation is called simply "The Bible", the subtitle reads: "A new translation into modern Russian." The publication of the RBO is also “The Bible. Modern Russian translation ”. And there was another edition, of the early 90s, which appropriated the name of "modern translation", but I do not mention it due to its low quality. And now we have before us another Russian Bible "in modern translation", as indicated on the cover. Yes, biblical translators somehow skimp on the original titles. I would call this Bible Zaoksky, since the main work on it was carried out in the village of Zaoksky, Tula region, where the Institute for Bible Translation at the Adventist Academy is located (please do not confuse it with the Institute for Bible Translation in Moscow, which translates into non-Slavic languages ​​in Russia and the CIS countries) ... Unfortunately, these are the explanations that have to be made from the outset to avoid confusion.

The preface details the history of this translation. For comparison: the IBO limited itself to general remarks about the methodology of its translation and did not say a word about who did it and why, as if the work was carried out in space by aliens. And the RBO, having briefly told about its translators, “did not notice” anything that was published between the Synodal Translation and this new edition. And it did not explicitly present its principles to the reader: here was the Synodal translation, now there will be a new one, and, in fact, there is nothing more to say.

The foreword of the Zaokskaya Bible from the very beginning inscribes this project in the history of Russian translations of the Bible and tells in detail about the intentions and strategies of its creators. This is very important and allows you to evaluate the translation based on its own attitudes, and not someone's abstract ideas about beauty.

The history of this translation is inextricably linked with the history of its founder, M.P. Kulakov. His excellent biography has already been written (Olga Suvorova, "We are only standing on the shore") and you can not retell the events from his life, but it is important to understand why and how this idea arose. Mikhail Petrovich was from that generation of Soviet believers who experienced very serious persecution, right up to the present imprisonment.
In a country where there was no way to live a full Christian life outside of a tightly locked room with drawn curtains, the biblical text became a kind of new home in which only one could breathe freely. In all cases, of course, it was the Synodal translation, there were simply no others and there was nowhere to take them. But it was precisely the close attention to the text of the translation that showed how many ambiguities, stylistically awkward passages and archaisms there were. And the main thing that Mikhail Petrovich did when the time for religious freedom came was the creation of a new translation, which would, if possible, be free of these shortcomings. He continued this business until the very end.

After the death of Mikhail Petrovich, the main work of his life (it’s even embarrassing to call him the modern word “project”) was continued by his son, Mikhail Mikhailovich, and in this continuity you see a similarity with the construction of medieval cathedrals, when generation after generation built walls, and everyone knew that only his grandchildren or great-grandchildren will see the cathedral completed.

“As literally as possible, and as freely as necessary” - this is how the founder defined his basic principle, this is how the whole team accepted it. But this is far from the first project in the world that has adopted it, and the translations turn out to be quite different, because the ideas about the possibility and necessity of different people are also far from the same.

However, I would say that the main idea of ​​this translation is not at all literal. Rather, it relates to the field of stylistics: translation moves away from the clerical or cumbersome turns of speech of the Synodal tradition, but at the same time diligently avoids vernacular and vulgarity and retains everything from traditional terminology and phraseology that can be preserved without compromising understanding. It is emphatically old-fashioned, but this old-fashionedness is alien to indistinctness.

This is a rather conservative translation, as can be understood from the archaisms: "so that", "so", etc. By themselves, the archaism and solemnity of style are not at all a lack of translation, they become it when they begin to interfere with an adequate understanding of the text, and this translation is generally free from such errors. Archaism here is extremely delicate, it eschews words and turns of speech, which we will not find, for example, in the works of Pushkin that are included in the school curriculum. This is indeed the Russian literary language in all its richness and diversity.

Perhaps the most obvious feature of this translation, which is clearly visible in this example (by the way, it combines it with the MBO translation) is the use of italics for those words and expressions that are not in the original. By the way, in the Zaokskaya Bible there are noticeably more italics, especially in poetry books: in the psalms they are found in about every second verse.

By the way, there are a lot of notes, and on the whole they are very successful. They explain the meaning of proper names or the associations that they evoked in the original reader, provide background information, or interpret the possible meaning of complex expressions in the original.

All this brings us to the most difficult question of the objectivity of the translator. Yes, we are used to hearing that, ideally, a translator should be invisible, like a window pane ... but in practice we know that really good translations are always author's. When you read Shakespeare or Goethe in Pasternak's translations, the voice of Boris Leonidovich himself is heard no less than the author's voice. Of course, when the translator is in the same line of geniuses as the author, we are ready to agree with this, but even when this is not the case, we cannot get away from the individuality of style and exegetical solutions.

This translation was done by a large and complex team, like most modern translations. But teamwork can be organized in different ways. Quite often, conflicts between members of such a team seriously complicate the work, or even jeopardize its final outcome.

Combining careful tradition with careful innovation, the new translation seeks to dissuade those for whom the Bible is boring, archaic, incomprehensible and outdated, but at the same time avoids any radicalism. Its release will undoubtedly be a great event for everyone who cares about the biblical text, and for many of those who have not yet met it, who may need such a translation.

It remains only to thank everyone who was involved in the creation of the translation and congratulate them on the completion of the work. However, why with completion? Any good translation needs a second edition, and this one, I think, will be no exception.

Andrey Desnitsky
Doctor of Philology, historian, consultant at the Institute for Bible Translation, researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The synodal translation, with all its undoubted merits, is not considered quite satisfactory today due to its well-known (obvious not only to specialists) shortcomings. The natural changes that have taken place in our language over more than a century, and the long absence of religious enlightenment in our country have made these shortcomings sharply perceptible. The vocabulary and syntax of this translation have ceased to be accessible to direct, so to speak, "spontaneous" perception. In many cases, the modern reader cannot do without dictionaries in his efforts to comprehend the meaning of certain translation formulas that saw the light of day in 1876. This circumstance responds, of course, by a rationalistic "cooling" of the perception of that text, which, being spiritually uplifting by its nature, must not only be understood, but also experienced by the whole being of a pious reader.

In line with this understanding of the problem, we considered it possible to undertake our attempt to make a feasible contribution to the introduction of the Russian reader to the text of the New Testament and the staff of the Adventist Institute for Bible Translation, created in 1993 in Zaoksky. Driven by a high sense of responsibility for the cause to which they dedicated their knowledge and efforts, the project participants completed a real translation of the New Testament into Russian from the original language, based on the widely recognized modern critical text of the original (4th revised edition of the United Bible Societies, Stuttgart , 1994).

The team of translators of the Institute at all stages of work was aware of the fact that no real translation can equally satisfy all the requirements of different readers, which are diverse in nature. Nevertheless, the translators strove for a result that could, on the one hand, satisfy those who first turn to the Scriptures, and, on the other hand, satisfy those who, seeing the Word of God in the Bible, are engaged in in-depth study of it.

This translation, addressed to the modern reader, uses primarily living words, phrases and idioms. Obsolete and archaic words and expressions are allowed only to the extent that they are necessary to convey the color of the narrative and to adequately represent the semantic shades of the phrase. At the same time, it was found expedient to refrain from using cutting-edge, transient vocabulary and the same syntax, so as not to violate the regularity, natural simplicity and organic majesty of the presentation that distinguish the metaphysically non-vain text of Scripture.

Having completed their first experience of translating the Bible into modern Russian, the staff of the Institute at Zaoksky intend to continue searching for the best approaches and solutions in transferring the original text. Therefore, all those involved in the emergence of the completed translation will be grateful to the highly respected readers for any help that they find possible to provide with their comments, advice and wishes aimed at improving the currently proposed text for subsequent reprints.

P.S .: The translation was carried out, in the main, by representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

28.06.2017

Detailed analysis and evaluation of the new translation, as well as its comparison with other versions, is a challenge for the future. For the first acquaintance, it is enough to read a few pages of the new translation. It is most convenient to do this with a book that is small in size, which will make it possible to get a complete picture of the peculiarities of translation strategy and tactics. That is why we opted for the book of Jonah, which we use for the first acquaintance with the translation. The appearance in early 2015 of another complete translation of the Bible into Russian finally and irrevocably puts the Russian-speaking reader in a situation of the existence of multiple translations. The new translation was carried out by a group of professional translators of the Institute for Bible Translation at the Zaoksk Theological Academy (edited by MP Kulakov and MM Kulakov; further, in some cases, we will refer to the new translation as "Kulakov's translation"). In addition to the classic Synodal translation, in 2011 a translation of the Bible was published by the Russian Bible Society and which also managed to gain popularity among readers. Of course, one can argue that the situation of "multiple translations" existed before this year, it is enough to look through the bibliography of Russian-language biblical translations. However, none of the previous translations became popular and authoritative enough to compete with the Synodal Translation. But the translations of RBO and Kulakov are quite ready to compete for readers' attention, since they are made by professional translation teams and, importantly, their publication is preceded by a certain informational preparation of the audience. I think that many readers today should look for a place on their bookshelves for a new edition. Any new translation of the Bible is cause for joy, because it indicates not only an interest (growing?) In the biblical text, but also about the enrichment of the language and culture of translation. In addition, a new translation is always an opportunity to look at a familiar text in a different way. However, the new biblical translation is also a certain challenge: after all, the reader finds himself in a situation of multiple translations, the existence of several alternative versions of an authoritative text. Particular difficulties arise in cases when for a long time any one translation was dominant, which determined the development of theological terminology and became part of the literary world of a particular culture (as was the case at first with the Church Slavonic translation of the Bible, and then with the Synodal one) ...

However, before proceeding to reading the text, it is necessary to make a few preliminary remarks. As a rule, readers are accustomed to evaluating translations, speaking of their "correctness", "fidelity", "accuracy", believing that there is a single equivalent that accurately conveys the meaning of the original. However, the work of a translator is often similar to the work of artists: having the same technical background, they can portray the same object in very different ways, since they themselves can perceive reality in very different ways. Each translation is always a new reading of the text, an attempt to recreate it in a new communicative situation using the available linguistic means. You can even say that each translation has its own special sound, its own tonality. This is the sound of the new translation of the Bible and will be discussed further.

In the field of translation studies, there is the term "subjective theory of translation", which indicates the simple and obvious fact that each of us has certain ideas about what translation is as a phenomenon of human life, how to translate and what an "ideal" translation should be. ... Therefore, in our assessments, we proceed precisely from these (usually unconscious) ideas. In addition, a translation that has become generally recognized, a kind of "standard" in a given culture, can have a great influence on the perception of a new translation. This was the Synodal Translation for many generations of Russian-speaking readers. The problem may be that when creating a new translation, its authors could proceed from a completely different set of criteria than those that we are guided by. These criteria could be formed by the reading and translation experience of translators, as well as by the goals set for themselves by the creators and the audience to which they were addressing. All this means that the new translation should be assessed on the basis of the goals and objectives that were formulated by its creators. Otherwise, you can criticize the translators for what they did not strive for at all.

After the traditional "curtsey" towards the Synodal translation, the publishers of the Bible edited by Kulakov indicate the main motive that prompted them to create a new translation: "the new era demanded a new translation of the Bible in modern Russian, closer than the language of the Synodal translation." The main target audience is not professional scholars of biblical texts, but those who “do not live in the world of the language and values ​​of the Middle Eastern culture”, to which they have access only through the “dictionary or thesaurus”. Nothing is said about the church status of the target audience, however, as the main functions of the new translation, private spiritual-edifying and prayer reading, as well as use in liturgical practice, are indicated. The basic principle that the translators were guided by was formulated somewhat paradoxically: “translate literally, as much as possible, and as freely as necessary”. Moreover, as we will try to show below on the example of one biblical text, the second tendency is more prevalent (“freely, as much as necessary”). Thus, in the last significant projects for the translation of the Bible into Russian, there is a clear tendency to abandon the literalist translation model (translation of the New Testament by V.N.Kuznetsova, translation of the Old Testament edited by M.G.Seleznev, translation of the Bible in Zaoksky).

The choice of the target audience determines a number of important translation decisions. The biblical text is multidimensional and ambiguous. One of the tasks that the translators set for themselves was to "prompt" the reader to this multidimensionality "without being forced to refer to the mentioned dictionaries and separate comments." The task can be solved in different ways: through introductory articles, notes, and also through the disclosure of a part of implicit information within the text itself. The authors of the translation use all the indicated means. And if the first two are quite familiar, then the third is used by Bible translators quite rarely, especially in the Russian-speaking environment. Implicit information can also be revealed in quite different ways, for example, using italics, which in this project performs several functions: sometimes it is used as a means of creating coherence in the text, as well as for disclosing cultural implicit information. While recognizing the legitimacy of using this tool, the question still remains how convenient it is for the reader. On the one hand, it makes the text more understandable, but on the other hand, the abundance of italicized insertions comes into conflict with the desire to present the Bible as a literary text, since it can interfere with the smooth reading of the text. In addition, the use of italics raises the question of the status of the information presented in this way. Implicit (linguistic and cultural) information is one of the indispensable components of the meaning of the text, and therefore has no less right to be indicated in the text than explicit information. The necessity and degree of its disclosure depends only on its relevance for a specific audience. But, in any case, it is an indispensable part of the meaning of the text. However, italics as a semiotic sign raises the question of the status of information presented in this way: does it mean that this information is an interpretation of the translator secondary to the main text? Italics may suggest that translators are not sure of the obligatory nature of such explications, then is it worth it to include them in a text that has an authoritative status among most of the readership? However, in many cases italics are entirely justified.

The obvious advantages of the publication include the use of a variety of notes, which contain both philological information and comments that explain the historical context. In addition, the footnotes provide alternative translations, allowing the reader to broaden their understanding of the nature of the biblical text. It is also important that each book of the Bible is preceded by a short introduction that gives a general idea of ​​the time of writing, authorship and the main themes of the work. These kinds of introductions allow readers to know the basic parameters of the initial communicative situation of the biblical text.

And, of course, one cannot fail to note another important aspect of the translation strategy - this is the desire to present the biblical text not only as a religious monument, but also as a work of art. Recently, researchers are paying more and more attention to various aspects of the literary nature of biblical texts, which, in addition to their religious and moral significance, indicate the presence of high artistic qualities. When translating literary texts, it is important to remember that a literary text is not in itself, but only from the point of view of the cultural and literary system within which it appears and functions. Outside of this system, the text may not be perceived as artistic. In other words, literary text is a pragmatic phenomenon, that is, a text is perceived as literary only if it meets the norms and criteria of “literary” in a given culture. The writers of the biblical texts followed the literary norms that existed in their culture. As cultural norms and perceptions of the criteria for literary change change, biblical works cannot automatically be regarded as literary works within our culture. On this basis, translation theorists distinguish between "literary text translation" and "literary text translation". In the first case ("translation of a literary text") we are talking about the translation of a text that was considered as a literary original in the culture, but may not be so in a new communicative situation. When we talk about “literary translation of a text,” it means that the translation must meet at least some of the requirements that are put forward in the host culture for literary texts. Zaoksky translation can be attributed to the second type ("literary translation of an ancient text"). Such a strategy, according to its creators, allows the reader “not only to comprehend in artistic pictures the“ living life ”of the ancient biblical hero, to learn from his losses and gains, but also to discover the divine-human mystery of creativity and experience the fullness of aesthetic feeling when comprehending the Word of God. ". It is to this aspect of the new translation that we would like to further pay special attention, having carried out an extremely brief analysis of the book of Jonah.

The book of Jonah is especially interesting for our analysis, since it without any reservations can be attributed to the masterpieces of not only Hebrew, but also world literature. Naturally, the author of Jonah's book used the artistic means available in his culture, the literal translation of which does not allow one to feel the aesthetic appeal, plot drama, and emotional richness of this work. The original artistic code of the book is created by such stylistic means as repetition and variation, the literal rendering of which may look unnatural in the culture of translation. This means that a translator who wants to help the modern reader experience the artistic dimension of an ancient text should use whatever means are available in his language. In our opinion, the translation team succeeded in solving the task. Of course, such a translation differs from the more familiar literal translations, the main focus of which is on conveying the formal features of the original. However, this approach helps to understand that biblical authors used a variety of different means of their language to convey theological truths, which made reading their texts, among other things, fun.

Thus, verse 1: 2 of the book of Jonah opens with two imperatives (?? ???), between which there is no connecting union. In such a construction, the main idea is introduced by the second imperative, which retains its lexical meaning, while the first imperative is used adverbially and has a functional meaning. Thanks to this design, a special dynamism of the narrative is created and an additional emotional shade is given. So the whole phrase ?? ??? emphasizes the importance of the Lord's commission and requires an immediate response from the addressee. The literal translation "get up, go" does not convey this feature of the original syntax, reducing the dynamics of the text. Since the literary translation requires the transfer of the functional aspects of the original text, the new translation renders this expression as "go now": "Go immediately to the great city of Nineveh ..." (cf. Synod: "get up, go to Nineveh, the great city").

In verses 1: 1-3 and 3: 1-3, the author deliberately builds a "mirror" structure, contrasting the Lord's command and the prophet's response to it. In 1: 2 and 3: 2 the same verb is used ??? ("Call, call, call"), but with different pretexts (?? in 1: 2 them ?? in 3: 2). Many exegetes and translators believe that different prepositions are used to create lexical diversity. However, the creators of the ancient translations (for example, the Septuagint) saw a deeper semantic difference in the choice of different prepositions. Expression??? ?? potentially carries a negative meaning of the approach of trouble, threat, misfortune for the object of the proclamation. Expression??? ?? (3: 2) is neutral and does not have this negative connotation. The translators conveyed this difference between the two verses as follows: “warn those who dwell there: their retribution awaits” (1: 2) and “proclaim to all who live there the message that I will put in your mouth” (3: 2). In the first case, the value ??? ?? revealed with the help of the verb “warn” (you can hear both concern and threat) and the noun “retribution” (the meaning of threat, judgment). In 3: 2, a more neutral verb “announce” is chosen - that is, report, make certain information known (of course, here you can hear a threat, but this meaning is secondary) and the noun “message”. Thanks to this translation, it was possible to reflect not only different meanings, but also to create a different emotional coloring of the two episodes.

One of the features of the Zaoksky translation is the frequent use of italics in various functions. Thus, the addition of the italics "in despair" in verse 1: 5 helps to feel the condition of the sailors who were caught in a severe sea storm: "Fear seized the sailors ... In desperation, they threw all their cargo overboard to make the ship lighter." Of course, these words are not in the original, the italics do not commit to anything and in this case indicates the secondary and presumptive nature of the information. However, it helps the reader to better recreate the atmosphere of what was happening at that moment on the ship. The addition of italics in the next part of the same verse gives the reader the opportunity to reconstruct the sequence of actions (the author shows the simultaneous reaction of the sailors and Jonah to the storm that was playing out): “Fear seized the sailors, and each of them began to cry out to his god ... In desperation, they threw the entire load overboard … And Jonah, meanwhile, went down into the hold, lay down there and fell asleep soundly asleep ”(in the Hebrew text, an inversion indicates such a sequence of actions).

The image of Nineveh is of great importance for the correct interpretation of the entire book. Recently, exegetes are inclined to believe that Nineveh in the book of Jonah is presented not so much as a formidable enemy of the Kingdom of Israel, but as a legendary city of the past, famous for its wealth and wickedness - a motive popular in the literature of the Hellenistic era. It is quite possible that it is precisely the desire to create in translation the image of Nineveh as the legendary city of the past that explains the italic addition in 3: 3: "and this city [Nineveh] was one of the largest in those days."

In 3: 5 we are talking about the reaction of the inhabitants of Nineveh to the proclamation of Jonah: "The Ninevites believed God, everyone, young and old, put on rags in repentance and declared fasting." In this case, the italic insert helps the reader to understand the culture of the ancient text, pointing out that putting on shabby clothes and declaring fasting are not just extravagant actions of city residents, but symbols of repentance, signs of an internal upheaval. And if for a religious person the meaning of these actions is completely transparent, then for a reader who is far from religious symbolism, it may well be necessary to disclose their implicit meaning.

Another distinguishing feature of the new translation is the use of a living, figurative language, which makes reading the biblical translation not only useful, but also exciting. It is enough to briefly compare the Synodal translation with Kulakov's translation to make sure that the latter often sounds much more elegant: “a storm has come” (Synod) - “a storm has played out” (Kulakov); “The shipbuilders were afraid” (Synod) - “fear seized the sailors” (Kulakov); “But these people began to row hard to land, but they could not” (Synod) - “the sailors did not heed this: they desperately leaned on the oars, trying to reach the shore, but all their efforts were in vain” (Kulakov); "People were terrified with great fear" (Synod) - "the answer plunged the sailors into even greater fear." The last example is indicative: in a number of cases, the Synodal translation strives to preserve the idioms of the original language, which obviously has its positive aspects, but creates a certain alienation of the translated text; the reader has the opportunity to feel the aesthetics of the original, but this is an alien aesthetics, forcing the audience, using the well-known metaphor of Schleiermacher, to hit the road towards the author. Using theological terminology, this approach could be called anabatic, forcing a person to ascend into the world of the Divine (such a choice is easy to explain, just remember that the Synodal Translation was created under the strong influence of the Orthodox liturgical tradition). In Kulakov's translation, the ancient text becomes a part of our culture, our world. This approach could be called "katabatic" and it also has a theological basis, for "the Word was made flesh and dwelt with us ..." (John 1:14).

Of course, the new translation also contains translation solutions that can be the subject of discussion. Thus, in Jonah 3: 4 we read (literal translation): "Jonah began to walk in the city the way of one day." This verse can be understood in different ways: and as the fact that the prophet was not very diligent in fulfilling his prophetic duties (he walked only one day, which means he did not go around all of Nineveh (which was "three days' journey"), but only part her) - and how that Jonah's preaching was so effective that one day was enough for its first fruits to appear. In Kulakov's translation, this verse is rendered as "all these days Jonah walked around the city and from dawn to dawn announced to its inhabitants ...". Perhaps such a translation may seem too bold to some, but it seems quite appropriate in the case when the Bible is trying to be presented as a work of "verbal art".

Of course, the Zaoksky translation has yet to be read in its entirety, and therefore the time for any serious assessments has not yet come. If one of the criteria for the success of a text is the desire of readers to return to it again and again, then the new translation can certainly be considered “successful”. Thus, when I finished reading Jonah's book, I realized that I was ready to reread it. The new translation makes the text of the ancient work alive, vivid, intriguing, gives the reader the opportunity to experience the aesthetic pleasure of the reading process and ... makes him think again and again about the meaning of what he has read. Is this not what many biblical authors aspired to, who clothed their theological ideas in beautiful artistic forms? I think that the translators have completely coped with one of the tasks assigned to them: to help the reader "experience the fullness of the aesthetic feeling while comprehending the Word of God."

There is no doubt that we will also hear critical reviews about Kulakov's translation. It is possible that some of this criticism will be fair. And yet, I would like to remind one important thing: just as there are no universal translations, so there are no universal criteria for their assessment. When analyzing a particular translation, it is necessary to pay attention, first of all, to those goals and objectives set by the translation team and evaluate the translation in accordance with them. I hope that the discussion of the new edition will be more intensive and productive than it was with the previous major project - the translation of the Bible of the Russian Bible Society (unfortunately, with the exception of the review by A.S.Desnitsky, we could not find any serious reviews about this very important edition) ...

I would like to congratulate the readers on the appearance of yet another translation, which, I have no doubt, will enrich our understanding of the biblical text, and make the reading process not only useful, but also fascinating.

Priest Mikhail Samkov, lecturer at the Department of Biblical Studies and Theology of the Minsk Theological Academy