What are the linguistic features of the Elizabethan Bible. Elizabethan Bible. Overview of some Russian Bible translations
ALEXANDER FILINA
Elizabethan
Surname heritage of the Arapov clan
BIBLE ETA has significant historical, cultural and scientific significance not only for our region, but for the country as a whole, is a book monument of federal significance. Even for the XVIII century. The publication of the Bible was an event of all-Russian scale.
First, the “age” of the book, determined by the length of the time interval between the date the book was created and the present time1: This Bible was printed more than 250 years ago.
Secondly, the book is the first edition of the Bible in Church Slavonic. The beginning of the domestic biblical tradition dates back to the Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures, performed by the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius in the second half of the 9th century. The publication of the corrected Bible in the Greek text (Septuagint) was conceived by Peter the Great by decree of November 14, 1712. The premature death of Peter I, however, delayed the publication for a long time. This question was returned to each subsequent reign. It was placed both under Catherine I and under Anna Ivanovna. The correction lasted a very long time, and since 1744 a whole series of decrees were issued in which the Synod was ordered to proceed to its publication. Finally, on March 1, 1750, a categorical “historical” order was issued to print without any delay2. A little later, on December 18, 1751, the decree of Empress Elizabeth came out that the Church-Slavonic Bible was published, which was carefully corrected, and the text of this Bible was translated from the ancient Greek language. Dol-
the awaited publication was released, received the name of the Elizabethan Bible. It should be noted that the title of the book reflects another significant characteristic that distinguishes and distinguishes this publication from a number of similar ones. I have in mind such a criterion as stage-by-stage characterization of a book as a document adequately reflecting the most important stages of social development, as well as being their direct belonging and integral part. The publication of the Bible was a state important event of the Elizabethan era. Moreover, her appearance was published in the St. Petersburg Gazette.
Thirdly, the volume and format of the book, which a modern user of the library arouses interest in the publication and admiration for it. A huge volume of 39x26 cm format (A3) has more than 1000 pages of text. The first edition of the 1751 Bible includes 4 separate volumes, printed under the supervision of St. Synod, by Don Archimandrite Varlaam Lyashchevsky, and Jeromonom Gideon Slonimsky, as amended by first embossing, in St. Petersburg, in the printing house of the Aleksandro-Nevsky Monastery 3.
The Elizabethan Bible is also an outstanding example of Russian engraving and typographic art. A title page engraved on copper with images from the New and Old Testament, with nine medallions, seven of which are occupied with biblical subjects and two below with magnificent views of the two imperial capitals of Russia: the Moscow Kremlin and St. Petersburg Petropalovskaya crepe
Rare Book Fund of the Penza Regional Library. M. Yu. Lermontov has a large number of old-printed publications of the Cyrillic font of KhUI-Khush centuries. Among them, the Bible should be especially noted, for example, the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. What is its uniqueness?
Alexandra Alekseevna Filina, researcher at the Rare Book Fund of the Penza Regional Library M. Yu. Lermontov
# 03 * 2014 D LO
sti, and above them - a two-headed eagle with a royal crown and a mark of an anonymous master in the lower field on the performance of work in St. Petersburg "at the Academy of Sciences and the Arts in 1751." In the middle of the sheet is the title of the book “Biblical Sire Books of the Holy
I [£. ё And \\ 1!
* Th shrm], IVL
the words of Varlaam Lyashchevsky outlining the history of the revision and correction of the Bible.
The rarity of the book is determined by its limited edition. The first edition sold out very quickly. The new edition was entrusted to Gideon Slonimsky and was implemented in 1757 (Moscow) and 1758 (Kiev). The long-awaited edition of 1751 could not solve the problem of the apparent lack of scripture. Their deficit was felt even in the system of spiritual education. So, the church historian of the XIX century. P.V. Znamensky noted: “Instead of the Slavic Bible, the seminaries used a more accessible,
The title page of the Elizabethan Bible engraved on copper with images from the New and Old Testament and views of two imperial capitals
sasha of the Old and New Testament. " Around him are small images. Above is the conversation of Jesus Christ in the temple of Jerusalem, in the corners - images of a copper serpent and the Calvary crucifix; on the sides - on the right: the Old Testament sacrifice and the legislation of Moses - on the left: the discos and the descent of the Holy Spirit. The text is preceded by an engraving depicting Elizabeth Petrovna in porphyry and crown; above it is an inscription: “Yes unfinished right-winger” *, reminiscent of her fulfillment of the covenant of Peter the Great. The text of the Bible is printed in two columns in a thin, clear, medium-sized font. Before each chapter - engravings in a third of the page on biblical subjects. The book is decorated with magnificent engraved screensavers, endings and initials. Pages are surrounded by patterned frames; Before the text is a dedication of work to Elizabeth from the Synod and an extensive pre-
Frontispiece: Engraving depicting Elizabeth Petrovna, the inscription at the top above: “Yes unfinished correct”
although also quite rare, the Latin Vulgate; its use was all the more convenient since the lectures and occupations [studies] on theology were in Latin. The Slavonic Bible was very rare, almost inaccessible to individuals and clergy, too expensive for the seminary library even after its publication in 1751. It is not surprising that the study of the Holy Scriptures was not at all not only in seminaries, but even in academies. There was no talk between the clergy on reading the scriptures. Of-
the year 1751, as you know, for the first time only introduced the Bible to the Russian public, but the number of copies published was not enough to satisfy the needs of not only the people, but also the ministers of the Church, in addition, each copy cost 5 p ., then a large amount of money ”5. The abnormality of such a situation was eliminated extremely slowly, as evidenced by Znamensky's message about the situation with copies of the Holy Scriptures in theological educational institutions in 1818: “... not a single student had a Bible in the theological class [upper class] of the Kazan Academy, and there was only one breech ”6. This indicates that the "technical" problem of the availability of the Slavic Bible in the circulation of the second half of the XVIII-early XIX centuries. could not decide. The Bible remained on the periphery of religious life until the 19th century. Both clergy and society turned out to be distant from it.
Text in two columns, thin, clear, small font; before each chapter of the engraving is a third of the page on biblical subjects; magnificent engraved screensavers, endings and initials; pages are surrounded by patterned frames;
Now I would like to turn to the most important thing, namely, the history of the publication. I will be interested in the first volume of the Elizabethan Bib-
D LO # 03 * 2014
li. A peculiarity acquired by him in the process of being is a dedication inscription that I accidentally discovered on the title page. With its help, I can determine who exactly owned the book before it got into the Lermontovka Foundation. There are two entries on the title page of peanut ink:
1. “This. Holy Bible, grandfather, From home of the Parent, brother and neighbor, is brought in with salt and salt ... 1861 September "day".
2. “December 1864, 1864, I bring this bible to my dear Alexander Alexandrovich Arapov as a souvenir and wishes for the consolation of the donor
Nikolai Arapov ”7.
I also knew about the role in the life of the Penza province one of the most ancient noble families of the Arapovs, which was included in the 6th part of the noble genealogy of the Penza Province8 in 17938 from the work of the classic of Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote in “Poshekhonsky Tales”: “However, the Penza province was generally a country of magic at that time. Wherever you turn, either Arapov or Saburov is everywhere, and for a change on each verst according to Zagoskin and according to Beketov. Arapovs marry Saburovs, Saburovs Arapovs. Someone else comes across - they will bite. ” Donor Nikolai Andreevich (07.20.1847-2.11.1883) was the second son of the Nizhnelomovsky and Narovchatsky leaders of the nobility Andrei Niko
laevich. In 1864, supporting the tradition established in the family, at the age of 17 he entered the Cavalier Guard regiment, where he served until 1872 and retired as a colonel. In the same year, he married Elizabeth Petrovna Lanskaya, the last daughter of N.N. Lanskoy, the widow of A.S. Pushkin. In turn, Alexander Alexandrovich Arapov (10.30.1832-1919) was Nikolai Andreyevich's cousin.
(Zk. Sch b & sis,? ”, ^ * - *.
With J.Y. "Cr.
The inscription of Nikolai Arapov to his brother on the title page of the Elizabethan Bible: “December 1864, I bring this Bible to my dear Alexander Alexandrovich Arapov as a souvenir and wishes for the comfort of the donor”
Since 1852 he also served in the Cavalier Guard regiment, in 1860 he transferred to the court service, had the rank of coffer and secret adviser. In the years 1869-1875. Alexander Alexandrovich was an honorary trustee of the Penza male gymnasium, from the same 1969 to 1873 he was elected the Moksha district leader of the nobility9. It is likely that Nikolai Aleksandrovich Arapov, leaving for the service, presented the Bible to his 32-year-old brother with the wish of consolation of the donor during the service.
The question remained open when the Bible became the property of the library. The publication does not have seals and stamps characteristic of the pre-revolutionary period of the library. Neither in reports on library activities (since 1894), nor in the systematic catalog of books and brochures by Pe
USPENSKY BORIS ANDREEVICH - 2012
KULESHOVA M.E. - 2013
Bible in Church Slavonic - transliteration in the modern Russian alphabet
(1751)
Elizabethan Bible
Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Slavic language
On November 14, 1712, Peter I issued a decree on the publication of a translation of the Bible into the Slavic language, the text of which would have been previously refined from existing publications in other languages. The following were appointed to the composition of the editorial committee: editors, teacher of Greek schools, Hieromonk Sofroniy Likhudiy and archimandrite of the Spassky Monastery Feofilakt Lopatinsky; typesetters printers Theodor Polikarpov and Nikolai Semenov; proofreaders monks Theologian and Joseph; the chief editor is Metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom, His Grace Stephen (Yavorsky).
The Commission reconciled the existing Slavic text of the Ostrog Bible with the Greek “translation of the Seventy”, based on the “London Polyglot” by Brian Walton, and also using as sources the Aldine Bible (1518), the Sistine edition of the Greek translation of Tanach (1587) and its translation into Latin language (1588). The commission did not reconcile the psalter, and the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith, and the third book of Ezra were corrected according to the Vulgate, as was done when the Ostrog Bible was published.
The verification and correction of the texts took seven years. In June 1720, the corrected text in eight volumes was submitted to Metropolitan Stefan, and then, on his behalf, was double-checked. In 1723, the Holy Synod approved the list of corrections submitted. On February 3, 1724, the emperor issued an oral decree to the Synod on printing revised texts simultaneously in two editions: the new and the old, “So that there would be no censure from troubled people to popular unrest”. Peter also requested that he be presented with samples of headsets. The Commission printed the text samples in various fonts and transmitted them to the Synod. The psalm was left in the old translation, and the proposed changes were marked in the margins. With the death of Peter I in January 1725, work on the publication was suspended.
The successor of Peter, Empress Catherine I issued a decree in November 1725 to continue the publication of the Bible, but requested another check, “So that from now on, what disagreement and in the translation of what sin ... is not found”. It is believed that this was only a formal reason for delaying work on the publication of the Bible. The ideological opponent of Stefan (Yavorsky), Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich) slowed down the matter. He submitted the progress report to the Synod only in 1735, and again he made the decision to double-check the text that had already been corrected more than once. The work was transferred to St. Petersburg and in 1736 entrusted to the translator of the Synod Vasily Kozlovsky with assistants under the general supervision of the archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery Stefan (Kalinovsky). It was decided to print the existing translation, and to make corrections in the lower field with notes, it was indicated that the reconciliation should be done with the Septuagint and only readings that coincided with it, and in doubtful cases, with the Masoretic text, should be left.
New difficulties at every turn, the work dragged on, the Synod took many more decisions and attracted new people to the work. In September 1742, the censored corrected translation was presented to the Synod by Archimandrite Thaddeus (Kokuylovich) and the Prefect of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Hieromonk Kirill (Florinsky). They compared the new translation of the Bible with Greek texts, guided mainly by the Alexandrian Codex (from the publication of the London Polyglot), believing that the ancient Slavic translation was made from it. Also, in rare cases, they used the Sistine edition of the Septuagint and the Vatican Codex. The books of Tobit and Judith, which existed only in translations from Latin, they translated from Greek; with the Latin text of the Vulgate, only the Third Book of Ezra was verified, since its Greek text was not found by them. But this option was sent for revision.
On February 14, 1744, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna by her decree indicated to the Synod that “The work of correcting the Bible, ... which has already begun long ago, is not delayed” and demanded an early completion of work. The synod was allowed to attract not only its members, but also other people of a spiritual rank for work. The synod came to the conclusion that it was impossible to correct the Slavic translation of the Bible, based only on the Greek text, and asked the empress for permission "to supplement the Greek - use the Syrian and Hebrew and other Bibles." A regular commission was created under the leadership of Moscow Archbishop Joseph and Archimandrite of the Resurrection Istra Monastery Hilarion (Grigorovich). Their work was barren and the commission soon broke up.
In 1747, a new commission was created, which completed the work of correcting the translation. It included the prefect of the Kiev Theological Academy, Hieromonk Varlaam (Lyashevsky) and the philosophy teacher of the Kiev Academy, Hieromonk Gideon (Slonim). They compared the translation of the Bible with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts previously prepared by Sofronius Lihud and Theophylact (Lopatinsky), using their different versions. They submitted all their corrections to the Synod. On September 10, 1750, the Synod reported to the Empress that the translation was ready for publication.
On December 18, 1751, the Elizabethan Bible went out of print. All changes made during correction of the translation were agreed upon; notes to the text constituted a separate volume, almost equal in volume to the text of the Bible itself. The first edition quickly sold out and in 1756 its second edition came out with additional marginal notes and prints, as well as corrections of errors and typos of the first edition. Subsequently, this version, called the Elizabethan or Petrine-Elizabethan Bibles, was published many times. He entered the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and is used with minor corrections during divine services to date.
First Book of Moses Genesis (chapters in a book: 50)
The Second Book of Moses Exodus (chapters in a book: 40)
The Third Book of Moses Leviticus (chapters in a book: 27)
The Fourth Book of Moses Numbers (chapters in a book: 36)
Fifth Book of Moses Deuteronomy (chapters in a book: 34)
Book of joshua (chapters in the book: 24)
Judges (chapters in the book: 21)
Book of Ruth (chapters in the book: 4)
First book of kings (chapters in a book: 31)
Second book of kings (chapters in the book: 24)
Third book of kings (chapters in book: 22)
Fourth book of kings (chapters in a book: 25)
First Book of Chronicles (chapters in a book: 29)
Second Book of Chronicles (chapters in a book: 36)
The first book of Ezra (chapters in a book: 10)
Book of Nehemiah (chapters in a book: 13)
The second book of Ezra (chapters in a book: 9)
Book of Tobit (chapters in a book: 14)
Book of judith (chapters in a book: 16)
Esther book (chapters in a book: 11)
Book of Job (chapters in the book: 42)
Psalm book (chapters in a book: 151)
Parables (chapters in a book: 31)
Ecclesiastes (chapters in a book: 12)
Song of songs (chapters in a book: 8)
Wisdom (chapters in the book: 19)
Book of sirach (chapters in book: 52)
Book of Isaiah (chapters in book: 66)
Book of the prophet jeremiah (chapters in book: 52)
Book of Jeremiah Crying (chapters in the book: 5)
The Epistle of Jeremiah (chapters in the book: 1)
Book of the Prophet Baruch (chapters in the book: 5)
Book of the prophet ezekiel (chapters in book: 48)
Book of the prophet daniel (chapters in a book: 14)
The Book of Hosea (chapters in a book: 14)
Book of the Prophet Joel (chapters in a book: 3)
Book of the Prophet Amos (chapters in a book: 9)
Book of the Prophet Obadiah (chapters in the book: 1)
Book of the prophet jonah (chapters in the book: 4)
Book of the Prophet Micah (chapters in a book: 7)
Book of the Prophet Nahum (chapters in a book: 3)
Book of the Prophet Habakkuk (chapters in a book: 3)
Book of the Prophet Zephaniah (chapters in a book: 3)
Book of the Prophet Haggai (chapters in a book: 2)
Book of Zechariah (chapters in a book: 14)
Book of the prophet malachi (chapters in the book: 4)
The first book of Maccabees (chapters in a book: 16)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elizabethan Bible - the name of the translation of the Bible in Church Slavonic, published in 1751 during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (on her behalf the translation received its name). The Elizabethan Bible, with minor corrections, is still used as an authorized text for worship in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Work on the translation under Peter I
Work on a new Slavic translation of the Bible was begun by a personal decree of Emperor Peter I of November 14, 1712:
|
The commission began to work and reconciled the existing Slavic text of the Ostrog Bible with the Greek, based on the London Polyglot Brian walton, and also using as sources the Aldine Bible (1518), the Sistine edition of the Greek translation of Tanach (1587) and its translation into Latin (1588). The commission did not reconcile the hymnal, and the deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Judith, and the third book of Ezra were corrected according to the Vulgate, as was done when the Ostrog Bible was published.
Reconciliation of texts and work on the correction lasted seven years. In June 1720, the corrected text in eight volumes was submitted to Metropolitan Stefan (Yavorsky), and then, on his behalf, the text was again double-checked. In 1723, the Synod approved the list of corrections of the biblical text submitted to it. However, printing of the publication was not started. On February 3, 1724, the Emperor made an oral decree to the Holy Synod on the procedure for publishing the Bible - when printing “ without omission to indicate the previous speeches that were forwarded ... so that there would be no complaints from the troubled people and the people's unrest, and with what literatures this Bible would be printed, so that those letters would declare to His Majesty". They performed this work under the leadership of Feofilakt (Lopatinsky), Bishop of Tver. At the same time, the Psalter was left in the old translation, and the proposed changes to its text were marked in the margins. The Commission printed various types of text in various fonts and transmitted them to the Synod. With the death of Peter I in January 1725, work on the publication was suspended.
Subsequent Editorial Commissions
The successor of Peter, Empress Catherine I, in November 1725 issued a decree to continue the publication of the Bible, but previously it was prescribed: " however, before ... it should be considered in the Holy Synod with those who straightened it, and agreed with the ancient Greek Bibles of our Church, so that henceforth what disagreement and translation of what sin ... was not found". The synod instructed this to be done again by Bishop Theophylact. It is believed that this was only a formal reason for delaying work on the publication of the Bible as a result of the struggle between the two church parties during which Feofan (Prokopovich) slowed down the work of his ideological opponent Stefan (Yavorsky).
The work of the commissions under Elizabeth Petrovna
The synod assigned this work to Archimandrite Thaddeus (Kokuylovich) and the Prefect of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Hieromonk Kirill (Florinsky). In September 1742, they submitted to the Synod a completely rewritten revised translation and a report on their work. It follows that they compared the new translation of the Bible with the Greek codes, being guided mainly by the Code of Alexandria (from the publication of the London Polyglot), believing that the ancient Slavic translation was made from him. Also, in rare cases, they used the Sistine edition of the Septuagint and the Vatican Codex. The books of Tobit and Judith, which existed only in translations from Latin, they translated from Greek; with the Latin text of the Vulgate, only the Third Book of Ezra was verified, since its Greek text was not found by them.
Before the printing of the Bible, the Synod decided to reconcile the text and this work was extremely slow. The nature of the discussions in the Synod is noteworthy by the statement of its member Metropolitan Arseny (Matseevich):
If you judge in subtlety, then the Bible with us (Church Slavonic) is not particularly needed. A scientist, if he knows Greek, Greek and will read; and if in Latin, then Latin, with which the Bible for itself and for teaching the people of Russia (meaning the Church Slavonic language) will be corrected. For the common people, it is enough in the church books from the Bible.
Elizabeth Petrovna, by her decree of February 14, 1744, indicated to the Synod that " the matter of correcting the Bible ..., which has already begun long ago, is urgent"And demanded an early completion of work. The synod was allowed to attract not only its members, but also other people of a spiritual rank for work. Soon, the Synod came to the conclusion that it was impossible to correct the Slavic translation of the Bible, based only on the Greek text, and asked the empress for permission " to complement the Greek - use the Syrian and Hebrew and other Bibles, which have close power to the old Slavic" because " this Greek (Bible) against the former, printed in Slovenian, is unhappy". A new commission was created under the leadership of the Moscow Archbishop Joseph and Archimandrite of the Resurrection Istra Monastery Hilarion (Grigorovich). Their work was fruitless, and the commission soon broke up.
Subsequently, the Russian Church continued to use the Elizabethan Bible in liturgical practice, making only some minor changes to it.
Write a review on the Elizabethan Bible
Notes
References
- . - 1st ed. - SPb. , 1751.- T. 1.
- . - 1st ed. - SPb. , 1751.- T. 2.
- . - 1st ed. - SPb. , 1751.- T. 3.
- . - 1st ed. - SPb. , 1751.- T. 4.
- . - 4th ed. - M., 1762.
- . - 8th ed. - M., 1784.
Literature
- // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
- The Olives F.G. Regarding the 150th anniversary of the Elizabethan Bible: On a new revision of the Slavic translation of the Bible. SPb., 1902.
- Evseev I.E. Essays on the history of the Slavic translation of the Bible. Pg., 1916.
- Riga M.I. History of Bible translations in Russia. Novosibirsk, 1978.
- Turcan R.K. . St. Petersburg, 2001.S. 217-220.
Excerpt from the Elizabethan Bible
Returning from his trip, Prince Andrey decided to go to Petersburg in the fall and came up with various reasons for this decision. A whole series of reasonable, logical reasons why he needed to go to Petersburg and even serve was every minute ready for his services. He even now did not understand how he could ever doubt the need to take an active part in life, just as a month ago he did not understand how the idea of \u200b\u200bleaving the village could come to him. It seemed clear to him that all his life experiences should have been in vain and nonsense if he hadn’t put them into action and again taken an active part in life. He did not even understand how, on the basis of the same poor rational arguments, it was previously obvious that he would have humbled himself, if now, after his lessons in life, he would again believe in the possibility of benefiting and in the possibility of happiness and love. Now the mind was telling something completely different. After this trip, Prince Andrei began to get bored in the village, he was not interested in his previous activities, and often, sitting alone in his office, he got up, went to the mirror and looked at his face for a long time. Then he turned away and looked at the portrait of the deceased Lisa, who, with whipped a la grecque [in Greek] letters, gently and merrily looked at him from a golden frame. She no longer spoke to her husband the previous terrible words, she simply and cheerfully looked at him curiously. And Prince Andrei, laying his hands back, walked around the room for a long time, now frowning, then smiling, changing his mind the unreasonable, inexpressible words, secret as a crime thoughts associated with Pierre, with fame, with the girl on the window, with the oak, with female beauty and love that changed his whole life. And in those moments when someone came in to him, he was especially dry, strictly decisive and especially unpleasantly logical.“Mon cher, [My dear,]” Princess Marya would say when she entered at such a moment, “You can’t walk now to Nikolushka: it’s very cold.”
“If it were warm,” Prince Andrei answered his sister especially dryly at such moments, “he would have gone in one shirt, and since it’s cold, you need to put on warm clothes that are made up for this. That's what follows from the fact that it’s cold, and not just about staying home when the child needs air, ”he said with particular logic, as if punishing someone for all this secret, illogical, internal work taking place in him. Princess Mary thought in these cases about how this mental work dries up men.
Prince Andrei arrived in St. Petersburg in August 1809. It was the time of the apogee of the fame of young Speransky and the energy of the coups he committed. In this very August, the sovereign, riding in a carriage, was dumped, injured his leg, and remained in Peterhof for three weeks, meeting daily and exclusively with Speransky. At that time, not only two decrees so famous and alarmed by society were being prepared on the annihilation of court ranks and exams for the ranks of college assessors and state advisers, but also an entire state constitution, which was obliged to change the existing judicial, administrative and financial order of governing Russia from the state council to the volost board. Now those obscure, liberal dreams that Emperor Alexander had ascended to the throne, and which he sought to realize with the help of his assistants Chartoryzhsky, Novosiltsev, Kochubey and Strogonov, whom he himself jokingly called comite du salut publique, were now being realized and embodied. [committee of public salvation.]
Now, all together, Speransky was replaced in the civilian part and Arakcheev in the military. Prince Andrew soon after his arrival, as chamberlain, appeared to the court and to the exit. The Emperor, having met him twice, did not dignify him with a single word. It always seemed to Prince Andrei before that he was antipathetic to the emperor, that the emperor was unpleasant with his face and his whole being. In the dry, distant gaze with which the emperor looked at him, Prince Andrei more than before found confirmation of this assumption. The courtiers explained to Prince Andrei the lack of attention of the sovereign to him that His Majesty was unhappy that Bolkonsky had not served since 1805.
"I myself know that we are not sovereign in our likes and dislikes, Prince Andrei thought, and therefore there is nothing to think about personally submitting my note about the military charter to the sovereign, but the matter will speak for itself." He handed over his note to the old Field Marshal, a friend of his father. The field marshal, having appointed him an hour, affectionately received him and promised to report to the sovereign. A few days later it was announced to Prince Andrei that he had come to the Minister of War, Count Arakcheev.
At nine o’clock in the morning, on the appointed day, Prince Andrei appeared at the reception of Count Arakcheev.
Personally, Prince Andrei did not know Arakcheev and never saw him, but everything he knew about him inspired him little respect for this man.
“He is the Minister of War, the confidant of the emperor; no one should care about his personal attributes; he was entrusted with considering my note, therefore he alone can give it a go, ”thought Prince Andrey, waiting among many important and unimportant persons in the reception room of Count Arakcheev.
Prince Andrei, during his mostly adjutant service, saw many important receptionists and the various characters of these receptions were very clear to him. Count Arakcheev had a very special receptionist character. On unimportant persons waiting for an audience in the reception room of Count Arakcheev, a feeling of shame and humility was written; the more official persons expressed one general feeling of awkwardness, hidden under the guise of swagger and mockery of himself, of his position and of the expected person. Some pensively walked back and forth, others laughed whispering, and Prince Andrei heard the sobriquet [mocking nickname] of Andriych’s forces and the words: “uncle will ask,” referring to Count Arakcheev. One general (an important person), apparently offended by the fact that he had to wait so long, sat with his legs crossed and smiling contemptuously with himself.
But as soon as the door opened, only one thing was instantly expressed on all faces - fear. Prince Andrei asked the attendant another time to report on himself, but they looked at him with a mockery and said that his turn would come in due time. After several persons brought in and taken out by the adjutant from the minister’s office, an officer was admitted into the terrible door, striking Prince Andrew with his humiliated and frightened appearance. The audience of the officer lasted a long time. Suddenly a peal of an unpleasant voice was heard from behind the door, and the pale officer, with trembling lips, stepped out and grabbed his head and walked through the waiting room.
After that, Prince Andrei was brought to the door, and on duty in a whisper said: "to the right, to the window."
Prince Andrei entered a rather tidy little office and saw a forty-year-old man with a long waist, with a long, short-cropped head and thick wrinkles, with frowning eyebrows over a square, green dull eyes and a hanging red nose. Arakcheev turned his head toward him, not looking at him.
“What are you asking for?” - asked Arakcheev.
“I do not ... ask, Your Excellency,” Prince Andrew said quietly. Arakcheev's eyes turned on him.
“Sit down,” said Arakcheev, “Prince Bolkonsky?”
“I am not asking for anything, and the emperor deigned to send to your excellency the note I submitted ...”
“Excuse me, my dear, I read your note,” Arakcheev interrupted, only saying his first words kindly, again not looking into his face and falling more and more into a grumpy contemptuous tone. - Do you offer new laws for the military? There are many laws; there is no one to fulfill the old. Today, all laws are written, it is easier to write than to do.
“I came by the will of the emperor sovereign to inquire from your excellency what move do you intend to give to the filed note?” - said politely Prince Andrew.
- I put a resolution on your note and sent it to the committee. I do not approve, ”said Arakcheev, getting up and taking paper from his desk. - Here! - he served Prince Andrew.
On paper across it, with a pencil, without capital letters, without spelling, without punctuation marks, it was written: "Unnecessarily composed as imitation was written off from the French military regulations and from the military article without the need of a retreating."
“What committee was the note sent to?” Asked Prince Andrew.
- The committee on the military charter, and I have been presented on the enrollment of your nobility in the members. Only without a salary.
Prince Andrew smiled.
“I don't want to.”
“Without a salary,” Arakcheev repeated. “I have the honor.” Hey call Who else? He shouted, bowing to Prince Andrew.
While awaiting notice of his admission to the committee, Prince Andrei resumed old acquaintances, especially with those people who, he knew, were valid and might need him. He now felt in Petersburg a feeling similar to that which he had experienced on the eve of the battle, when he was tormented by restless curiosity and irresistibly drawn to higher spheres, to where the future was preparing, on which the fate of millions depended. He felt from the bitterness of the old people, from the curiosity of the uninitiated, from the restraint of the initiates, from the haste, concern of all, from the countless committees, commissions, the existence of which he again knew every day, which now, in 1809, was being prepared here in St. Petersburg, some sort of huge civil battle, of which the commander in chief was unknown to him, mysterious and seeming to him brilliant, his face is Speransky. And he himself was vaguely aware of the task of transformation, and Speransky, the main figure, began to interest him so passionately that the matter of military regulation very soon began to pass into his secondary place in his mind.
Prince Andrey was in one of the most advantageous positions in order to be well received in all the most diverse and higher circles of the then Petersburg society. The party of converters warmly received and lured him, firstly because he had a reputation for intelligence and great literacy, and secondly because by his letting the peasants out into the wild, he had already made himself a liberal reputation. The party of old people displeased, just like their father’s son, turned to him for sympathy, condemning the transformation. Sorority, light, cordially welcomed him, because he was a bridegroom, wealthy and noble, and an almost new face with a halo of romance about his alleged death and the tragic death of his wife. In addition, the common voice about him of everyone who knew him before was that he had changed a lot for the better in these five years, softened and matured that he did not have his previous pretense, pride and mockery, and there was that calmness that acquired over the years. They talked about him, they were interested in him and everyone wanted to see him.
The day after visiting Count Arakcheev, Prince Andrei was in the evening with Count Kochubey. He told the Count his meeting with Sila Andreich (Kochubey so called Arakcheev with the same vague mockery at something that Prince Andrei noticed in the reception of the Minister of War).
- Mon cher, [My dear,] even in this matter you will not bypass Mikhail Mikhailovich. C "est le grand faiseur. [Everything is done by him.] I will tell him. He promised to come in the evening ...
- What matters Speransky to military regulations? Asked Prince Andrew.
Kochubey, smiling, shook his head, as if wondering at Bolkonsky's naivety.
“We talked about you the other day,” Kochubey continued, “about your free cultivators ...”
“Yes, it was you, prince, who let your men go?” Said the old Catherine’s man, turning contemptuously at Bolkonsky.
“A small estate didn’t bring any income,” answered Bolkonsky, so as not to annoy the old man in vain, trying to soften his action in front of him.
“Vous craignez d" etre en retard, [Be careful not to be late,] ”said the old man, looking at Kochubey.
“I don’t understand one thing,” the old man continued, “who will plow the land if they give them free rein?” It’s easy to write laws, but difficult to manage. Anyway, now, I ask you, Count, who will be the head of the chambers, when to keep the exams for everyone?
It is read in the first furnace. Bibles: According to the two years of their prayer, as if you had begun praying in Eli, choose Saul for yourself? D husband O husband of Ileev; instead, in Elizabeth: The son of one summer, Saul, where she began to pray, and two years of prayer at Iil. And Saul chose three thousand husbands for her husbands Iivyuh ... When comparing these two translations with the currently well-known readings of the Greek translation lists of 70 and the Hebrew text, it turns out that the first bears the greatest - comparatively - similarity only with the Sistine edition and Vatican list of the 4th century, where, according to the literal translation into Russian, it reads: “And Saul elects three thousand husbands for himself from the husbands of Israel.” The difference between this latter and the firstfold. Slavs. the translation concerns only the initial words: for two summer, in wastedwhich constitute a surplus against the named edition and list. Other lists are quite consistent with the early Slavs. the translation writing it is unknown. In this regard, our first-printed text of this place of the book of Kings is the least witnessed by the ancient Greek lists, as well as the Slavic ones, in which, as far as is known, there was another translation found in the Gennady Bible and other lists: AND be up summer Saul reigning over us, earlier reigning over them . This last translation serves to convey the reading of a significant number of Greek. lists, although not entirely accurate. Despite its little evidence, our first-printed translation turns out to be, as we shall see later, the most remarkable translation of the given place that we have. - Its translation in the Elizabethan Bible has confirmation for itself in a significant amount of Greek. 70 translation lists. Introducing it to the Holy Synod, Elizabethan directors referred only to the Alexandria and Komplutensky codes as the basis for their change in the translation of this passage, pointing out the dissimilarity of the previous printed and corrected Peter’s reference translations with the text of the code just named and publications. Although this link cannot be recognized at present as completely accurate, as in Aleksandriisk. the text of the ith chapter has not been preserved in the list, although, further, it turns out to be not entirely complete, since it does not mention the Sistine edition, the text of which is not consistent with the new translation of this place proposed by the directors; nevertheless, in general, it is true that the translation made by the Elizabethan reference books serves as the transmission of the reading of a considerable number of Greek lists, and this reading is a literal translation of the Hebrew text, which is also not mentioned in the report of the reference books.
Although the new Slavic translation has on its side a significant amount of evidence of ancient monuments of the biblical text, for all this it cannot be recognized as the most perfect of our existing translations of this place in view of the very composition of the sentences of which it consists. The words that begin the XIII-th chapter. on this translation: son of one summer Saul forever the beginning reign present a very great difficulty for understanding, both in and of themselves when applied to Saul, and in their use by biblical narrators. At the thought of Saul as a completely mature person, completely formed, as he is depicted in the previous chapters of the 1st book of kingdoms (IX, 2; X, 23) during his election to the kingdom, the infant age given to him in the above words is completely incomprehensible . An attempt made by the ancients to eliminate this incomprehensibility through the interpretation of words; “The son of the year Saul” ... in the sense of pointing to Saul’s infant purity of soul, he doesn’t achieve his goal when he reigns, because in other places of the Old Testament historical books that use the same expression in the Hebrew text, it always has a different meaning from this interpretation : they are usually indicated on the number of years of the person to whom it is attached. On this basis, recognizing that the words “son of the year Saul” were used in the same sense ... and at the beginning of the 13th chapter, and finding one year given to Saul at his reign completely inappropriate to his actual age, the biblical scholars of old and new time reading the beginning of this chapter in Heb. the text, the way out of the difficulty is usually found on the assumption that the Hebrew text of this place has not reached the present in its original form, that the original number of Saul’s years read in it has not been preserved intact, and this unsaved number of years is entered into the text on the basis of considerations and different biblical scholars do not get the same thing: some have 30, others have 40, others have 50. However, it is impossible to dwell with confidence on one of these numbers due to the unsteadiness of the grounds set for this. A clear evidence of the dissatisfaction of the Western biblical scholars themselves with such determinations of Saul’s age when he entered the kingdom is that in recent times they have begun to abandon these numbers in the text and recognize as more likely that the original Hebrew text did not show the exact number of years, or the fact that in ancient times this number was destroyed by some Jewish zealot, moreover, in the translation of this place, pr. King before the word: “year” there is a gap to indicate the unknown number of years of Saul's accession.
Instead, some of our Russian biblical scholars use a different kind of trick when translating this passage from the Hebrew text, which consists in the fact that the words of the latter are not conveyed with literal accuracy, and this translates as follows: “The year was the reign of Saul,” and he reigned two years over Israel "or:" The year of the reign of Shaul has passed. In the second year after the accession over Israel, “... Upon closer examination, these translations from Hebrew are also alien to very serious perplexities, which are as follows. Since the words of the Hebrew text in the literal translation: “son of the year in the reign” do not give, as indicated, a clear meaning, for the latter they are translated with such derogations that the word: “son” is eliminated, and “was” or “is introduced” passed “, the preposition at the word“ reign ”is also eliminated and this last tin is directly dependent on the word“ was ”or“ year ”; thanks to such changes, these words get the meaning that they indicate not the number of years of Saul's life at the accession, but the amount of time of his reign, determined in one year. In addition to the fact that the meaning attached to these words turns out to be, as noted above, inconsistent with the generally accepted meaning of Jewish expression in other places of the Old Farm. books, it is impossible to recognize it as correct, because in further words: “and he reigned over Israel for two years” there is another definition of the same time of Saul’s reign, not in one, but in two years. Such a disagreement between the biblical writer and himself, which is obvious from the first of the above translations, is eliminated in the second of the translations by the fact that instead of “reigned two years”, the expression “in the second year after the reign” is used, which directly deviates from the usual meaning of the words of the Hebrew text, which reads here “two”, and not “second” and “reigned”, and not “after accession”. And even if this second translation had been grammatically correct, it would still have been inconsistent in the sense that after the previous words had already indicated the passing of the year of Saul’s reign, the second year is again indicated in the words under consideration this reign, i.e., is indicated at the same time. This twofold - according to the second translation - indication of the biblical writer in the two halves of the verse at the same time cannot, of course, not arouse bewilderment, and at the same time, distrust the correctness of this translation. Thus, in the form in which the current Jewish text of this place is translated by our biblical scholars, it turns out to be extremely difficult to understand. This is - according to the Hebrew text - one of those places that the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures call (cruces interpretum \u003d) “crosses of the interpreters”.
* * *
For the sons of the Greek-Eastern Orthodox Church, there is no need to stay in this place of the book of Kings, at all costs, of the current Jewish text, and in particular to find ways to eliminate the perplexities excited by the words: “son of the year Saul at his reign”. Translation of 70, which has equal dignity with us from Heb. text, opens by reading this place of the biblical text in some of its oldest lists another, more reliable way to get out of this difficulty. An indication of this path is the above reading of the Vatican list, according to which the XIIIth ch. begins with the words: “And Saul chooses for himself three thousand husbands from the husbands of Israel.” This reading presents that significant feature that completely excluded from the biblical text puzzled words: “son of the year Saul at reign” ... In the absence of these words in the text of the oldest of the currently known translation lists of 70, the biblical scholars see the latest time sign that they were not read in the original translation of 70. This opinion seems plausible because otherwise it is hardly possible to explain their absence in this list, while their inclusion in other later lists of this translation is easily explained by the great influence on the text of the last works, which corrected and partially supplemented it with other ancient translations. In this last respect, it is known that in some of the Greek lists the words: “the son of the year Saul at his reign” are marked with a special sign (asterisk) indicating the completion of the Greek translation from other sources in this place. Why the original Greek translators did not include these words in the biblical text, this can only be explained presumably, or by the fact that they didn’t have these words in the list of the Jewish text, or by the fact that they, like the former not only translators, but also interpreters of the holy. text, considered for the best "omit this verse as" incomprehensible ". The preservation of the original text of 70 in the IV century Vatican list is explained, on the one hand, by the fact that this list was written, as you might think, in Egypt, where it received its origin and translation of 70, which therefore it could be kept in greater purity here, and on the other, in the fact that it was in Egypt in the 3rd Christian century that Ishihii revised the Greek translation, which differs in the research that has begun on this subject, generally in brevity in transferring the biblical text and removing it from it all done x additions to it from other Jewish-Greek translations: Hesychius, according to our biblical scholar, “did not make readings in his text if he noticed that they were not readings of seventy.” If the Vatican list in question got its origin from Egyptian Christians in the 4th century, after Hesychius made a revision of the 70 translation here in order to restore its original text, then it becomes clear that the words in question are not read in this list of the XIIIth ch. 1st book Kings, as translated into 70 translations from other Jewish-Greek translations. But to all this, this reading of the Vatican list can be considered and evaluated not without reason as the most accurate reproduction of the text of 70 in its original form. In general, I must say: a look at the Vatican. The 4th century, as being especially close to the original text of 70, has important grounds for comparing readings belonging to it with the Hebrew text and readings of other Greek translation lists of 70. And with this view of this list, the reading of the passage of the book of Kings that he represents becomes, of course, of particular importance, which rewards the lack of evidence in favor of this reading from other Greek lists.
In particular, the importance of this reading of the Vatican list for understanding the biblical narrative is evident from the fact that with it themselves not only the indicated perplexities caused by the words: “son of the year Saul at the reign”, but also further ones that arise when reading the following later in Hebrew, disappear text and some Greek. lists of words: "And he reigned two years over Israel." If you put these words in close connection with the subsequent ones, which speak of the election by Saul of three thousand Israelis to be with him permanently, their meaning seems quite understandable: or, apparently, indicates the time of Saul's reign, when he led a standing army ; , neither the grammar, nor the sequence of the story contradicts such an understanding, “as has long been noted. But there are other important circumstances here that are not conducive to recognizing this understanding as correct. The most important of them is that the same words and in the same combination are used usually in other places in the historical books of the Old Testament to denote the total number of years of the reign of one or another person, in view of which another understanding of the above words is more plausible, consisting in that the biblical writer wanted them to indicate the whole time of Saul’s reign. Such a definition of this time, which, in the literal sense of these words, lasted only two years, however seems completely inconsistent with the multiplicity of events that occurred during the reign of Saul: in addition to what was done under Saul within the state, there are only wars with all the surrounding nations (): The Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Edomites, Owl kings, and the Philistines, of course not simultaneously, but at different times, obviously did not fit into the two years indicated by the writer. In view of this historical reference, the number: “two years” is obviously incomplete or not preserved in the Jewish text in its original form, as a result of which the biblical scholars who hold exclusively to this text try to fill this number by adding other numbers to it (10 or 20 ) or by changing it to a larger several number 9), on the basis of various considerations, the insufficiency of which is already evident from the unevenness of the numbers obtained by various biblical scholars during the years of Saul’s reign. - And this kind of perplexity and difficulty, represented by the words: “and reigned over Israel for two years” is completely eliminated, of course, by reading the Vatican list, as it does not include here two years of Saul’s reign.
Another negative is connected with this negative, and in fact, liberating, meaning of reading this place according to the Vatican’s slip. It lies in the fact that if the XIII-th chapter. 1st book King to begin, according to this list, with the words: “And Saul chose three thousand husbands for himself,” then the event referred to in this place of the biblical story turns out to be accomplished immediately after the speech of the prophet. Samuel, whom he uttered, dismissing government power during a public meeting in Gilgal (). That the biblical writer is an institution of a standing army, the reference to which is preceded in the Hebrew text by the words: “the son of the year Saul reigned and reigned over Israel for two years”, refers to the time of this Galgali national assembly, and not to any other that was in the second year of the reign Saul, this can be seen from further words read the same here in the Hebrew text and translation of 70: and let the rest of people go to your village. The reference made in these words to the dissolution of the national assembly would be incomprehensible if the latter would take place a year after Samuel resigned from the office of Judge, since the circumstances under which or as a result of which the people were convened would remain unspecified. In the circumstance with which the events in the first two books of the Kings are set forth, the mention of the dissolution of the people home should have been preceded by an indication of the convocation of the people in the assembly. When reading this place of the book of Kings on the Vatican list, there was no need for such an indication, since it was made earlier in the story of the assembly of the people in Gilgal; the dissolution of this popular assembly and, of course, in the above words, which in this case are perfectly clear.
The undoubted advantages of reading this place on the Vatican List, revealed to the extent possible, belong to a large extent to the Slavic translation of this place in our first printed Bible, as the closest to reading this list in comparison with other translation lists known up to now in 70. In our first printed Bible there are no the most incomprehensible and perplexing words: “the son of the year Saul at the reign”, just as there are none in the Vatican list. True, the first reads the following words: by two the summer of his kingdom, for the beginning reign in Israel reminiscent of the reading of the Hebrew text and the following some Greek lists; but there is no sufficient reason to insist on keeping these words in the Slavic text, since they do not represent the exact transmission of either the Jewish text or the Greek lists. If, when transmitting the initial words of the XIVIth chapter, our ancient translators gave preference to reading the Vatican or a list similar to it, and if this reading, when considered, is quite consistent with the content of the biblical narrative and alien to various perplexities excited by readings different from it, then this gives sufficient reason in order to coordinate our Slavic translation in the 2nd half of the 1st verse with the reading of the Vatican List and on this basis to begin the XIVI-th chapter of the 1st pr. King with the words: “And Saul chose three thousand husbands for himself” ... The Elizabethan directors, as can be seen from all that has been said, have included here in the Slavic translation that does not serve to improve it and, in all likelihood, does not even belong to the original text of the translation 70 those.
* * *
It is read in the first printing Slavs. Bibles: ... and stick to saws and to the trizivy iron image cut stone, and to those who create iron and to those who create Pliids ... in Elizabethan B ... and put on saws, and on tridents of iron and axes of iron, and surpassing them you sing plindyans ... In these words, the biblical narrator depicts what King David did after defeating the Ammonites and taking their capital with the male adult population and other ammonite cities. According to the previous Slavic translation, they were doomed to forced labor in quarries, in iron and brick factories. According to the new Slavs. to translation, they were betrayed to painful executions by means of special deadly tools or by burning in kilns in brick factories.
In order to thoroughly judge which of these translations serves as a more accurate transmission of a genuine biblical text, it is necessary to turn to the ancient monuments of the latter.
Representing the Holy Synod the second of the above translations, belonging to the Petrovsky directors proper, the Elizabethan - in confirmation of their agreement with him, indicated that this translation was “corrected according to all Greek codes”. In the four editions of the translation of 70 available at the Elizabethan directories there was the following reading of this place of Prince. Kings in the literal translation of it into Russian: .. "put (or set) with a saw, with iron threshers (or three-pointed guns), and iron sections (in Komplut. Ed .:: axes) and held (in Oxford. - took , in Komplut. - circled) them through a brick “(or“ brick factory “). Between this reading in the Greek translation and the second of the Slavic translations cited, there is no noticeable similarity in those speeches, the transmission of which depends mainly on the meaning of the translated place: expression: put on the saws does not represent the exact (grammatically) transmission of the Greek text; in words: surpassing the cave of Plinoyan through the cave given the Greek utterance corresponding to the last two words of the Slavic translation (πλινθίον or πλινθεῖον, as in the ancient Vatican. sp.) such a meaning, which it actually does not have. In general, the idea of \u200b\u200bputting the captured Ammonites to death, clearly appearing in the second of the above Slavic translations, is not expressed by anything in the Greek text used by the Elizabethan reference books. The closest transmission of the latter is, on the contrary, contrary to the instructions of the Elizabethan reference books, a translation in our first printed Bible, which expresses, according to the Greek text in most of its lists, the idea of \u200b\u200bforced hard labor, to which the captured Ammonites were sentenced.
The reason for the change in the previous translation of this place made by Peter the Great’s directors is, one must think, in the influence of the Hebrew text on them, which, as you know, they used, and which could be understood and translated as well. Jerome and many others to date. In Vulgate, this place is translated as follows (if the Latin language is translated in Russian): “and the people brought it, sawed it, and turned iron wires over them (circumegit super eos ferrata carpenta): and cut it with knives and held it like bricks” (in typo laterum) . The Hebrew text in a German translation (Luther) is very similar to this: “And he put them under iron saws and tines (Zacken), and iron axes, and burned them in brick-burning furnaces” (Ziegelöfen). From the Hebrew text, whether by means of an independent translation or under the influence of other translations, there was, in all likelihood, an understanding of the various instruments described in this place of the book of Kings, namely the instruments of the death penalty; hence, in particular, the idea of \u200b\u200ba brick kiln, absent in the Greek text, was borrowed, as one should think. At least sources other than those mentioned above, which the new Slavic translation of this passage of the book of Kings could have owed its origin to, are not known to the writer: the Syrian and Arabic translations, which were also used in places by Peter's reference books, express a different view of the fate of the captured Ammonites, than which is expressed in the translation of the Elizabethan Bible.
Thus, when comparing the above Slavonic translations with other monuments of the biblical text, it turns out that the translation of the first printed Bible serves as a transmission of the Greek text in most of its lists and publications, and the translation found in the Elizabethan Bible is a transmission of the Hebrew text in its usual sense.
Which of these Slavic translations, which are not identical in the primary sources and in the meaning of the two Slavic translations, has more rights to remain in the text of the Slavic Bible, is it a translation of our first-printed Bible or the Elizabethan?
In resolving this issue, the following features of the biblical text in this place of the book of Kings draw attention to themselves:
In the 1st. In setting forth David’s orders regarding the Ammonite captives, the biblical writer does not use any of the expressions that would indicate the execution of them and which are used in other places of the Old Testament books, which refers to the then ill-treatment of prisoners of war from among non-Canaanite peoples ( for example: to kill; : cut out; 2 Parallel XXV, 12: deposed and etc.). Instead, the following expressions are used in this place: know, put or “set” and superior. Expressed by these words, which in general represent a very close translation of the utterances of the Hebrew text, the movement of the captives in itself has the idea of \u200b\u200bseeing in this action the winner as a special goal, rather than putting them to death: if this were meant, it could be committed in the cities from which these captives came; there was no need to bring them to a special place for putting to death. This removal from the cities becomes clear on the contrary, if the captives were doomed to forced labor in special places chosen for this, which is expressed in the translation of 70 on most of his lists and in the first-printed Slavs. The bible.
In 2. Expressed in the Vulgate and other later translations of this place, pr. The kingdom's notion of the special painful executions to which the captive Ammonites were subjected and which consisted of sawing, crushing and burning, cannot be recognized as plausible because it does not have anything corresponding to the treatment of c. David with prisoners of war from other nations: neither the Mosvitians () nor the Edomites () were subjected to special painful executions. Such an unprecedentedness of the commission of the latter over some Ammonites naturally requires an explanation, which however cannot serve as the fact that David during this war was, due to his grave sin (), in a state of alienation from God, since this was removed from the king before the end of the war ( ) If other biblical scholars, in the reign of David, explain the use of torturous deaths to the Ammonites by the fact that this people brutally acted with the vanquished, this explanation cannot be completely satisfied, because at the same time, the motives by which David did not use such methods of execution remain incomprehensible. in relation to prisoners from other no less cruel and hostile peoples, he acted differently with some Ammonites. The exceptional cruelty of David, which could not be satisfactorily explained, in the character of which “there was least cruelty,” with the Ammonites alone, naturally convinced of the accuracy of that translation of this passage, Prince. The kingdoms that introduce an incomprehensible event into the history of this reign
And, in 3, the understanding formed by the new translators of this place of the book of Kings about the instruments mentioned here, namely the instruments of the death penalty, does not have a solid foundation in the existing and to date information on these subjects. What exactly is meant by those named in the usual translation a saw, iron tridents and so on, what purpose or device they had, remains essentially unknown due to the fact, among other things, that the Hebrew names used here are found on the Old Farm. books are very rare or only in the narrative of this event. So the first of them (in Hebrew "mega"), translated by the word; “Drank”, besides the story of this event in the 2nd King. and 1st Chronicles. (Xx, 3), used only in 3 Kings VII, 9, regarding stones, saw cut. Some of the biblical scholars understand the same kind of tool under the saw in the narration of this event, presenting the case in such a way that the Ammonite prisoners of war were taken to the quarry and here they are assigned to sawing up stones. The following name (in Hebrew “charitza”), besides the story of this event, is used only in where it is translated in Greek by the word (τροφαλίδες), meaning: “piece”. The subject designated by the writer pr. The kingdom by this name was so obscure already for Greek translators that in each of the three places of the Old Testament books in which it appears, they used various Greek words; it is also unequally translated by later translators: by Symmachus: (τροχοί) “wheels”, by bliss. Jerome (ferrata carpenta \u003d) “iron drains”, for Luther (Zacken \u003d) “teeth”, in the English authorized translation (harrows \u003d) “harrows”, for others (in Jewish dictionaries, translated from St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy and in the synodal Russian translation) “iron threshers”, while others (Einschnitte, Gräben \u003d) have “cuts, ditches”. In the explanation of the further name (in Hebrew “magseroth”), there is more agreement between the ancient and new translators: among the Greek it is translated by the word (ύποτομεῦς or σκἐπαρνον) “cutter”, “ax”, by Jerome - (culter) “knife”; close to this - and later. The last of the names (in Hebrew “malben” in “keri” or interlinear reading of the Hebrew text) is explained opposite in the same way: in Greek. translators understand it in meaning πλινθείου or πλινθίου): “brick factory” or “brick”; close to this is a translation of bliss. Jerome in typo laterum \u003d) “in the image of bricks” or “like bricks”; meanwhile, among the new translators, the old understanding is retained, as the foundation, found partly for itself in other places, is the Old Farm. books, where this Hebrew word is used, is then replaced by another: "brick kiln" (translated by Luther and others), then finally it is Heb. the word is replaced by another readable in the text itself by Katib - “malken”) and understood in the meaning of the statue.
From the heterogeneous explanations given for almost each of the words used in this place of the book of Kings, one can see how philological grounds are in general insufficient for an exact definition of their lexical meaning, and at the same time for understanding the objects that they mean; in particular, it is also evident that all these words can be understood with some reason as the names of the tools used in the quarries, in metal and brick factories, or - the works themselves developed on them, and, of course, a look at these tools as tools the death penalty, itself eliminated. The notion of forced or, according to the current, hard labor, which appears with such an understanding of these names, cannot in itself cause particular bewilderment, since the extraction of hard stone and copper from the bowels of Canaan’s land is clearly stated in Deuteronomy (VIII, 9), which is confirmed and instructions from travelers to the traces of former mines for the extraction of metals that have been preserved here in Palestine.
If with this result, which follows from the examination of the names of various tools used in this place, the connection of the story of the biblical writer about the removal of captured Ammonites from the cities and his silence about the death of them, then the most plausible understanding of what was said in the book. The kingdoms about this event that the captives were sentenced not to execution, but to work. Indeed, some of the domestic and foreign biblical scholars of the new era come to such an understanding, which translates the place of the book of Kings in this way: .. "and put it to saws, to iron threshers, to iron axes and sent them to brick work." This new translation from Hebrew obviously has a perfect resemblance in meaning to the Slavic translation of the first printed Bible made from the Greek text. The similarity of the two translations, made independently, on the basis of the two most important monuments of the biblical text, is an obvious sign of the fidelity of their understanding.
However, the evidence of 1st Chronicles seems to speak against this understanding with determination. XX, 3. Here, when recounting the same event from the history of the reign of David, in Hebrew. the text and the Greek translation read: and with saws, and iron tools, and knockers . In considering this biblical testimony, which clearly expresses the notion that the various tools listed here were tools of the painful execution of the Ammonites, the fact that this place of pr. Chronicles generally represents the same composition of words and the order of their sequence, as in 2 Kings XII, 31 and differs from the text of the latter in only two words; pretra instead bother or put and dissecting instead: axes of iron. To the word Chronicles: dissecting conforms to Hebrew. the same word in the text, only in the plural (“megerot”), which is used in the same verse and the transmission of which - in the singular (“meger”) - is Slavic: saws. The use of the same subject name in one sentence in itself is an unusual occurrence in correct speech; a comparison of this place Paral'n with the text of the Kings corresponding to it shows that in the latter it is read not this exciting bewilderment by its repetition of the utterance (that is, “megaerot”), but another (“magerzot”) that is different from it, although and similar in pronunciation and meaning. If instead of this last utterance read in the book. Kings and not arousing perplexity, is in the book. Chronicles, whose writer undoubtedly used the book of Kings, another that turns out to be inappropriate, as already used at the beginning of the sentence, the reason for this and the supporters of the exceptional meaning of the current Jewish text is rightly indicated in the fact that the Hebrew text Chronicles refers to the writing of the word (“Magherot”) an error crept in. There is reason to think that the ancient Greek translators looked at this word in this place of Chronicles, just like the erroneous one, since they, in all probability, left it without transmission. And if the speech in question is Heb. The text of Paralipo-n is not preserved in its original form or “erroneous," it is not without reason that one can also look at another tin, which distinguishes the text of this place of Prince. Parall. from the book Kings, that is, to say: (“nayyasar” instead of “vayyasem” \u003d) pretra vm bother; and in the inscription of these Hebrew words, differing only in one consonant ( r vm m), the same error could occur as in the word just considered. To have some distrust of the word (“vaiyasar” \u003d) “sawed” also means that this predicate is inappropriate in the appendix to further words: guns with iron and dissecting; the latter demanded, obviously, another predicate. The expression of inconsistency used here in Heb. the text of the predicate serves the fact that in our domestic translations it is either replaced by another, or supplemented by another predicate. In view of this, readable in the current Heb. in the text of the 1st book of Parall: “and sawed with a saw” cannot be of such importance in explaining what David did to the captive Ammonites to base this explanation on it or replace it with what was read in the book. The kingdom “molested,” as some of the Western biblical scholars do. Let it keep its place in the book. Päralipn, but does not extend his influence on the text of the book of Kings and on the explanation of the latter. So the Greek translators looked at the meaning of this utterance, transmitting each of the Hebrew words used in one and the other biblical books to their respective Greek words: ἔθηκεν) “set” and (διέπρισεν) “sawed”; so did our ancient Slavic translators, who conveyed the first with the word: “pester”, the second with “tear”. The inconsistency of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe same event, which cannot be eliminated, contrary to the evidence of the most ancient monuments of the biblical text.
Thus, a consideration of this place of the book of Kings proves that its ancient Slavic translation serves as the closest transmission of not only the Greek translation, but also the Hebrew text, as some of the modern biblical scholars understand the latter.
In other places of the original Slavic Bible, which turn out to be translated more accurately than in the Elizabethan one, there is no need to dwell especially, since with respect to some, at least, places of this kind this was already done in the writings of Russian biblical scholars. They belong to their category, for example, read in Jerome. I, 2 in the first printing Bibles: in the days of Josiah son Ammon, instead of what was said in the Elizabethan Bible: in the days of josiah son Amos. The correctness of the first of these translations is recognized in Interpretation on the book. St. prop. Jeremiah “„ in view of reading the Hebrew text, - sv. Ephraim the Syrian, bliss. Jerome, Komplutensky and Aldinskiy editions of the translation of 70, as well as on the basis of instructions from sacred historical books “regarding the name of the father of c. Josiah This is then the first printing. Bibles in the book. prop. Hosea (I, 4): at home iou instead of Elizabethan: at home Judah. The correctness of the first reading is recognized in the interpretation of the re. Palladium on the book. prop. Hosea and Joel on the basis of Heb. text, Vulgates, reading bliss. Theodorite, St. Ephraim and the context of prophetic speech, “for the kingdom of the house of Israel is spoken of, and Jehu was king of Israel”; in favor of such a translation is also evidenced by the “Sierra-Hekzapli text, where the name is not Judas, and Jehu. There is in the first printing. Slavs. Bibles and other similar passages are generally more accurately translated than those of the Elizabethan directories. The existence of such transfers in the first printing. The Bible deserves special attention because it can serve as an important confirmation of the correctness of new corrections of the existing Slavic text that are consistent with them, and because the importance of studying the ancient manuscripts of the Slavic Bible as those sources from which the Otrogo handbooks gleaned from their wonderful readings of the biblical text. Our oldest ancestors, headed by the holy enlighteners of the Slavs, were obviously able to understand with great success different readings of the biblical text on different lists and editions than the ones closest to us.
Old Testament - Ancient Jewish Scripture (Jewish Bible). The books of the Old Testament were written in the period from XIII to I century. BC. This is a common sacred text of Judaism and Christianity, part of the Christian Bible.
Christians believe that the Bible has always consisted of the New and Old Testaments. In this they are helped by theologians who prove that the Old Testament is an integral part of the Holy Scripture, and both books harmoniously complement each other almost from the time of the Apostles. But this is not so.
As early as the beginning of the 19th century, the Old Testament was not considered a holy book in Russia.
ROC version
982 year. The Bible was translated by Cyril and Methodius;
- 1499 year. The Gennadiev Bible appeared (the first biblical Bible containing the Old and New Testaments);
- 1581 year. Bible of the first printer Ivan Fedorov (Ostrog Bible);
- 1663 year. Moscow edition of the Russian Bible (is a somewhat revised text of the Ostrog Bible);
- 1751 year. Elizabethan Bible
- 1876 year. The synodal translation distributed by the Russian Orthodox Church today.
The Russian "Orthodox" church adheres to this scheme in order to show the logical sequence of the appearance of the Bible in modern Russian. It seems like it turns out that the “Orthodox” Russian people had a natural need for a complete Bible, and there was no external influence, external forces that sought to introduce Old Testament books into Russian “Orthodox” society as sacred.
Old Testament in Russia
Since the translation of Cyril and Methodius was not preserved, and for some reason its traces are not traced in ancient Russian literature, Church historians assign the main role in preparing the complete Bible to Archbishop Gennady, using his authority, so that ordinary people do not have doubts; allegedly under his leadership for the first time in Russia the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament were united under one cover.
Archbishop Gennady became famous for the struggle against the "Heresy of the Judaizers", and the church attributes to him the unification of the Old and New Testaments. Those. the fighter himself promotes in Russia the ideological basis of the heresy with which he is fighting. Paradox? - but it is accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church as a reliable historical fact.
* In the Old Testament there is a book of Deuteronomy Isaiah, which spells out all the provisions promoted by the "Heresy of the Living".
In Russia at that time was the New Testament, the Psalter and the Apostle.
There is a version that the Gennadievskaya Bible appeared later. For example, in 1551 (that is, 52 years after the appearance of the Gennadiev Bible), the Stoglavy Cathedral was held, at which the question of translations of holy books was considered.
3 books were recognized as sacred: the Gospel, the Psalter, and the Apostle. The Old Testament and the Gennady Bible are not mentioned, which contradicts the version of the Russian Orthodox Church. If these books already existed, then the participants in the cathedral should have expressed their opinion on the legitimacy of using them.
In the 16th century, the implementation of the Old Testament translation failed.
Ostrog Bible
Ostrog Bible - a complete copy of Gennadievskaya. If you believe the historians of the church, then Ivan Fedorov decided to print the Ostrog Bible. But there is very little data on his personality. There is no information how Ivan Fedorov became a deacon? Who dedicated how the title was awarded? How did he study printing, and why was he entrusted to found the first printing house? The question arises - was Ivan Fedorov really the first printer and author of the Ostrog Bible.
It is known that Ivan Fedorov was engaged in the ebb of cannons and invented the multi-barrel mortar. The famous person who poured guns and is the inventor of the multi-barrel mortar was credited with the printed edition of the Old Testament, linking his biography with Prince Ostrog, hence the name of the Bible is Ostrog. But this does not give authority to Ivan Fedorov. Prince of Ostrog participated in the preparation of the Union ...
He was married to a Catholic, and the eldest son, Prince Janusz, was baptized according to the Catholic rite.
In addition, Ostrogsky was associated with yet another publisher of the Old Testament - Francis Skorina (he lived and worked during the life of Archbishop Gennady), but unlike Gennady, Francis’s activity was more likely “heretical” in nature. At least, it was far from Orthodox traditionalism. There is also evidence of contacts between F. Skorina and the Jews. It is possible that they could stimulate his interest in the Old Testament texts.
It can be stated that in Ukraine in the mid-70s of the 15th century, in fact, when work began on the Ostrog Bible, almost all Old Testament books were already translated into Russian or Old Slavonic. It is significant that these lists were in the possession of the princes of Ostrog. Obviously, they should be considered the forerunners of the Ostrog Bible.
Thus, in the south-west of Russia a lot of work was done to prepare the Russian-language text of the Old Testament for distribution in Russia, to which the Russian first printer Ivan Fedorov allegedly had a hand.
Moscow Bible
Then in Russia there was a schism of the church (1650-1660) under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (father of Peter the Great). The reforms resulted in the split of Christians into two groups: those who believed in the king and Patriarch Nikon and followed them, and those who continued to adhere to the old dogma.
For what purpose it was necessary to compare the Slavic books with the Greek, especially since Nikon himself did not know the Greek language. It is clear that Nikon did not make this decision on his own. He had such an associate Arseny Grek, who did a lot to destroy the Slavic books and advocated for new translations.
A split was provoked, and while the Christians destroyed each other for one or another ritual, in 1663 they published the Moscow Bible, which repeated the Ostroh Bible, with clarification according to Jewish and Greek texts.
The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) was added to the New Testament, and the New Testament was modified so that it was perceived as a "continuation" or "superstructure" of the Old Testament.
Director of the Library of Congress John Billington:
“The Old Believers accused Nikon of allowing the Jews to translate the sacred books, and the Nikonians accused the Old Believers of allowing the Jews to worship services ... Both sides considered the cathedral 1666-1667. “A Jewish gathering”, and in an official ruling the cathedral accused its opponents of being victims of “false Jewish words” ... There were rumors that state power was given to “damned Jewish rulers” and the Tsar entered into a corrupt “western” marriage, drugged by the love potions of Jewish doctors. "
Taking advantage of the confusion, they dragged the “two-faced” Bible.
However, once and for all it was not possible to solve all the problems. Although the Moscow Bible appeared, it was not accepted by society. The people doubted the correctness of the new books (more precisely, despised and blasphemed) and perceived their introduction as an attempt to enslave the country (this is the level of understanding by our ancestors of global politics!). In the churches Slavic versions of the New Testament, Apostle and Psalter were still used.
Elizabethan Bible
The Elizabethan Bible is a copy of Moscow, corrected by the Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible). After the invasion of Napoleon, in 1812 the Bible Society was created, which began to distribute the Elizabethan Bible.
However, Bible Society was soon banned.
The distribution of the Bible with the Old Testament was opposed by Nicholas I.
It is known that in 1825 the circulation of the Old Testament, translated and printed by the Bible Society, was burned at the brick factories of the Nevsky Lavra. There were no more attempts to translate, and even more so publish the Old Testament, during the thirty-year reign of Emperor Nicholas I.
Synodal translation
The translation of the Old Testament books was resumed in 1856 during the reign of Alexander II. But it took another 20 years of struggle, in 1876, to publish the complete Bible in Russian in one volume, on the title page of which stood: "With the blessing of the Holy Synod." This text is called the “Synodal Translation”, “the Synodal Bible” and is still being reprinted with the blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
The Holy Synod, which blessed the distribution of a synodal translation of the Bible in Russia, containing two artificially connected books under one cover, actually signed a sentence to his state, which is confirmed by all further events, including the current state of Russia.
One of the main roles in the translation of the Old Testament was played by Daniil Abramovich Hvolson and Vasily Andreyevich Levison, a rabbi from Germany who converted to Orthodoxy in 1839. In 1882, a Russian translation of the Hebrew Bible was published, commissioned by the British Bible Society, W. Levison and D. Hvolson.
One can imagine what forces were interested in giving the Old Testament the status of the Holy Book, because they managed to process the members of the Holy Synod and convince them of the need to join the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) to the New Testament. Someone was so eager for this goal that he even sacrificed two rabbis who converted from Judaism to "Orthodoxy", but only formally, but in reality they continued their Jewish work. By the way, the Jewish electronic encyclopedia speaks positively of them, and not as traitors.
* “The Old Testament is a book completely alien to us, and should become more and more alien to us if we do not want to change our identity forever” - Eugene Dühring.
Book - According to your faith, let it be to you ... (The Holy Book and the global crisis): VP USSR
The proposed video is not entertaining at all. It is cognitive. Although many seem boring. Therefore, do not turn it on.
How to make a talisman for good luck in business, study, love with your own hands
Protection against negativity for all occasions
Meditation for beginners at home