Here is an example of such a translation, which rather generates perplexities than resolves them[8]. In the Russian translation of Col. 2:13-14 says: "You who were dead He made alive with Him, forgiving us all our sins, having destroyed by teaching the handwriting that was about us, which was against us." With such a translation, a purely theosophical, gnostic thought is obtained: the teaching enlivens us, the teaching of Christ cleanses us from the handwriting of sin. It is not Christ's sacrifice that saves, but His preaching (or our agreement with His teaching, which borders on self-purification and self-salvation). The "teaching" (δογμασιν) does not refer to us or to Christ, but to the manuscript: the handwriting as a promissory note "was drawn up in the form of certain precise decrees; τοι δογμασιν in Russian is translated inaccurately"[9]. Modern translations into European languages confirm the validity of this approach[10].

The work of a translator is creative work. And computer translation, precisely because it is automatic, is still inferior to the work of a human translator. The desire to make a tracing paper, a literal-interlinear translation sometimes makes the text not only incomprehensible, but even gives it a completely false meaning. To this day, many Orthodox are confused by the Church Slavonic translation of the parable of the sower: "Then the devil cometh and puts the word out of their hearts, that they that have not believed may be saved" (Luke 8:12). The priest reads this Gospel passage in Slavonic, and immediately begins a sermon... And sometimes very "dialectical" interpretations are born: they say, if a person believed, but sinned, then he could not be saved, and if he did not believe, then he would not be judged so harshly, and therefore he could be saved as a pagan. And even the fact that these words actually express the desire of the tempter is somehow not taken into account... The Slavonic translation only literally conveys the Greek construction. The Synodal Russian translation seems to give the opposite text: "lest they believe and be saved"; The Greek construction, on the other hand, has the same meaning, but uses the possibility in Greek grammar in which one negative particle refers to two verbs at once, or rather, to each of them. The Slavonic translator knew this construction, he wanted to graft it on the Slavic language, but it did not take root here, and as a result, the text of this verse became blasphemous and incomprehensible.

But not only grammar is fraught with surprises for the translator. A theologian-translator cannot but take into account that any word has many meanings, which means that translation is a choice between meanings. For example, the Hebrew word haman means both knowledge and faith. In what case how to translate it? The Hebrew word alma "young woman" can mean both a girl and a young married woman. When the prophet Isaiah declares: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son" (Isaiah 7:14), does he mean an ordinary birth by an ordinary young wife, or does he connect the change in the fate of the world and Israel with the miracle of the Virgin Mother? A Jewish journalist from Moscow offers the correct translation, from his point of view: "Look, this young woman is pregnant." The only thing that is not clear is why the prophet had to proclaim a fact so commonplace, as something important and encouraging. So it's a matter of choosing a general meaning and the corresponding meaning of a single word.

And how to translate it in such a way that it is understandable to people of other cultures? For example, in the Bible, the word "flesh" is not always the antonym of "soul"; Most often it simply means a specific living being. Hence expressions like: "I am the Lord, the God of all flesh" (Jeremiah 32:27); "All flesh shall know that I am the Lord" (Isaiah 49:26); "All flesh shall come before me to worship" (Isaiah 66:23). But in the language of Greek philosophy, the word "flesh" had clearly defined antonyms: "spirit", "soul", "mind". Not noticing this distinction, the talented Orthodox theologian of the mid-fourth century, Apollinarius, fell into a trap: he took the Apostle John's expression "and the Word became flesh" as an assertion that Christ did not have a human soul... And he turned out to be a heretic.

Another example of the influence of the difference of not just cultures, but epochs on the translation and perception of the biblical text: Ap. Paul writes that we now contemplate the mysteries of the Kingdom of Christ "as in a mirror" (the Slavonic translation here is again literally accurate: "as a mirror"). And the Russian Synodal translation says, "as through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). In the perception of a modern person, these are exactly opposite things. To say that I see as in a mirror is reflected as in a mirror is to recognize the highest certainty of observation. And "as through a glass darkly" means precisely divination, presumption, inaccuracy of the visible picture. The context of the Apostolic Epistle inclines to the second reading: "We see as if in divination, as through a glass darkly." But in the Greek text there is still a mirror. Everything becomes clear only if we remember that in ancient times mirrors were not ours, "Venetian", but metal, conveying a very approximate and rather distorted image. Therefore, at that time, the expression "reflected as in a mirror" meant precisely – with inevitable distortions. The Russian translator correctly conveyed the meaning of this expression, sacrificing literal philological accuracy for this purpose.

And the work of translating the Gospel into the languages of other, non-biblical and non-European cultures goes completely beyond the scope of working with a dictionary. Translators of the Gospels into Chinese, for example, have concluded that the only way to translate John's famous verse, "In the beginning was the Word," is to write "In the beginning was the Tao," using the Taoist name for the life principle that governs the world.

And how to translate "I am the Bread of Life" for peoples who do not eat wheat bread and live only on rice? Bread is served there only in restaurants for Europeans, and therefore for the Chinese the literal translated "I am the bread of life" sounds the same as for the Russian "I am the hamburger of life". I had to translate it according to the meaning, not the dictionary: "I am the Rice of Life."

Another significant difficulty: in 1 Cor. 3:6 Paul tells of the growth of the Church under the joint influence of two preachers: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God grew." For us, it is understandable. For the arid Middle East, it is understandable. And for the Vietnamese? Rice already grows in water. Why water it? It was necessary to study their method of conducting field work and to single out in it the second necessary agricultural operation after planting: "I planted, Apollos tied the sprouts to sticks."

The problem is not only in translating into the languages of exotic cultures, but also in translating into the language of our culture.

Например, в Евангелии есть слова о том, что учение Христово будет проповедано его учениками «с кровлей крыш». Можно ли это понять как призыв проповедовать Евангелие по телевизору?

В-третьих, не следует забывать правило герменевтики, которое предупреждает нас о том, что нельзя принимать к рассмотрению библейский текст в отрыве от его контекста.

Например, поклонники уринотерапии любят заявлять, что они следуют библейскому совету «пей из своего колодца». Действительно, в Библии есть такие слова. Но произносит их языческий ассирийский царь Сеннахерим, уговаривая иудеев капитулировать перед ним и войти в состав его империи («Примиритесь со мною и выйдете ко мне, и пусть каждый пьет воду из своего колодца… Да не обольщает вас Езекия, говоря: Господь спасет нас» (Ис. 36, 16 и 4 Цар 18,31). Вряд ли это обещание можно понимать как призыв к уринотерапии. Хорошо было бы обещание со стороны захватчика: «Подчинитесь мне, и вы будете жить столь хорошо, что будет пить собственную мочу!». Если же оккультные целители будут настаивать на том, что они верно истолковали этот библейский текст и что в нем речь идет именно об уринотерапии — то пусть дочитают этот сюжет до конца и увидят, чем кончилась для Сеннахерима проповедь «уринотерапии»: «И вышел Ангел Господень и поразил в стане ассирийском сто восемьдесят пять тысяч человек. И отступил Сеннахерим, и жил в Ниневии. И когда поклонялся он в доме Нисроха, бога своего, сыновья его убили его мечем» (Ис. 37, 36–37)…

Пример насилия над Евангелием знаком каждому, кто хоть раз дискутировал с протестантами. Если наш собеседник настроен «экуменично», если он при всех своих претензиях к православию все же готов считать нас «тоже христианами», он и от нас ждет аналогичной ответной любезности. Чтобы православные побыстрее согласились признать протестантские собрания христианскими церквами, он напоминает: «Где двое или трое собраны во имя Мое, там Я посреди них» (Мф. 18,20). И тут же дает свое толкование этим евангельским словам: «Мы же ведь тоже собираемся во имя Христа — значит, и Он несомненно посреди нас! И неважно — где именно собираются эти „двое или трое“. Да, мы собираемся не в православном храме, но поскольку наши собрания ради Христа — Христос приходит и к нам». Получается, что эти слова Христа оправдывают любые церковные расколы и внутрихристианские размежевания…

Что ж, давайте сопоставим так понятый смысл этого стиха с целокупным библейским контекстом. Приветствует ли Писание обособление от народа Божия, от Церкви? Христос призывает своих учеником к миру и единству или к анархизму? Ну, нет: как только нашлись такие люди, что попробовали и в самом деле создавать двухместные и трехместные церкви-купе, как они услышали гневное: «Разве разделился Христос?» (1 Кор. 1, 13). «Умоляю вас поступать достойно… стараясь сохранять единство духа в союзе мира» (Еф. 4,1–3).