The Bible in Zaoksk. Old Testament Modern translation of the Bible edited by Kulakova

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 unknown

Who 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 Sergey

Old 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 Church

A. 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 Velimirovich

5. 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 author

B. 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 Bible

1. 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 Bible

1. 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 Bible

Old Testament

From the book of the Bible. Synodal translation by the author

Old 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

Old Testament

Pentateuch

Introduction

First of all - God. The very first lines of the book with which the Holy Scripture opens are about Him. He is the Beginning of the beginning. In Him is the cause and purpose of existence. Without realizing this, it is impossible to comprehend the meaning of life in general and the unique meaning of one’s own in particular. That is why anyone who has experienced the miracle of knowing God willingly agrees with the ancient poet and prophet:

"With You is the source of life,

and in Your light we see” (Ps 36 (35):10).

Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch (in Hebrew) Torah), leads us to an awareness of the reality of the world created by God and from Him which received both its forms and filling. It is such a treasury of knowledge, thanks to which we can speak accurately and clearly about our lives: about where we came from and where we are going, about the people with whom we live and about our relationships with them, about the troubles that befall us , and about the blessings that are constantly sent to us. In other words, Genesis not only answers the difficult questions of our origin and the common condition of humanity after a break with God, but also indicates how this relationship can be restored and man can return to the state that God determined was “ very good." In the book of Genesis, we are given clear evidence about God - not only as the Source of life, but also its Guardian: God creates, He restores what was destroyed, He stands up for His creation, He judges mercifully, He calls to a life of faith and obedience, and He and concludes with us an Agreement, a Union, traditionally called the word “Covenant”.

What is also remarkable about this book is that it does not present all this in the form of some abstract truths or philosophical principles. No, she offers us deeply moving stories about people who loved and quarreled, believed and doubted, created families, gave birth to children, experienced the power of sin and the grace of God. Reading the lives of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and his sons, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, Joseph and his brothers, we discover that the circumstances of their lives, their decisions, choices in one way or another again repeat themselves again in our own destinies. The stories in this book provide impressively vivid evidence of the incomparable value of human life, each unique life, since God does not want to deal with a faceless mass of people, but with each of us individually.

It is not surprising that after three and a half thousand years this book has not lost its significance for all mankind. Christ and His apostles, and centuries-old tradition, have given us enough reason to believe that by special providence, revelation and inspiration of God, the author of Genesis is a unique person in world history: the Egyptian prince, who is also a shepherd, he is both the liberator of the Jews from Egyptian slavery, and teacher of the law, and the greatest of the ancient prophets - Moses.

Creation of the world and man 1:1–2:25

The Fall and its consequences 3:1–24

Adam to Noah 4:1–5:32

Flood 6:1–10:32

Tower of Babel 11:1–9

From Shem to Abraham 11:10–32

Patriarchs and their destinies: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob 12:1–35:29

History of the Family of Esau 36:1–43

Joseph and his brothers 37:1–45:28

Israelites in Egypt 46:1–50:26

world creation

At first next seven days God created heaven and earth. 2 The land was desolate and uninhabited upon his appearance. Darkness shrouded the abyss, but the Spirit of God was already hovering over the waters. 3 And God said: “Let there be light!” And the light appeared. 4 God saw that the light was good. He separated the light from the darkness 5 and gave the name “day” to the light and “night” to the darkness. It was then evening, there was also morning - one day passed.

6 And God said: “Let there be a vault in the midst of the waters, let it separate some waters from others.” 7 God created the arch and separated the water under the arch from the water above it. And so it became. 8 God called this vault “heaven.” It was then evening, there was also morning - the second day passed.

9 And God said: “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And so it became. 10 God called the dry land “land” and called the gathered waters “seas.” God saw that this was good too.

11 And God said: “Let the earth become green, covered with a variety of vegetation: plants that yield seeds, and trees that bear fruit with their seeds according to their kind.” And so it became. 12 The earth produced all kinds of vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruits of various kinds, according to their kinds, with their seeds. God saw that this was good too. 13 Then there was evening, there was also morning, and the third day passed.

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??? ?? 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

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.