According to my calculations, this edition is at least the seventh complete translation of the Bible into Russian. I won’t list everything, just those with which it makes sense to compare it. These are, first of all, translations of high quality and at the same time addressed to different audiences. There is no point in talking about the first of them, Synodal, as it is quite well known to everyone.
The second was published in 2007 without any announcement and is simply called “The Bible”, it is published by the International Bible Society (IBS), like the translation of the New Testament called “The Word of Life”, released in the very early 90s.
Much more famous is another translation, the Russian Bible Society (RBS), consisting of two unequal parts: in 2001, a translation of the New Testament was published under the title “Good News”, its only translator was V.N. Kuznetsova. The Old Testament was prepared by a whole team under the leadership of M.G. Seleznev and according to slightly different principles (he, let’s say, was translated more conservatively). And in 2011, both translations were published under the same cover.
And now another translation has been released into modern Russian, done at the proper level. It may be somewhat difficult for me to write a review of this translation 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 publication besides my own work.
The lack of an original title is somewhat disappointing. The MBO translation is simply called “The Bible”; the subtitle reads: “a new translation into modern Russian.” The RBO publication is also “The Bible. Modern Russian translation". And there was another publication, from the early 90s, which appropriated the title of “modern translation”, but I do not mention it due to its low quality. And now we have before us another Russian Bible “in a modern translation,” as indicated on the cover. Yes, for some reason biblical translators skimp on original titles. I would call this Bible Zaokskaya, since the main work on it was carried out in the village of Zaoksky, Tula region, where the Institute of Bible Translation at the Adventist Academy is located (please do not confuse it with the Institute of Bible Translation in Moscow, which deals with translations into non-Slavic languages of Russia and the CIS countries) . Unfortunately, these are the kinds of explanations that have to be made from the very beginning to avoid confusion.
The preface describes in detail 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 talked 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 essence, there is nothing more to say.
The preface of the Zaokskaya Bible from the very beginning inserts this project into the history of Russian Bible translations and talks in detail about the plans and strategies of its creators. This is very important and allows us to evaluate a translation based on its own attitudes, and not someone else’s abstract ideas about beauty.
The history of this translation is inextricably linked with the history of its founder, M.P. Kulakova. His wonderful biography has already been written (Olga Suvorova, “We are just standing on the shore”) and there is no need to retell the events from his life, but it is important to understand why and how this idea itself arose. Mikhail Petrovich was from that generation of Soviet believers who experienced very serious persecution, right up to 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 it was, of course, the Synodal translation; there were simply no others and there was nowhere to get them from. But it was precisely close attention to the text of the translation that showed how many ambiguities, stylistically awkward passages and archaisms there were in it. And the main thing that Mikhail Petrovich did when the time for religious freedom came was to create a new translation that would be as free as possible from 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 awkward to call it the modern word “project”) was continued by his son, Mikhail Mikhailovich, and in this continuity you see similarities 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.
“Literally, as far as possible, and as freely as necessary,” - this is how the founder defined his basic principle, and this is how the entire 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 different people’s ideas about possibility and necessity are also far from the same.
However, I would say that the main idea of this translation is not at all the degree of literalness. It rather belongs to the field of stylistics: the translation moves away from the clerical or ponderous figures of speech of the Synodal tradition, but at the same time carefully avoids vernacular and vulgarity and preserves from traditional terminology and phraseology everything that can be preserved without compromising understanding. He is emphatically old-fashioned, but this old-fashionedness is alien to inarticulateness.
This is a rather conservative translation, as can be understood from the archaisms: “so that”, “so”, etc. In themselves, the archaic and solemn style of the style is not at all a drawback of the translation; they become one when they begin to interfere with an adequate understanding of the text, and the given translation is generally free from such errors. The archaism here is extremely delicate; it eschews words and figures of speech that we will not find, for example, in the works of Pushkin, included in the school curriculum. This is truly 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 approximately every second verse.
By the way, there are quite a lot of notes, and in general they are very successful. They explain the meaning of proper names or the associations 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 about the objectivity of the translator. Yes, we are used to hearing that ideally a translator should be as invisible as a window pane... but in practice we know that really good translations are always the original ones. 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 rank of geniuses as the author, we are ready to agree with this, but even when this is not the case, we cannot escape the individuality of style and exegetical solutions.
This translation was done by a large and complexly organized 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, and even jeopardize its final outcome.
Combining careful traditionalism with cautious innovation, the new translation seeks to dissuade those for whom the Bible is boring, archaic, incomprehensible and outdated, but at the same time eschews any radicalism. Its release will undoubtedly be a great event for all who cherish the biblical text, and for many who have not yet encountered it who may need such a translation.
All that remains is to thank everyone involved in the creation of the translation and congratulate them on the completion of the work. However, why the ending? Every good translation needs a second edition, and I think this one will be no exception.
Andrey Desnitsky
Doctor of Philology, historian, consultant at the Institute of Bible Translation, researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
A joint publication of the Institute of Bible Translation at the Zaoksk Theological Academy and the Biblical-Theological Institute of St. Apostle Andrew.
A new modern translation of the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments was carried out by leading Russian scholars - biblical scholars and philologists of various Christian denominations, based on the latest scientific editions of ancient texts and the latest achievements of modern biblical studies.
Ed. M.P. Kulakova and M.M. Kulakova
Series “Modern Biblical Studies”
M.: BBI Publishing House, 2015. – 1856 pp.: ill.
ISBN 978-5-89647-331-2
Bible - Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in modern Russian translation - From the Preface
At different stages of the project, literary critic and stylist Valery Valentinovich Sergeev, Hebraist A.V. Bolotnikov, philologists I.V. Lobanov, V.S. Lyahu, E. worked on the translation of the Bible together with M.P. Kulakov and M.M. Kulakov. G. Milyugina, biblical scholar A. S. Desnitsky (translator of most of the books of the Old Testament), translators M. V. Boryabina, M. A. Glebushko, L. P. Gunko, M. M. Kainova, L. V. Manevich, O. V. Pavlova, E. B. Rashkovsky, S. A. Romashko, E. M. Smorgunova and many others.
Valuable contributions to the preparation of this publication were also made by E. Yu. Vechkanov, A. V. Vozdvizhenskaya, V. G. Vozdvizhensky, A. R. Volkoslavskaya-Lyahu, T. A. Goryacheva, E. V. Zaitsev, S. A. Kibalnik, T. V. Lebedeva, N. N. Libenko, S. G. Mikushkina, I. A. Orlovskaya, A. V. Osokin, A. A. Pershin, E. B. Smagina, A. B. Somov, L. V. Syrovatko, D. S. Utamishi, K. G. Hawkins, G. G. Sholomovich.
Particularly significant and fruitful was the participation in our project of Russian and Western colleagues, members of the Board of Trustees and friends of the Institute, in particular D. Barrett (the cartographer who prepared the biblical maps in this publication), M. Bascom, B. Burdick, B. Biaggi, A. E. Bodrova, I. I. Velgoshi, T. Wilson, D. Galushi, I. Ya. Grits, T. M. Gurubatam, R. Kaita, V. A. Krupsky, A. I. Kulakova, L. S. Kulakova, D. McKee, T. Pabst, Z. Plantaka, H. Prestola, V. Spence, M. Finley, A. Stehle.
Bible - Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in modern Russian translation - Review
And now another translation has been released into modern Russian, done at the proper level. It may be somewhat difficult for me to write a review of this translation 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 publication besides my own work.
The lack of an original title is somewhat disappointing. The MBO translation is simply called “The Bible”; the subtitle reads: “a new translation into modern Russian.” The RBO publication is also “The Bible. Modern Russian translation". And there was another publication, from the early 90s, which appropriated the title of “modern translation”, but I do not mention it due to its low quality. And now we have before us another Russian Bible “in a modern translation,” as indicated on the cover. Yes, for some reason biblical translators skimp on original titles.
I would call this Bible Zaokskaya, since the main work on it was carried out in the village of Zaoksky, Tula region, where the Institute of Bible Translation at the Adventist Academy is located (please do not confuse it with the Institute of Bible Translation in Moscow, which deals with translations into non-Slavic languages of Russia and the CIS countries) . Unfortunately, these are the kinds of explanations that have to be made from the very beginning to avoid confusion.
The preface describes in detail 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 talked 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 essence, there is nothing more to say.
The preface of the Zaokskaya Bible from the very beginning inserts this project into the history of Russian Bible translations and talks in detail about the plans and strategies of its creators. This is very important and allows us to evaluate a translation based on its own attitudes, and not someone else’s abstract ideas about beauty.
The history of this translation is inextricably linked with the history of its founder, M.P. Kulakova. His wonderful biography has already been written (Olga Suvorova, “We are just standing on the shore”) and there is no need to retell the events from his life, but it is important to understand why and how this idea itself arose. Mikhail Petrovich was from that generation of Soviet believers who experienced very serious persecution, right up to 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 it was, of course, the Synodal translation; there were simply no others and there was nowhere to get them from. But it was precisely close attention to the text of the translation that showed how many ambiguities, stylistically awkward passages and archaisms there were in it. And the main thing that Mikhail Petrovich did when the time for religious freedom came was to create a new translation that would be as free as possible from 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 awkward to call it the modern word “project”) was continued by his son, Mikhail Mikhailovich, and in this continuity you see similarities 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.
“Literally, as far as possible, and as freely as necessary,” - this is how the founder defined his basic principle, and this is how the entire 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 different people’s ideas about possibility and necessity are also far from the same.
However, I would say that the main idea of this translation is not at all the degree of literalness. It rather belongs to the field of stylistics: the translation moves away from the clerical or ponderous figures of speech of the Synodal tradition, but at the same time carefully avoids vernacular and vulgarity and preserves from traditional terminology and phraseology everything that can be preserved without compromising understanding. He is emphatically old-fashioned, but this old-fashionedness is alien to inarticulateness.
This is a rather conservative translation, as can be understood from the archaisms: “so that”, “so”, etc. In themselves, the archaic and solemn style of the style is not at all a drawback of the translation; they become one when they begin to interfere with an adequate understanding of the text, and the given translation is generally free from such errors. The archaism here is extremely delicate; it eschews words and figures of speech that we will not find, for example, in the works of Pushkin, included in the school curriculum. This is truly 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 approximately every second verse.
By the way, there are quite a lot of notes, and in general they are very successful. They explain the meaning of proper names or the associations 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 about the objectivity of the translator. Yes, we are used to hearing that ideally a translator should be as invisible as a window pane... but in practice we know that really good translations are always the original ones. 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 rank of geniuses as the author, we are ready to agree with this, but even when this is not the case, we cannot escape the individuality of style and exegetical solutions.
This translation was done by a large and complexly organized 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, and even jeopardize its final outcome.
Combining careful traditionalism with cautious innovation, the new translation seeks to dissuade those for whom the Bible is boring, archaic, incomprehensible and outdated, but at the same time eschews any radicalism. Its release will undoubtedly be a great event for all who cherish the biblical text, and for many who have not yet encountered it who may need such a translation.
All that remains is to thank everyone involved in the creation of the translation and congratulate them on the completion of the work. However, why the ending? Every good translation needs a second edition, and I think this one will be no exception.
Andrey Desnitsky
Doctor of Philology, historian, consultant at the Institute of Bible Translation, researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Of course, the translation of the Zaokskaya Bible is not without errors (for example, the transfer of the term μονογενής in John 1:18 as “incomparable” raises many questions, and the absence in the footnotes to this verse of an important reading option μονογενής θεός in the Sinaiticus, Vatican Codex, Codex Ephraim and papyrus P66).
However, in general, the methodology of the new translation meets the needs of the modern reader, who, for the most part, does not sacralize the translation, but prefers an adequate understanding of the meaning of the sacred text. As for the poetics of the ancient text, it also needs literary adaptation in order to be perceived by the reader. Since both aspects of the problem were solved by the authors of the Zaokskaya Bible, there is no doubt that the new translation will take its rightful place among other translations of the Holy Scriptures into Russian.
D. V. Tsolin, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the National University “Ostrozh Academy”, Ukraine.
Addition 01/19/2016 - new files from DikBSD and VladMo
New files:
- 1 - combined translation by Kulakov (OT and NT - in one file).
- 2 - corrected file with the text of the EO.
- 3 - corrected file with NZ text.
DikBSD corrected the formatting - introduced annotations in the form of subtitles, removed the superscript for chapter titles.
In some places I introduced formatting for poems and quotes.
Now the Annotations, made in the form of subheadings. differ from the main text of the Bible.
From the book The Bible retold to older children author Destunis Sophia
OLD TESTAMENT I. Creation of the world and man In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the deep; and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called light
From the book How the Bible Came to Be [with illustrations] author author unknownWho gave us the Old Testament? In the last chapter we traced the history of the Bible from ancient times to the beginning of the printing age. We have seen in general terms when individual books of the Bible were born, on what material they were written - from clay tablets to papyrus
From the book The Bible in Illustrations author's Bible From the book Questions for a Priest author Shulyak SergeyOld Testament 1. Is it true that for the Orthodox, first of all, the New Testament is sacred, but not all of the Old? Question: Is it true that for the Orthodox, first of all, the New Testament is sacred, but not all of the Old? Answers priest Afanasy Gumerov,
From the book Handbook on Theology. SDA Bible Commentary Volume 12 author Seventh Day Adventist ChurchA. The Old Testament The Old Testament uses a variety of words to describe the concept of “sin,” but four are used more often than others and have a deep meaning.
From the book Biblical Topics author Serbsky Nikolay Velimirovich5. Old Testament The concept of “old covenant” is only explicitly mentioned in 2 Cor. 3:14, but is implied when Paul speaks of “two covenants” in Gal. 4:24, as well as in its references to the “first covenant” in Hebrews (8:7,13; 9:1,15,18), the “second covenant” (9:7), and the “better covenant” (7 :22; 8:6).Sayings
From the book The Illustrated Bible by the authorB. The Old Testament When we understand how inextricably the entire New Testament connects the resurrection of Jesus Christ with the resurrection of believers, we are not surprised that the Old Testament does not speak so clearly about the resurrection. In the New Testament there is a specific image of the resurrection of believers, and
From the book of the Bible. Modern Russian translation (SRP, RBO) author's Bible1. The Old Testament The Old Testament is first mentioned in Ex. 19, where God tells Moses what He has already done for Israel. He delivered them from Egypt and made them His people (verse 4). Because God had done mighty works for Israel, He expected His people to be (1)
From the book of the Bible. Modern translation (BTI, trans. Kulakova) author's Bible1. Old Testament God always sent His grace to the world through individuals and His people Israel. They reveal His grace to the world and, in a sense, become agents of blessing. Some people in the Bible embody true trusteeship.a.
From the book of the Bible. New Russian translation (NRT, RSJ, Biblica) author's BibleOld Testament
From the book of the Bible. Synodal translation by the authorOld Testament The first day of creation. Genesis 1:1-5 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said: Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated the darkness. And God called the light
3 from twenty years of age and older - all fit for the army of Israel. You and Aaron will need to enlist them in military formations. 4-5 One person from each tribe, the head of their families, will help you. Here are their names: Elitsu r, son of Shedeu r - from the tribe of Reuben;
46 Came out of Egypt " up to six hundred thousand" (Exodus 12:37).
53 “So that there is no wrath” - so that they are not punished (cf. Lev 10:1-3; Deuteronomy 29:23-27) those who offend God who dwells in the Habitation (Tabernacle of Testimony).
This describes the time of trial when God teaches and chastises His sons in preparation for the assembly of the elect. In the first chapters (Nums 1-4) Israel is presented as an orderly religious community. Her soul was the Levites, for they occupied a special place in the camp - around the ark, performed liturgical functions and represented a large group that replaced all the firstborn born into the people of God. The census itself was a religious act (cf. Sa2 24). The numbers sometimes do not match in different manuscripts and translations.
Titles, divisions and contents
The first five books of the Bible form one whole, which in Hebrew is called the Torah, i.e. Law. The first reliable evidence of the use of the word Law (Greek “νομος”) in this sense is found in the preface of the book. Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach. At the beginning of the Christian era, the name “Law” was already common, as we see in the NT (Luke 10:26; cf. Luke 24:44). Jews who spoke Hebrew also called the first part of the Bible “Five-fifths of the Law,” which corresponded in Hellenized Jewish circles to η πεντατευχος (subtitle “βιβλος” ., i.e. Five Volumes). This division into five books is attested even before our era by the Greek translation of the Bible by seventy interpreters (LXX). In this translation, accepted by the Church, each of the five books was given a title according to its contents or the contents of its first chapters:
Book Genesis (properly - a book about the origin of the world, the human race and the chosen people); Exodus (begins with the story of the departure of the Jews from Egypt); Leviticus (law for priests from the tribe of Levi); Numbers (the book begins with a description of the census of the people: Ch. Numbers 1-4); Deuteronomy (“the second law”, reproducing in a more extensive presentation the Law given at Sinai). The Jews still call every book Hebrews. The Bible according to its first significant word.
Book Genesis is divided into two unequal parts: a description of the origin of the world and man (Genesis 1-11) and the history of the forefathers of the people of God (Genesis 12-50). The first part is like a propylaea, introducing the story that the whole Bible tells about. It describes the creation of the world and man, the Fall and its consequences, the gradual corruption of people and the punishment that befell them. The race that then descended from Noah spreads throughout the earth. The genealogical tables are increasingly narrowed and, finally, limited to the family of Abraham, the father of the chosen people. The history of the forefathers (Gen. 12-50) describes the events in the life of the great ancestors: Abraham, a man of faith, whose obedience is rewarded: God promises him numerous descendants and the Holy Land, which will become their inheritance (Gen. 12 1-25:8); Jacob, distinguished by cunning: posing as his older brother, Esau, he receives the blessing of his father Isaac and then surpasses his uncle Laban in resourcefulness; but his dexterity would have been in vain if God had not preferred him to Esau and renewed in his favor the promises made to Abraham and the covenant made with him (Gen. 25:19-36:43). God chooses people not only of a high moral level, for He can heal any person who opens up to Him, no matter how sinful he may be. Compared to Abraham and Jacob, Isaac looks rather pale. His life is spoken of mainly in connection with his father or son. The twelve sons of Jacob are the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Israel. The last part of the book is dedicated to one of them. Genesis: ch. Genesis 37-50 - biography of Joseph. They describe how the virtue of the wise is rewarded and Divine Providence turns evil into good (Gen. 50:20).
The two main themes of the Exodus: the liberation from Egypt (Exodus 1:1-15:21) and the Sinai Covenant-Covenant (Exodus 19:1-40:38) are connected with a less significant theme - the wanderings in the wilderness (Exodus 15:22-18: 27). Moses, who received the revelation of the ineffable name of Yahweh on the mountain of God Horeb, leads the Israelites there, freed from slavery. In a magnificent theophany, God enters into a union with the people and gives them His Commandments. As soon as the alliance was concluded, the people violated it by worshiping the golden calf, but God forgives the culprits and renews the alliance. A number of regulations govern worship in the desert.
Book Leviticus is almost exclusively legislative in nature, so that the narrative of events can be said to be interrupted. It contains the ritual of sacrifices (Lev 1-7): the ceremony of ordaining Aaron and his sons as priests (Lev 8-10); regulations regarding clean and unclean (Lev 11-15), ending with a description of the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev 16); “The Law of Holiness” (Lev 17-26), containing the liturgical calendar and ending with blessings and curses (Lev 26). In ch. Lev 27 specifies the terms of the ransom of people, animals and property dedicated to Yahweh.
In the book. Numbers again speaks of wandering in the desert. The departure from Sinai is preceded by a census of the people (Numbers 1-4) and rich offerings on the occasion of the consecration of the tabernacle (Numbers 7). Having celebrated Passover for the second time, the Jews leave the holy mountain (Numbers 9-10) and reach Kadesh, where they make an unsuccessful attempt to penetrate Canaan from the south (Numbers 11-14). After a long stay in Kadesh, they go to the plains of Moab, adjacent to Jericho (Numbers 20-25). The Midianites are defeated, and the tribes of Gad and Reuben settle in Transjordan (Numbers 31-32). In ch. Number 33 lists the stops in the desert. The narratives alternate with regulations supplementing the Sinaitic legislation or preparing the settlement in Canaan.
Deuteronomy has a special structure: it is a code of civil and religious laws (Deut. 12:26-15:1), included in the great speech of Moses (Deut. 5-11; Deut. 26:16-28:68), which is preceded by his first speech (Deut. 1-4); it is followed by a third speech (Deut. 29-30); finally, the mission is entrusted to Jesus Novinus, the song and blessings of Moses are given, and brief information is given about the end of his life (Deut. 31-34).
The Code of Deuteronomy partially reproduces the commandments given in the wilderness. Moses recalls in his speeches the great events of the Exodus, the revelation at Sinai and the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land. They reveal the religious meaning of events, emphasize the significance of the Law, and contain a call to loyalty to God.
Literary composition
The composition of this extensive collection was attributed to Moses, as attested in the NT (John 1:45; John 5:45-47; Rom 10:5). But in more ancient sources there is no statement that the entire Pentateuch was written by Moses. When it says, although very rarely, “Moses wrote,” these words refer only to a specific place. Biblical scholars have found differences in style, repetition, and some inconsistency in the narratives in these books, which prevent them from being considered the work of a single author. After much searching, biblical scholars, mainly under the influence of C.G. Count and J. Wellhausen, leaned mainly towards the so-called. documentary theory, which can be schematically formulated as follows: The Pentateuch is a compilation of four documents that arose at different times and in different environments. Initially there were two narratives: in the first the author, the so-called. The Yahwist, conventionally designated by the letter “J,” uses in the story of the creation of the world the name Yahweh, which God revealed to Moses; another author, so-called Elohist (E), calls God by the name Elohim, common at that time. According to this theory, the Yagvist's narrative was written down in the 11th century in Judea, while the Elohist wrote a little later in Israel. After the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, both documents were brought together (JE). After the reign of Josiah (640-609) Deuteronomy “D” was added to them, and after the Captivity (JED) the priestly code (P) was added, containing mainly laws and several narratives. This code formed a kind of backbone and formed the framework of this compilation (JEDP). This literary-critical approach is associated with the evolutionary concept of the development of religious ideas in Israel.
Already in 1906, the Pontifical Biblical Commission warned exegetes against overestimating this so-called. documentary theory and invited them to consider the authentic authorship of Moses, if we mean the Pentateuch as a whole, and at the same time recognize the possibility of the existence, on the one hand, of oral traditions and written documents that arose before Moses, and, on the other hand, of changes and additions to the later era. In a letter dated January 16, 1948, addressed to Cardinal Suard, Archbishop of Paris, the Commission recognized the existence of sources and gradual additions to the laws of Moses and historical accounts due to the social and religious institutions of later times.
Time has confirmed the correctness of these views of the Biblical Commission, for in our time the classical documentary theory is increasingly being called into question. On the one hand, attempts to systematize it did not produce the desired results. On the other hand, experience has shown that focusing interest on the purely literary problem of dating the final edition of the text is of much less importance than the historical approach, in which the first place is given to the question of the oral and written sources underlying the “documents” being studied. The idea of them has now become less bookish, closer to concrete reality. It turned out that they arose in the distant past. New archaeological data and the study of the history of ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean have shown that many of the laws and regulations spoken of in the Pentateuch are similar to the laws and regulations of eras older than those in which the Pentateuch was compiled, and that many of its narratives reflect the life of an older period. environment.
Not being able to trace how the Pentateuch was formed and how several traditions merged in it, we, however, have the right to assert that despite the diversity of the Yavistic and Elohist texts, they are essentially talking about the same thing. Both traditions have a common origin. In addition, these traditions correspond to the conditions not of the era when they were finally recorded in writing, but of the era when the events described occurred. Their origin, therefore, goes back to the era of the formation of the people of Israel. The same can be said to a certain extent about the legislative parts of the Pentateuch: before us is the civil and religious law of Israel; it evolved along with the community whose life it regulated, but in its origin it goes back to the time of the emergence of this people. So, the fundamental principles of the Pentateuch, the main elements of the traditions merged with it, and the core of its legalizations belong to the period of formation of the Israeli people. This period is dominated by the image of Moses as organizer, religious leader and first legislator. The traditions completed by him and the memories of the events that took place under his leadership became a national epic. The teachings of Moses left an indelible imprint on the faith and life of the people. The Law of Moses became the norm for his behavior. Interpretations of the Law, caused by the course of historical development, were imbued with its spirit and based on its authority. The fact of the written activity of Moses himself and his circle, attested in the Bible, is beyond doubt, but the question of content is of greater importance than the question of the written recording of the text, and therefore it is so important to recognize that the traditions underlying the Pentateuch go back to Moses as the primary source.
Narratives and history
From these legends, which were the living heritage of the people, inspired in them the consciousness of unity and supported their faith, it is impossible to demand the strictly scientific accuracy to which the modern scientist strives; however, it cannot be said that these written monuments do not contain the truth.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis require special consideration. They describe the origin of the human race in the style of a folk tale. They present simply and picturesquely, in accordance with the mental level of an ancient uncultured people, the main truths underlying the economy of salvation: God’s creation of the world at the dawn of time, the subsequent creation of man, the unity of the human race, the sin of the first parents and the subsequent exile and trials. These truths, being the subject of faith, are confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture; at the same time they are facts, and as reliable truths imply the reality of these facts. In this sense, the first chapters of Genesis are historical in nature. The history of the forefathers is a family history. It contains memories of our ancestors: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. It is also a popular story. The narrators dwell on the details of their personal lives, on picturesque episodes, without caring about connecting them with the general story. Finally, this is a religious story. All its turning points are marked by the personal participation of God, and everything in it is presented in a providential plan. Moreover, the facts are presented, explained and grouped in order to prove a religious thesis: there is one God who formed one people and gave them one country. This God is Yahweh, this nation is Israel, this country is the Holy Land. But at the same time, these stories are historical in the sense that they, in their own way, narrate real facts and give a correct picture of the origin and migration of the ancestors of Israel, their geographical and ethnic roots, their behavior in moral and religious terms. A skeptical attitude towards these stories turned out to be untenable in the face of recent discoveries in the field of history and archeology of the ancient East.
Omitting a rather long period of history, Exodus and Numbers, and to a certain extent Deuteronomy, set out the events from the birth to the death of Moses: the exodus from Egypt, a stop at Sinai, the path to Kadesh (silence is kept about the long stay there), the transition through Transjordan and the temporary settlement on the plains of Moab. If we deny the historical reality of these facts and the personality of Moses, it is impossible to explain the further history of Israel, its loyalty to Yahwism, its attachment to the Law. It must, however, be recognized that the significance of these memories for the life of the people and the echo that they find in the rituals gave these stories the character of victory songs (for example, about the crossing of the Red Sea), and sometimes even liturgical chants. It was during this era that Israel became a people and entered the arena of world history. And although no ancient document yet mentions him (with the exception of an unclear indication on the stele of Pharaoh Merneptah), what is said about him in the Bible is consistent in general terms with what the texts and archeology say about the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos, who in the majority were of Semitic origin, about the Egyptian administration in the Nile Delta, about the political situation in Transjordan.
The task of the modern historian is to compare these biblical data with the corresponding events in world history. Despite the insufficiency of biblical indications and the insufficient certainty of extra-biblical chronology, there is reason to assume that Abraham lived in Canaan approximately 1850 BC, and that the story of the rise of Joseph in Egypt and the arrival of the other sons of Jacob dates back to the beginning of the 17th century. BC The date of the Exodus can be determined quite accurately from the crucial indication given in the ancient text Exodus 1:11: the people of the children of Israel "built for Pharaoh Pithom and Rameses cities for stores." Consequently, the Exodus occurred under Ramses II, who, as is known, founded the city of Ramses. Grandiose construction work began in the first years of his reign. Therefore, it is very likely that the departure of the Jews from Egypt under the leadership of Moses took place around the middle of the reign of Ramses (1290-1224), i.e. approximately around 1250 BC.
Taking into account the biblical legend that the time of the Jews’ wanderings in the desert corresponded to the period of life of one generation, the settlement in Transjordan can be dated back to 1225 BC. These dates are consistent with historical data about the stay of the pharaohs of the 19th dynasty in the Nile Delta, the weakening of Egyptian control over Syria and Palestine at the end of the reign of Ramses II, and the unrest that swept the entire Middle East at the end of the 13th century. BC They also agree with archaeological data indicating the beginning of the Iron Age during the Israeli invasion of Canaan.
Legislation
In the Hebrew Bible the Pentateuch is called “Torah”, i.e. Law; and indeed here are collected the prescriptions that regulated the moral, social and religious life of the people of God. What strikes us most about this legislation is its religious character. It is also characteristic of some other codes of the ancient East, but in none of them is there such an interpenetration of religious and secular elements. In Israel, the Law was given by God Himself, it regulates duties towards Him, its regulations are motivated by religious principles. This seems quite normal when it comes to the moral precepts of the Decalogue (Sinai Commandments) or the cult laws of the book. Leviticus, but it is much more significant that in the same code civil and criminal laws are intertwined with religious instructions and that the whole is presented as a Charter of Union-Covenant with Yahweh. It naturally follows from this that the presentation of these laws is connected with the narration of events in the desert where this Union was concluded.
As you know, laws are written for practical application and they need to be modified over time, taking into account the characteristics of the environment and the historical situation. This explains that in the totality of the documents under consideration one can find both ancient elements and regulations that indicate the emergence of new problems. On the other hand, Israel was to a certain extent influenced by its neighbors. Some of the injunctions of the Book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy are remarkably similar to the injunctions of the Mesopotamian Codes, the Assyrian Law Code and the Hittite Code. We are not talking about direct borrowing, but about similarities due to the influence of the legislation of other countries and customary law, which in part became the common property of the entire Middle East in ancient times. In addition, in the post-Exodus period, the formulation of laws and forms of worship were heavily influenced by Canaanite influence.
The Decalogue (10 Commandments), inscribed on the Sinai Tablets, establishes the basis of the moral and religious faith of the Covenant Union. It is given in two (Ex 20:2-17 and Deut 5:6-21), slightly different versions: these two texts go back to the older, shorter form and there is no serious evidence to refute its origin from Moses.
The Elohist Code of the Union-Covenant (Exodus 20:22-23:19) represents the right of a pastoral-agricultural society, corresponding to the real situation of Israel, which was formed as a people and began to lead a sedentary lifestyle. It differs from the more ancient Mesopotamian codes, with which it has points of contact, in its great simplicity and archaic features. However, it has been preserved in a form that shows some evolution: the special attention paid to draft animals, work in the fields and vineyards, as well as houses, suggests that it belongs to the period of sedentary life. On the other hand, the difference in the wording of the regulations - sometimes imperative, sometimes conditional - indicates the heterogeneity of the composition of the code. In its present form it probably dates back to the period of the Judges.
The Yahwist Code of Covenant Renewal (Exodus 34:14-26) is sometimes called, incorrectly, the second Decalogue or the ritual Decalogue. It is a collection of religious precepts in imperative form and belongs to the same period as the book of the Testament, but was revised under the influence of Deuteronomy. Although the book Leviticus received its completed form only after the captivity; it also contains very ancient elements. So, for example, prohibitions regarding food (Lev 11), or regulations on cleanliness (Lev 13-15) preserve what was bequeathed by the primitive era. In the ritual of the great Day of Atonement (Lev 16), the texts of ancient ritual instructions are supplemented by more detailed instructions, indicating the presence of a developed concept of sin. Ch. Lev 17-26 form a whole which is called the Law of Holiness and apparently belongs to the last period of the monarchy. The code of Deuteronomy must be attributed to the same era, which contains many ancient elements, but also reflects the evolution of social and religious customs (for example, the laws on the unity of the sanctuary, the altar, tithes, slaves) and the change in the spirit of the times (appeals to the heart and inherent in many regulations admonishing tone).
Religious meaning
The religion of both the Old and New Testaments is historical religion: it is based on the revelation of God to certain people, in certain places, under certain circumstances, and on the special action of God at certain points in human evolution. The Pentateuch, which sets out the history of God's original dealings with the world, is the foundation of the religion of Israel, its canonical book par excellence, its Law.
The Israeli finds in it an explanation of his fate. At the beginning of the book of Genesis, he not only received an answer to the questions that every person asks himself - about the world and life, about suffering and death - but also received an answer to his personal question: why is Yahweh, the One God, the God of Israel? Why is Israel His people among all the nations of the earth?
This is because Israel received the promise. The Pentateuch is a book of promises: after the Fall, Adam and Eve are proclaimed salvation in the future, the so-called. Proto-Gospel; Noah, after the flood, is promised a new order in the world. Still more characteristic is the promise given to Abraham and renewed to Isaac and Jacob; it extends to all the people who will come from them. This promise directly refers to the possession of the land where the forefathers dwelt, the Promised Land, but in essence it contains more: it means that a special, exclusive relationship exists between Israel and the God of her forefathers.
Yahweh called Abraham, and in this call the election of Israel was foreshadowed. Yahweh himself made it into one people. His people according to His good pleasure, according to the plan of love, destined at the creation of the world and carried out, despite the unfaithfulness of people. This promise and this election are guaranteed by the Union. The Pentateuch is also a book of alliances. The first, though not yet directly stated, was concluded with Adam; the union with Noah, with Abraham and, ultimately, with all the people through the medium of Moses, has already received clear expression. This is not a union between equals, for God does not need it, although the initiative belongs to Him. However, He enters into an alliance and, in a certain sense, binds Himself to the promises He has given. But He demands in return that His people be faithful to Him: Israel's refusal, its sin, can break the bond created by the love of God. The terms of this fidelity are determined by God Himself. God gives His Law to His chosen people. This Law establishes what his duties are, how he must behave in accordance with the will of God and, while preserving the Union-Covenant, prepare for the fulfillment of the promise.
The themes of promise, election, union and law run like a red thread through the entire fabric of the Pentateuch, through the entire OT. The Pentateuch in itself does not constitute a complete whole: it speaks of a promise, but not of its fulfillment, for the narrative is interrupted before Israel enters the Promised Land. It must remain open to the future both as hope and as a restraining principle: the hope of the promise, which the conquest of Canaan seemed to fulfill (Joshua 23), but which sins long compromised, and which the exiles in Babylon remember; the restraining principle of the Law, which was ever exacting, remained in Israel as a witness against it (Deut. 31:26). This continued until the coming of Christ, towards whom the entire history of salvation gravitated; in Him she found all her meaning. Ap. Paul reveals its meaning primarily in Galatians (Gal. 3:15-29). Christ concludes a new Union-Covenant, prefigured by ancient treaties, and introduces Christians into it, the heirs of Abraham by faith. The law was given to keep the promises, being a teacher to Christ, in whom these promises are fulfilled.
The Christian is no longer under the guidance of a schoolmaster, he is freed from observing the ritual Law of Moses, but not freed from the need to follow its moral and religious teachings. After all, Christ came not to break the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). The New Testament is not opposed to the Old, but continues it. In the great events of the era of the patriarchs and Moses, in the holidays and rites of the desert (the sacrifice of Isaac, the crossing of the Red Sea, the celebration of Easter, etc.), the Church not only recognized the prototypes of the New Testament (the sacrifices of Christ, baptism and the Christian Passover), but also requires a Christian with the same deep approach to them that the instructions and stories of the Pentateuch prescribed for the Israelites. He should realize how the history of Israel (and in it and through it of all mankind) develops when man allows God to direct historical events. Moreover: in its path to God, every soul goes through the same stages of detachment, testing, purification through which the chosen people passed, and finds edification in the teachings given to them.
28.06.2017
A detailed analysis and evaluation of the new translation, as well as comparison with other versions, is a task 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 small book, which will make it possible to get a complete picture of the features of translation strategy and tactics. That is why we chose the book of Jonah, which we use for the first acquaintance with the translation. The appearance at the beginning of 2015 of another complete translation of the Bible into Russian finally and irrevocably puts the Russian-speaking reader in the situation of the existence of multiple translations. The new translation was carried out by a group of professional translators from the Institute of Bible Translation at the Zaoksk Theological Academy (edited by M.P. Kulakov and M.M. Kulakov; hereinafter in a number of 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; just look at the bibliography of Russian-language biblical translations. However, none of the previous translations became popular or authoritative enough to compete with the Synodal Translation. But the translations of RBO and Kulakov are quite ready to compete for the reader’s attention, since they were made by professional translation teams and, what is important, they are preceded by a certain information preparation of the audience before their publication. 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 a cause for joy, since it testifies not only to the (increasing?) interest in the biblical text, but also to 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, a 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 where for a long time 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 first with the Church Slavonic translation of the Bible, and then with the Synodal translation) .
However, before moving on to reading the text, it is necessary to make a few preliminary remarks. As a rule, readers are accustomed to evaluating translations by talking about 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 training, they can depict the same subject very differently, since they themselves can perceive reality very differently. Each translation is always a new reading of the text, an attempt to recreate it in a new communicative situation using available linguistic means. One could even say that each translation has its own special sound, its own tonality. It is this sound of the new translation of the Bible that will be discussed further.
In the field of translation studies, there is a 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 it should be translated 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 accepted, a kind of “standard” in a given culture, can have a great influence on the perception of a new translation. This is what the Synodal translation was like 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 guide us. These criteria could be formed by the reading and translation experience of the translators, as well as by the goals that the creators and the audience they addressed set themselves. All this means that a new translation should be evaluated on the basis of the goals and objectives that its creators formulated. Otherwise, one can criticize translators for something 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 Middle Eastern culture,” to which they have access only through “a dictionary or thesaurus.” Nothing is said about the church status of the target audience, but the main functions of the new translation are private spiritual, edifying and prayerful reading, as well as use in liturgical practice. The basic principle that the translators were guided by is formulated somewhat paradoxically: “translate literally, as far as possible, and freely, as far as necessary.” Moreover, as we will try to show below using the example of one biblical text, it is rather the second tendency that prevails (“freely, as far as necessary”). Thus, in the latest significant projects for translating 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 target audience determines a number of important translation decisions. The biblical text is multidimensional and polysemantic. One of the tasks that the translators set for themselves was to “suggest” this multidimensionality to the reader “without forcing them to turn to the mentioned dictionaries and individual commentaries.” The problem can be solved in different ways: through introductory articles, notes, and also by revealing some of the 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 quite rarely by Bible translators, especially in the Russian-speaking environment. Implicit information can also be revealed in quite a few different ways, for example through the use of italics, which in this project serves several functions: sometimes it is used as a means of creating coherence in the text, as well as to reveal culturally implicit information. Recognizing the legitimacy of using this tool, the question still remains of 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 italic inserts comes into some 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 questions about the status of 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 to 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 a translator’s interpretation, secondary to the main text? Italics may suggest that translators are not sure of the obligatory nature of such explications; in this case, is it worth including them in a text that has an authoritative status among the majority of the readership? However, in many cases italic inserts are completely justified.
The obvious advantages of the publication include the use of a variety of notes, which contain both philological information and comments explaining the historical context. In addition, the notes provide alternative translations, allowing the reader to expand his understanding of the nature of the biblical text. It is also important that each book of the Bible is preceded by a brief introduction, giving a general idea of the time of writing, authorship and the main themes of the work. This kind of introduction allows readers to know the basic parameters of the original communicative situation of the biblical text.
And, of course, one cannot fail to note another important aspect of the translation strategy - the desire to present the biblical text not only as a religious monument, but also as a work of art. Recently, researchers have been paying increasing 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 text is not literary in itself, but only from the point of view of the cultural and literary system within which it arises and functions. Outside this system, the text may not be perceived as artistic. In other words, the literariness of a text is a pragmatic phenomenon, that is, a text is perceived as literary only if it meets the norms and criteria of “literariness” in a given culture. The authors of biblical texts followed the literary norms that existed in their culture. As cultural norms and ideas about the criteria for literariness change, biblical works cannot automatically be considered literary works within our culture. Based on this, translation theorists make a distinction between “translation of a literary text” and “literary translation of a text.” In the first case (“translation of a literary text”) we are talking about the translation of a text that was considered literary in the original culture, but may not be so in a new communicative situation. When we talk about “literary translation of a text,” this means that the translation must meet at least some of the requirements that the receiving culture places on literary texts. The Zaoksky translation can be classified as the second type (“literary translation of an ancient text”). This strategy, according to its creators, allows the reader “not only to comprehend the “living life” of the ancient biblical hero in artistic paintings, 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 this aspect of the new translation that we would like to further pay special attention to by conducting a very brief analysis of the book of Jonah.
The book of Jonah is especially interesting for our analysis, since without any reservations it can be classified as a masterpiece not only of Hebrew, but also of world literature. Naturally, the author of the book of Jonah used 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. A unique artistic code of a book is created by such stylistic means as repetition and variation, the literal transmission of which may look unnatural in the culture of translation. This means that a translator who wants to help a modern reader experience the artistic dimension of an ancient text should use the tools that are available in his language. In our opinion, the translation team managed to solve the problem. Of course, such a translation differs from the more usual literal translations, whose main focus is on conveying the formal features of the original. However, this approach helps to understand that the biblical authors used a wide variety of language to convey theological truths, which made reading their texts, among other things, fascinating.
Thus, verse 1:2 of the book of Jonah opens with two imperatives (?? ???), between which there is no connecting conjunction. In this construction, the main idea is introduced by the second imperative, which retains its lexical meaning, and 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 recipient. The literal translation of “get up, go” does not convey this feature of the original syntax, reducing the dynamics of the text. Since a literary translation requires the transfer of functional aspects of the original text, the new translation renders this expression as “go immediately”: “Go immediately to the great city of Nineveh...” (cf. Synod: “Arise, go to Nineveh, the great city”).
In verses 1:1-3 and 3:1-3, the author deliberately builds a “mirror” structure, contrasting the command of the Lord and the reaction of the prophet to it. In 1:2 and 3:2 the same verb is used??? (“call, call, name”), but with different prepositions (?? in 1:2 im?? in 3:2). Many exegetes and translators believe that different prepositions are used to create lexical diversity. However, already the creators of 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 announcement. Expression??? ?? (3:2) is neutral and does not have such a negative connotation. This difference between the two verses was translated by the translators as follows: “warn those who live there that retribution awaits them” (1:2) and “tell everyone who lives there the message that I will put in your mouth” (3:2). In the first case, the meaning??? ?? is revealed using the verb “warn” (you can hear both concern and threat at the same time) and the noun “retribution” (meaning threat, judgment). In 3:2, the more neutral verb “announce” is chosen - that is, convey, make certain information known (of course, a threat can also be heard here, but this meaning is secondary) and the noun “news”. Thanks to this translation, it was possible to reflect not only different meanings, but also to create different emotional overtones of the two episodes.
One of the features of the Zaoksky translation is the frequent use of italics in various functions. Thus, adding the italics “in despair” in verse 1:5 helps to feel the condition of the sailors who were caught in a strong sea storm: “Fear seized the sailors ... In desperation, they threw all their cargo overboard to lighten the ship.” Of course, these words are not in the original; italics are not obligatory and in this case indicates secondary and conjectural information. However, it helps the reader to better recreate the atmosphere of what was happening on the ship at that moment. The addition of italics in the next part of the same verse allows the reader to reconstruct the sequence of actions (the author shows the simultaneous reaction of the sailors and Jonah to the storm): “Fear seized the sailors, and each of them began to cry out to his god ... In despair, they threw all the cargo overboard ... Meanwhile, Jonah went down into the hold, lay down there and fell fast asleep” (in the Hebrew text, this sequence of actions is indicated by inversion).
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 motif popular in the literature of the Hellenistic era. It is quite possible that the desire to create in the translation an image of Nineveh as a legendary city of the past 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 a fast.” In this case, the italic insertion helps the reader understand the culture of the ancient text, indicating that dressing in old clothes and declaring a fast are not just extravagant actions of the city’s residents, but symbols of repentance, signs of an internal revolution that has taken place. And if for a religious person the meaning of these actions is quite transparent, then for a reader who is far from religious symbolism, it may well be necessary to reveal their implicit meaning.
Another distinctive feature of the new translation is the use of lively, 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 see that the latter often sounds much more elegant: “a storm arose” (Synod) - “a storm broke out” (Kulakov); “the shipmen were afraid” (Synod) - “fear seized the sailors” (Kulakov); “but these people began to row hard to get to the ground, but 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 afraid with great fear” (Synod) - “the answer plunged the sailors into even greater fear.” The last example is indicative: Synodal translation strives in a number of cases to preserve the idiom 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 experience the aesthetics of the original, but it is an alien aesthetic, forcing the audience, using Schleiermacher’s famous metaphor, to go on a journey towards the author. Using theological terminology, such an approach could be called anabatic, forcing a person to ascend into the world of the Divine (this choice is easily explained; it is enough to remember that the Synodal translation was created under the strong influence of the Orthodox liturgical tradition). In Kulakov's translation, the ancient text becomes part of our culture, our world. This approach could be called “katabatic” and it also has a theological basis, for “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...” (John 1:14).
Of course, in the new translation there are also translation decisions 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 walk around all of Nineveh (which was “three days’ journey”), but only part her) - and how the preaching of Jonah was so effective that one day was enough for its first fruits to appear. In Kulakov’s translation, this verse is translated as “all these days Jonah walked around the city and from dawn to dusk proclaimed to its inhabitants...”. Perhaps such a translation may seem to some to be too bold a decision, but it seems quite appropriate in the case when they seek to present the Bible as a work of “verbal art.”
Of course, the Zaoksky translation has yet to be read in its entirety, and therefore the time has not yet come for any serious assessments. 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”. So, having finished reading the book of Jonah, I realized that I was ready to re-read it. The new translation makes the text of the ancient work alive, bright, intriguing, gives the reader the opportunity to experience aesthetic pleasure from the reading process and... makes you think again and again about the meaning of what you read. Isn’t this what many biblical authors also strived for, putting their theological ideas into beautiful artistic forms? I think that the translators fully coped with one of the tasks assigned to them: to help the reader “experience the fullness of aesthetic feeling when comprehending the Word of God.”
There is no doubt that we will also hear critical reviews of Kulakov’s translation. It is quite possible that some of this criticism will be fair. And yet, I would like to remind you of one important thing: just as there are no universal translations, there are no universal criteria for evaluating them. When analyzing a translation, it is necessary to pay attention, first of all, to the goals and objectives that the translation team sets for itself and evaluate the translation in accordance with them. I hope that the discussion of the new edition will be more intense 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 were not able to find serious reviews about this very important publication) .
I would like to congratulate readers on the appearance of 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 exciting.
Priest Mikhail Samkov, teacher of the Department of Biblical Studies and Theology of the Minsk Theological Academy
