An Overview of the New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

For anynone interested in the history and some quality comparison of the New Testament translations in Greek, she/he might check my new article entitled "An Overview of the New Testament Translations  into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era".

---

Extracted text from VASILEIADIS_TrBib_2024_An_Overview_of_the_New_Testament_Translations__into_Vernacular_Greek_during_the_Printing_Era.pdf:

Couverture de ΤῸ ΠΑΡῸΝ ΒΙΒΛΊΟΝ ΕἼΝΑΙ Ἤ παλαιά τε καὶ νέα διαθίκη, ἤτοι τὸ ἄνθος καὶ ἀναγγαῖον ἀυτῆς. ἔσι δὲ πάς ιν ὠφέλιμον καὶ ἀναγγαῖον πρὸς πᾶσα χριστιανόν (Le présent livre est l'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament, qui en est la fleur et l'ancêtre. Il est toujours utile et pertinent pour tout chrétien). Première édition établie par Ioannikios Kartanos et imprimée par Bartholomaei Zanetti à Venise en 1536. Reproduction d'une copie de l'ouvrage conservé à la Biblioteca Estense Universitaria di Modena.

Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, “An Overview of the New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era,” in: Fränz Biver-Pettinger & Eran Shuali (eds.), Traduire la Bible : hier et aujourd’hui. CERIT; Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2024, pp. 81–115.

An Overview of the New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era Pavlos D. VASILEIADIS

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Some Notes on the Need to Read the Bible in Comprehensible Language The New Testament was composed in its final form in Koiné Greek, the language that was commonly spoken during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity and from Late Antiquity to the Early Byzantine period. The use of this vernacular Koiné played a primary role in the wide expansion and acceptance of the Christian message. Despite the resurgence of the Classical Greek language and rhetoric style (“Atticism,” the Byzantine μίμησις) in the so-called “golden age” of patristic literature1, there were distinguished Christian figures that voiced their admonition for each Christian to read the sacred Scriptures privately in simple language. For instance, in the beginning of the fifth century, Isidore of Pelusium, a disciple of John Chrysostom, wrote: “If they seek elaborate diction, let them know that it is better to learn truth from an unlettered man, than falsehood from a sophist”2. 1.

Since the third century CE there have been “rewritings of the Bible, either through the use of paraphrase to adapt the language of Scripture to the usage of the period, or by the use of versification to adapt it to the pedagogical needs required by the legislation of the empire.” (Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 340–341.) For instance, Nonnus of Panopolis (fifth cent.), in his poetic Metabole (or Paraphrasis) of the Gospel of John, used the Homeric dialect to render the sacred text. His rendering of John 1:1 reads: «Ἄχρονος ἦν, ἀκίχητος, ἐν ἀρρήτῳ λόγος ἀρχῇ, ἰσοφυὴς γενετῆρος ὁμήλικος υἱὸς ἀμήτωρ, καὶ λόγος αὐτοφύτοιο θεοῦ φάος, ἐκ φάεος φῶς· πατρὸς ἔην ἀμέριστος, ἀτέρμονι σύνθρονος ἕδρη· καὶ θεὸς ὑψιγένεθλος ἔην λόγος.» That is: “Timeless was the Logos, unattainable, in the ineffable beginning, of equal nature to the coeval begetter, a motherless son, and the Logos was a god of self-created god, from light to light ; from the father he was indivisible and shares his throne in the boundless abode. And god born on high was the Logos.” (Transl. Fabian Sieber, in Domenico Accorinti, ed., Brill’s Companion to Nonnus of Panopolis, Leiden, Brill, 2016, p. 245 ; PG 43:749.) For other examples, see Άννα Κόλτσιου-Νικήτα [Anna Koltsiou-Nikita], «Η γλώσσα της χριστιανικής γραμματείας», in Ιστορία της Ορθοδοξίας. Τόμος 2, Από την εδραίωση μέχρι τη διαίρεση (313–1054), Athens, Εκδόσεις Road, 2009, p. 490–539.

«Εἰ δὲ ὑψηλῆς φράσεως ἐρῷεν, μανθανέτωσαν ὅτι ἄμεινον παρὰ ἰδιώτου τἀληθὲς, ἢ παρὰ σοφιστοῦ τὸ ψεῦδος μαθεῖν.» (Isidore of Pelusium, Letters 4.67, PG 78:1124. See also Letters 1.21 Ammonio

82

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

This idea revived in the humanistic ideal of promoting the translation of the Bible into languages spoken by common people, an ideal that was eloquently set forth by Desiderius Erasmus3. In the Greek-speaking world, clerics and lay scholars who comprised the so-called Greek “religious humanistic movement” came to echo and enthusiastically support this ideal. Adamantios Korais (1748–1833), a major Greek humanist scholar during the Modern Greek Enlightenment period, though an advocate of the revival of an archaizing “purified” form of the Greek language, put forth these same ideas a few centuries after Erasmus4. Vernacular languages change gradually over time, whereas changes in writing systems tend to be triggered by major historical and social events. That was the case with the successor of the Koiné Greek, the vernacular Greek spoken during the centuries since Late Antiquity. The term “vernacular Greek” refers to both the Medieval (Byzantine) and the Modern (Neo-Hellenic) Greek, ranging from Katharevousa, Standard Modern Greek, and Demotic to Radical Demotic. The New Testament (NT) translations in vernacular Greek were elaborated in all forms of the vernacular Greek spectrum. Additionally, all these translations present a variety of characteristics as regards the original Greek base text, the translation methods, the target audience, and the religious affiliations of the translators. These will be concisely discussed below. In this article, complete NT versions are mainly examined. However, four partial translations of the NT will also be discussed because of their historical importance: a) Ioannikios Kartanos’s HBJKA, b) Andreas Ioannidis Kalvos’s NTAK, c) Alexandros Pallis’s GoAP, and d) Queen Olga’s GoQO5 . scholastico, PG 78:196 ; 1.107 De Testamentorum Concordia, PG 78:256 ; 1.227 Florentio, PG 78:324 ; 2.3 Timotheo lectori, PG 78:457–460 ; 4.67 Theognosto diacono, PG 78:1124, 1125.) 3.

“Vehementer enim ab istis dissentio, qui nolint ab idiotis legi divinas literas, in vulgi linguam transfusas, sive quasi Christus tam involuta docuerit, ut vix a pauculis theologis possint intelligi, sive quasi religionis christianae praesidium in hoc situm sit, ut nesciatur.” That is: “I vehemently dissent from those who do not stand ordinary people reading the Holy Scriptures, translated into vernacular languages, as though either Christ taught such difficult doctrines that they can only be understood by a few theologians, or the safety of the Christian religion hinges on the ignorance of it.” (Desiderius Erasmus, Novum instrumentum omne, Basel, Johann Froben, 1516, Preface: Paraclesis ad lectorem pium [Exhortation to the pious reader], third page ; transl. Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1923, p. 184.)

Αδαμάντιος Κοραής [Adamantios Korais], Άτακτα, Ήγουν παντοδαπών εις την Αρχαίαν και την νέαν Ελληνικήν γλώσσαν αυτοσχεδίων σημειώσεων, καί τινων άλλων υπομνημάτων, αυτοσχέδιος συναγωγή, vol. 3, Paris, Κ. Εβεράρτου, 1830, p. ϛ΄–ιζ΄ ; Idem, Διάλογος δεύτερος περί των ελληνικών συμφερόντων Αδαμαντίου Κοραή, 2nd ed., Hydra: Εκ της εν Ύδρα Τυπογραφίας, 1827, p. 44, 45. An early example of use of the purist Katharevousa is the translation of liturgical readings selected from the Gospels prepared by the Professor of Theology Ignatios Moschakis, entitled Αι περικοπαί των Ευαγγελίων αι κατά τας Κυριακάς του έτους αναγινωσκόμεναι μετά πιστής αυτών μεταφράσεως και συντόμων ερμηνευτικών και ηθικών παρατηρήσεων, Athens, Εκ του Τυπογραφείου των Καταστημάτων Ανέστη Κωνσταντινίδου, 1892.

See Appendix A, p. 107–111, regarding the abbreviations used for the Bible translations in this article.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

83

Historical Background As a matter of fact, until the end of the Middle Ages, conventionally dated to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, there had been no serious attempt to translate the Bible text into popular Greek. For centuries the only access to the Bible available to the common people was in a liturgical-hymnal context in the churches or the monasteries. However, at least since the eleventh century, some Greek-speaking Jews sporadically produced translations of the Hebrew Scriptures in vernacular Greek, showing the pressing need for people to read the Scriptures in common language6. The first paraphrases of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular appeared in the Greek-speaking areas controlled by Venice and Genoa during the 15th and 16th centuries7. Ioannikios Kartanos’s (c. 1500–1567) Η Παλαιά τε και Νέα Διαθίκη, ήτοι το άνθος και αναγγαίον αυτής (HBJKA) in 1536 was the first attempt made by a Christian to publish extended portions of both Old and New Testaments in vernacular Greek —admittedly of poor quality, compiled with other theological works as a kind of a sacred history book. Similar to the bitter fates of other Bible translation pioneers like the humanists William Tyndale (c. 1494–1536) and the Florentine Antonio Brucioli (c. 1495–1566), there was a harsh reaction against Kartanos’s work, resulting in the patriarchal condemnation and the subsequent consummation of most of the copies in fire. But the wide circulation of this work (four printings in the same century) revealed the great thirst for reading the Bible8. 6.

Γεώργιος Μεταλληνός [Georgios Metallinos], Το ζήτημα της μεταφράσεως της Αγίας Γραφής εις την Νεοελληνικήν κατά τον ΙΘ’ αιώνα, Athens, Εκδόσεις Αρμός, 2004 (corrected edition of the author’s PhD thesis from 1977), p. 38, 39 ; Χρυσόστομος Παπαδόπουλος [Chrysostomos Papadopoulos], Ιστορικαί μελέται, Jerusalem, Τυπογραφείον του Ιερού Κοινού του Παναγίου Τάφου, 1906, p. 234, 235.

Tomasz Kamusella, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, p. 260.

Selected bibliography: Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος [Johannes Karavidopoulos], Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, Thessaloniki, Ostracon Publishing, 2016, p. 64 ; Ελένη Κακουλίδη [Eleni Kakoulidi], Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, Thessaloniki, 1970, p. 9, 28 ; Κωνσταντίνος Σάθας [Konstantinos Sathas], Μεσαιωνική βιβλιοθήκη ή Συλλογή ανεκδότων μνημείων της ελληνικής ιστορίας, vol. 6, Venice, Τύποις του Φοίνικος, 1877, p. λη΄–μς΄ ; Ανδρέας Παπαδόπουλος-Βρετός [Andreas PapadopoulosVretos], Επιστολή προς τον ελλογιμώτατον Ιππότην Ανδρέαν Μουστοξύδην, πρώην Έφορον της εν Ελλάδι Δημοσίας Εκπαιδεύσεως, περί του βιβλίου επιγραφομένου Άνθος της Παλαιάς τε και Νέας Διαθήκης, Athens, Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Α. Γκαρπόλα, 1847, p. 28 ; Μανόλης Σέργης [Manolis Sergis], Εκκλησιαστικός λόγος και λαϊκός πολιτισμός τον 16ο αιώνα: Η περίπτωση του Παχωμίου Ρουσάνου, Thessaloniki: Αδελφοί Κυριακίδη, 2008, p. 153. The scholar and monk Pachomius Rousanos (1508–1553), who bitterly attacked Kartanos for both the content and the language of his translation, believed that translating the Gospel into different languages would result in the alteration and annihilation of the Gospel. (Περί της εκ των θείων Γραφών ωφελείας και ότι ουκ αίτιοι οι ταύτας συγγραψάμενοι της ασάφειας αλλ´η ημετέρα αμάθια [sic] και αμέλεια, και περί διδασκαλιών [De divinarum Scripturarum utilitate], PG 98:1353C ; Σέργης, Εκκλησιαστικός λόγος και λαϊκός πολιτισμός τον 16ο αιώνα, p. 63, 151–159,

84

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, five complete NT editions (their revisions not included) and few notable translations of extensive NT readings for liturgical use by the Greek Orthodox and the Anglican Churches were translated and published in vernacular Greek. However, in the twentieth century alone, a total of 17 translations of the complete NT circulated, in addition to numerous editions of parts or separate books of the NT9. 171–177, 207–216 ; Στυλιανός Μπαϊρακτάρης [Stylianos Bairaktaris], Οι μεταφράσεις της Αγίας Γραφής στην Απλοελληνική κατά τους χρόνους της Τουρκοκρατίας, Athens, 1995, p. 10, 11.) 9.

In the final stage of the preparation of this article, a new and promising NT translation appeared that was prepared by Professor Christos Voulgaris, entitled Η Καινή Διαθήκη, Το πρωτότυπο κείμενο, κατά την έκδοση του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, με νεοελληνική απόδοση, Athens, Αποστολική Διακονία της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, 2020. It has been granted with the full blessings of the Greek Orthodox Church. Some of the noteworthy published translations of parts of the NT are the following: Ntinos Christianopoulos, Το Άγιο και Ιερό Ευαγγέλιο κατά το Ματθαίο (1996) ; Archimandrite Nikodemos Skrettas, Αποκάλυψις, Ποιητική απόδοση στη νεοελληνική (1995) ; Meletios Metropolitan of Nikopolis, Ευαγγέλιον Κατά Ματθαίον (1991) and Ευαγγέλιον Κατά Ιωάννην (1993) ; Chrysanthos Sarigiannis Metropolitan of Morphou, Το Ευαγγέλιο του Ματθαίου (1992) ; Odysseas Elytis, Η Αποκάλυψη, Μορφή στα Νέα Ελληνικά (1985) ; Angelos Vlachos, Το Κατά Λουκάν (1974) and Τα Ευαγγέλια (1977) ; Georgios Papakyriakopoulos, Το Κατά Ματθαίον Ευαγγέλιον (1976) ; Giorgos Seferis, Η Αποκάλυψη του Ιωάννη, Μεταγραφή (1966) ; Alexandros Pallis, Η Νέα Διαθήκη κατά το Βατικανό Χερόγραφο μεταφρασμένη (1902) ; Queen Olga of the Hellenes, Κείμενον και μετάφρασις του Ιερού Ευαγγελίου (1900 ; the translation was prepared by Ioulia Somaki and was revised and corrected by Prof. Filippos Papadopoulos, assisted by the former Metropolitan of Athens Prokopios, Prof. Georgios Pantazidis and Georgios Lampakis ; cf. Γ. Σωτηρίου, Λ. Ματλής, Δ. Λεονταρίτης [G. Sotiriou, L. Matlis, D. Leontaritis], Φοιτητικαί σελίδες του 1901 ήτοι πλήρης περιγραφή της κατά των μεταφράσεων, Athens, Εκ του τυπογραφείου Αδελφών Κτενά, 1902, p. 12–15) ; Anaplasis Association, Το κατά Ματθαίον άγιον ευαγγέλιον (1900) ; Adamantios Korais, Συνέκδημος ιερατικός περιέχων τας δύο προς Τιμόθεον και την προς Τίτον Επιστολάς (1831) ; Samuel Sheridan Wilson (Congregationalist), Του Κλήρου ο οδηγός, ήτοι παραφράσις και σχόλια των προς Τιμόθεον και Τίτον τριών Αγίων Επιστολών Παύλου του Αποστόλου (1829) ; Christian Friedrich Spittler (Evangelical), Das Evangelium Johannis. In neu-griechischer Sprache (Basel, 1823). There are indications that numerous NT translations have remained unpublished, like the one prepared by Metrophanis Kritopoulos of Alexandria, Greek Patriarch of Alexandria between 1636 and 1639, and described as «μεταφρασθείσα εις το απλοελληνικόν», that is literally, “translated into simple Greek.” (Μεταλληνός, Το ζήτημα της μεταφράσεως της Αγίας Γραφής, p. 40 ; Μπαϊρακτάρης, Οι μεταφράσεις της Αγίας Γραφής στην Απλοελληνική, p. 21, 22 ; Κακουλίδη, Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, p. 9, 10, 25–27 ; Μάρκος Ρενιέρης [Markos Renieris], Μητροφάνης Κριτόπουλος και οι εν Αγγλία και Γερμανία φίλοι αυτού (1617–1628), Athens, Εκ του Τυπογραφείου των Αδελφών Περρή, 1893 ; Κωνσταντίνος Σάθας, Νεοελληνική Φιλολογία: Βιογραφίαι των εν τοις γράμμασι διαλαμψάντων Ελλήνων (1453–1821), Athens, Εκ της Τυπογραφίας των τέκνων Ανδρέου Κορομηλά, 1868, p. 298.) Maximos the Peloponnesian, a learned and industrious monk of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, composed somewhere in the last two decades of the 16th century a paraphrastic translation of Revelation that included a mixture of Andreas’s and Arethas’s commentaries, both translated into colloquial Greek (εἰς ἀπλὴν γλῶσσαν) ; it survives in eight manuscripts. (Ευαγγελία Αμοιρίδου [Evangelia Amoiridou], Ιστορία της Ερμηνείας του Αριθμού του Θηρίου χξς’ [666] [Αποκ. 13,18], PhD thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1998, p. 155, n. 13 ; Μανούσος Μανούσακας [Manousos Manousakas], «Νέα στοιχεία για την πρώτη μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης στη δημοτική γλώσσα από το Μάξιμο Καλλιουπολίτη», Μεσαιωνικά και Νέα Ελληνικά 2, 1986, p. 7–70,

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

85

The first modern Greek NT was prepared between 1629 and 1632 by the learned hieromonk Maximos Rodios Kallipolitis (or Kallioupolitis, d. 1633), under the auspices of Cyril I Lucaris, then Patriarch of Constantinople, and was published posthumously in two volumes by Protestant publishers in Geneva in 163810. In the same year Lucaris was accused of plotting with Russia to stir up the Cossacks against Ottoman domination, arrested, and executed at the order of Sultan Murad IV—just a few months before publication. The Swiss Calvinist theologian David Le Clerc, later a professor of Oriental languages at the University of Geneva, and his brother Stephen Le Clerc, a professor of Greek language at the same university, were appointed to correct Maximos’s translation after his death. This was the first serious attempt to make the NT more accessible and available in a language comprehensible to the common people. It was also virtually the one and only in Greek initiated from top-to-bottom by the hierarchy of the Greek Church. In the prologue, attributed to Loukaris himself, it is stated that the purpose of the publication was that the “faithful would be able to read the Bible on their own and by themselves” (νὰ γροικήσουν τὴν θείαν γραφήν καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντες). Patriarch Parthenios II (1644–1650) distributed copies of Maximos’s translation, but in spite of Cyril’s precautions it roused a storm of disapproval from many of his bishops11. As S. Runciman observed, “to many of the Orthodox the idea of tampering with Holy Writ was outrageous, however obscure the text might be to modern readers,” and in making efforts “to appease them Cyril had the original and modern versions printed in parallel columns, and only added a few uncontroversial here 13 ; available on-line: The University of Chicago Library, Ms. 931 / Greg. 2402: http://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/ms/index.php ? doc=0931.) 10. Selected related bibliography: Καραβιδόπουλος, Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, p. 64–65 ; Constantine Scouteris and Constantine Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox Church from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day,” in John Riches, ed., The New Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 4, From 1750 to the Present, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 527 ; Παύλος Βασιλειάδης [Pavlos Vasileiadis], «Μάξιμος Καλλιουπολίτης ή Καλλιπολίτης», in Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Athens, Στρατηγικές Εκδόσεις, 2014, vol. 11, p. 249 ; Paschalis Kitromilides, “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment,” in Michael Angold, ed., The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 5, Eastern Christianity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 193–202 ; Athanasios Delicostopoulos, “Major Greek translations of the Bible,” in Jože Krašovec, ed., The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, “Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series” 289, 1998, p. 299 ; Μανούσακας, «Νέα στοιχεία για την πρώτη μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης» ; Κακουλίδη, Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, 10–13 ; Karl Krumbacher, Το πρόβλημα της νεωτέρας γραφόμενης Ελληνικής, και απάντησις εις αυτόν υπό Γεωργίου Ν. Χατζιδάκι, Athens, Τύποις Π. Δ. Σακελλαρίου, 1905, p. 203–217. 11. Cf. Ματθαίος Κυζίκου [Matthaios of Cyzicus], Αντίρρησις προς την εν είδει Απολογίας περί της εις το χυδαίον ιδίωμα Μεταφράσεως των Ιερών Γραφών αποσταλείσαν τη του Χριστού Μεγάλη Εκκλησία Επιστολήν του μακαρίτου Τoυρνόβου Κυρίου Ιλαρίωνος, Constantinople, Εν τω Πατριαρχικώ Τυπογραφείω, 1841, p. κ΄.

86

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

notes and references”12. The theologian Meletios Syrigos (1586–1663), who served at the church of Constantinople as Megas Rhetor and Protosynkellos, reacted bitterly against the translation and, as a result, patriarchal encyclicals were published forbidding the circulation or reading of Scripture in the vernacular13. In his foreword, Maximos stated that “the frail and ignorant” people “did not suffer as much from the [Ottoman] tyranny as from the villainous shepherds,” and this was a major reason for their alienation from the Scriptures. This outspoken prophet-like criticism against the corruption of the clergy marked him unpardonably for condemnation14. Throughout the centuries to come, this translation attempt was denounced as “contaminated by the virus of heresy” and as an “expedient instrument” of heresy, an act of “sacrilege”15. Despite the fierce opposition, it seems that Maximos’s NT had numerous successive corrections and editions, even by the Russian Bible Society. It was also attached to the Albanian translation published in Corfu in 1827 by the Ionian Bible Society and circulated, even in lectionary form, for liturgical use in the Greek Orthodox churches without the original text16. Maximos’s version included the original text side-by-side with the translation and marginal notes. It has been described as “one of the masterpieces of Greek literary language to this day17.” 12. Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1968, p. 275–276. 13. He fiercely preached that “the translators, the printers, the readers and those who contributed in receiving or reading them [Maximos’s two-volume translation] to the Orthodox people are all of them far away from Christianity and are subject to anathema.” (Dositheos II Notaras of Jerusalem, Chrysanthos Notaras of Jerusalem, eds., Ιστορία περί των εν Ιεροσολύμοις Πατριαρχευσάντων: διηρημένη μεν εν δώδεκα βιβλίοις, known also as Δωδεκάβιβλος ; Bucharest, Τυπογραφεία Στωίκου Ιερέως του Ιακωβίτζη, 1715, p. 1173.) 14. For instance, Maximos remarked: «Ὁ ἱερεὺς ἔγινεν ὡσάν τὸ κοινὸν φιλοσοφῶν ἄχρι ζώνης, καὶ οὐδὲ κἂν ψιλὰ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν ἱερῶν βίβλων ἠξεύρει. Μόνον ἕνα σκοπὸν ἔχει πῶς νὰ συνάξη χρήματα νὰ τὰ μεταχειρισθῆ εἰς ταῖς ἡδοναῖς τους, τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις τῶν εὐδαιμονίων μετρῶν. Τὸ γάλα καὶ τὸ τηρὶ ἐσθίουσι καὶ τὸ παχὺ σφάζουσι, καὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας παραβλέπουσιν ὁποῦ πλανᾶται ἀπὸ τὰ ὄρη καὶ στοὺς κρημνοὺς, καὶ ὅλως ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐξέκλινεν, ὅλοι ἠχρειώθησαν· οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνὸς· ἀλλὰ διὰ ταύτα ὅλα αὐτοὶ θέλουσι δώσει λόγον τῷ ἐφόρῳ Θεῷ εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς κρίσεως. […] Ἐγνωρίζωντας πῶς εἶμαι χρεώστης εἰς ὅλους τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς, καὶ περισσότερον εἰς τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἀμαθεῖς, οἱ ὁποῖοι δὲν δύνονται νὰ γρικήσουν τήν θείαν γραφὴν, οὔτε καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντες, οὔτε ἀκούοντες εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Καὶ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάγει ὀλίγον κατ’ ὀλίγον φθειρόμενον. Καὶ δὲν πάσχει τόσον ἀπὸ τὴν τυραννίδα, ὅσον πάσχει ἀπὸ τοὺς ἀχρείους ποιμένας, ἐπεχειρίστηκα νὰ μεταγλωττήσω εἰς τὴν κοινὴν διάλεκτον, τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὰς πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων, τὰς ἐπιστολάς τοῦ ἁγίου παύλου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν. Διατὶ τὸ ἀναγινώσκειν, καὶ μὴ γινώσκειν, καταγινώσκειν ἐστί.» (Η Καινή Διαθήκη του Κυρίου ημών Ιησού Χριστού, Lugdunum Batavorum, Ellzevir, 1638, vol. 1, prologue.) 15. Σάθας, Νεοελληνική Φιλολογία, 309 ; Μάρκος Ρενιέρης, Κύριλλος Λούκαρις: Ο οικουμενικός πατριάρχης, Athens, Τυπογραφείον Δ. Αθ. Μαυρομμάτη, 1859, p. 53. 16. A Gospel lectionary form of Maximos’s NT survives in the British Library Add MS 47774: http:// www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx ?ref=Add_MS_47774. 17. Vrasidas Karalis, “Greek Christianity after 1453,” in Ken Parry, ed., The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, Oxford, Blackwell, 2007, p. 161.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

87

The long-term consequence of this religious and political conflict of Loukaris’s patriarchate was the prevalence, for the following centuries, of a militant anti-Protestant spirit in the Orthodox Church that was mainly present in the rejection of any Bible translation attempt. A permanent major accusation against all Bible translators was that they were mercenaries motivated by their desire for monetary gain, serving dark aims against the Orthodox Church that originated, for instance, from Roman Catholic, Protestant, Russian/Pan-Slavistic, American, or Zionistic centers—libels dictated by the current political-historical circumstances18. Although reasons of contemporary political or religious struggle are not to be easily dismissed, the real objective has been the desire of the Church to retain exclusive control by any means necessary over each and every use of the Holy Bible. To this end various apologetic approaches have appeared in line with such views that stand for restricting the direct access of the common people to the Holy Scriptures19. Such negative approaches not only did not promote the complicated issue of Bible translation but, rather, held it back for many centuries by practically cultivating the idea of sacred untranslatability. Six local synods of the Orthodox Church were convened, aiming to refute the Lucarian novelties: at Constantinople in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691, at Jassy (Iași) in Moldavia in 1642 and at Jerusalem in 167220. The Synods of Jassy in 1642 and of Jerusalem in 1672 explicitly banished the reading of the Bible in general by the people without the interpretation by the Church21. Such a despotic obtrusion seemed to be removed with the appearance of a new edition of Maximos Kallipolitis’s NT, printed in London in 1703 at the expense of the then newly-established worldwide Anglican missionary charity of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (S.P.G.)—an Anglican society created in 1701 to carry out missionary work in the British colonies and plantations in North America and the West Indies. The English S.P.G. developed connections with the Halle Pietists in Germany, a very

18. See, for example, Vasilios Makrides, Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches: A Concise History of the Religious Cultures of Greece from Antiquity to the Present, New York, New York University Press, 2009, p. 91–92 ; Κωνσταντίνος Σιαμάκης [Konstantinos Siamakis], Επικίνδυνες Μεταφράσεις της Βίβλου από αλλοιωμένα κείμενα, Athens, Εκδόσεις Κάλαμος, 2008 ; Παναγιώτης Τρεμπέλας [Panagiotis Trempelas], Ο Χιλιασμός: Αναίρεσις των αντιχρίστων διδασκαλιών των Χιλιαστών, Athens, Αδελφότης θεολόγων ο Σωτήρ, 1972, p. 127–134 ; Κυζίκου, Αντίρρησις προς την εν είδει Απολογίας.
19. Such a case is Μεταλληνός, Το ζήτημα της μεταφράσεως της Αγίας Γραφής, p. 114, where he boldly makes the ostentatious claim—unconvincingly though—that the aim of the Protestant missionaries was to convert the whole Church of Greece to Protestantism.
20. Ιωάννης Καρμίρης [Ioannis Karmiris], Τα δογματικά και συμβολικά μνημεία της ορθοδόξου καθολικής Εκκλησίας, vol. 2, Athens, 1953, p. 571.
21. Nomikos Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, Brookline, Massachusetts, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994, p. 9–10 ; id., “Patriarch Kyrillos Loukaris and the transcription of the Scriptures into Modern Greek,” Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 59/1–4, 1977, p. 238 ; Καρμίρης, Τα δογματικά και συμβολικά μνημεία, vol. 2, p. 575–582, 734–773 ; Krumbacher, Το πρόβλημα της νεωτέρας γραφόμενης Ελληνικής, p. 205, 209–217.

88

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

early case of ecumenical cooperation within Protestantism22. This translation was prepared by the Greek Orthodox Archimandrite Seraphim of Mytilene (c. 1667 – c. 1735), who was studying at that time at the University of Oxford23. According to his preface, he had revised Maximos’s translation (NTSM), making numerous changes “according to the interpretation of the holy Fathers.” NTSM was the first version not to include the original text side by side with the translation24. It is noteworthy that Seraphim’s translation was included in the Polyglot NT edited by the Saxon theologian Christian Reineccius (1688–1752) in 171325. However satisfying this patricentric prerequisite, it wasn’t enough, as was to be expected. The Ecumenical Patriarch found the foreword offensive, condemned it, and ordered that all copies be burnt. This ban was lifted by 1705, after the replacement of the critical foreword of the NTSM-03 by an exhortation to the reader. Gabriel III of Constantinople ( ?–1707), Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 1702 to 1707, formally condemned Seraphim’s translation in 1704. In his synodic ordinance entitled Γράμμα συνοδικόν κατά της μεταφράσεως των Αγίων Γραφών, it was declared forbidden under pain of excommunication for all Orthodox Christians to buy, receive, or read the “translation in the common dialect”26. The most malicious of Seraphim’s opponents, Alexander Helladios (1686– ?) from Larissa, who also studied at the Greek College of Oxford University, wrote a hateful libel in 1714 against Seraphim personally and against his translation27. Helladios’s written accusations led Seraphim to serious troubles and, after a mock trial in 1732 in Russia, he 22. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. 2: Polyglots and Languages Other than English, Part 2: Greek to Opa, London, The Bible House, 1911, p. 680. 23. Selected related bibliography: Καραβιδόπουλος, Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, p. 65–66 ; Scouteris and Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox Church,” 527 ; Κυριάκος Παπουλίδης [Kyriakos Papoulidis], Το πολιτικό και θρησκευτικό κίνημα του Ιεροεθνισμού και οι πρωτοπόροι του: Σεραφείμ ο Μυτιληναίος ci. 1667–ci. 1735, Thessaloniki, Αδελφοί Κυριακίδη, 2008 ; Μπαϊρακτάρης, Οι μεταφράσεις της Αγίας Γραφής στην Απλοελληνική, p. 16–19 ; Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, p. 10–11, 174. 24. Μεταλληνός, Το ζήτημα της μεταφράσεως της Αγίας, p. 52. 25. Biblia Sacra quadrilinguia Novi Testamenti Graeci cum versionibus Syriaca, Græca vulgari, Latina et Germanica, Leipzig, Lanckisch. 26. Παπουλίδης, Το πολιτικό και θρησκευτικό κίνημα του Ιεροεθνισμού, p. 131–132, 176–184 ; Μανουήλ Γεδεών [Manuel Gedeon], Κανονικαί διατάξεις Επιστολαί, λύσεις, θεσπίσματα των αγιωτάτων πατριαρχών Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, vol. 1, Istanbul, Εκ του Πατριαρχικού Τυπογραφείου, 1888, p. 106–109. 27. Status praesens Ecclesiae graecae: in quo etiam causae exponuntur cur Graeci moderni Novi Testamenti editiones in Graeco-barbara lingua factas acceptare recusent, Altdorf bei Nürnberg, 1714. The Corfiote hierodeacon Frangiskos Prossalentis (1679–1728), a teacher and close friend of Helladios, started in 1726 to prepare a NT translation that remained incomplete and unpublished, entitled Μεταγλώττισις [και εξήγησις του ιερού] ευαγγελίου κατά το κοινόν ιδίωμα της απλής γλώττης των ανατολικών Ρωμαίων [εις ωφέλειαν των μη γινωσκώντων την των Ελλήνων διάλεκτον]. (Ανδρόνικος Δημητρακόπουλος

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

89

was exiled to Siberia, where he eventually died28. His tireless efforts for the translation of the Bible and also the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire have not been sufficiently valued by modern historiographers. Another figure that played an important role in the history of Bible translation is Anastasios Michael from Naoussa (c. 1675–1725), a famous rhetorician with deep knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and a member of the Royal Academy of Berlin29. He was a member of the Special Committee, which Peter the Great set up in order to produce the new Slavonic translation of the Bible. Later, the tsar appointed him Deputy of the Synod of the Russian Church. Michael remained in Russia until his death. His major work was the revision of the NT text of Seraphim of Mytilene. Without making major alterations, Michael “corrected the orthography, replaced (as far as was possible) Turkish and Italian words by Greek words, and filled in the lacuna which had marred previous editions30.” This NT version (NTAM-1710) was published in Halle, Saxony in 1710 and was financed by the Pietist Sophia Louise of Prussia. The Lutheran biblical scholar August Hermann Francke, who edited the NTAM, was the heart and mind behind the so-called “Halle Pietism,” a large movement seeking universal reform of society through broad education and the teaching of individual responsibility according to Christian principles. From the orphanage in Halle, Francke’s reform ideas disseminated worldwide, including Greece. It is fairly certain, as noted N. Vaporis, that this version too “was found unacceptable by the ecclesiastical authorities31.” Andreas Kalvos from Zante (1792–1869), a prominent poet of Modern Greece, translated parts of the Bible for the British and Foreign Bible Society (NTAK) during his stays in London over the years (the first time was 1818–1820)32. These were included in editions of the liturgical Bible readings in the annual cycle of the An-

[Andronikos Dimitrakopoulos], Επανόρθωσις παρατηρηθέντων εν τη Νεοελληνική Φιλολογία του Κ. Σαθά, Trieste, Τύποις του Αυστριακού Λόϋδ, 1872, p. 30.) 28. Στυλιανός Μπαϊρακτάρης, Σεραφείμ ο Μυτιληναίος, Ο λησμονημένος πρωτοπόρος (1670–1735), Athens, 1973, p. 19–20 ; Γκριγκόρι Γεσίποβ [Grigoriĭ Esipov], «Ο Έλλην κληρικός Σεραφείμ», transl. Κ. Α. Παλαιολόγος [K. A. Palaiologos], Παρνασσός 4/1, 1880, p. 28–51. Original article in Russian: Григорий Есипов, “Грек Серафим,” Древняя и новая Россия 1876/4, p. 369–383. 29. Selected related bibliography: Καραβιδόπουλος, Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, p. 66 ; Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, p. 11–12. 30. Darlow and Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture, p. 680. 31. Vaporis, Translating the Scriptures into Modern Greek, p. 12. 32. Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, «Νεοελληνικές μεταφράσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης κατά το τελευταίο τέταρτο του 20ου αιώνα», in Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, ed., Βιβλικές Μελέτες Β΄, Thessaloniki, Εκδόσεις Π. Πουρναρά, «Βιβλική Βιβλιοθήκη» 16, 2000, p. 105–106.

90

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

glican Church. It is not known whether Kalvos became a Protestant, but a strong interest in the Anglican Church is obvious in his works, including his translations of the Anglican liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer (Βιβλίον των Δημοσίων Προσευχών) into Greek33. In 1821, the only polyglot edition of this work that included Kalvos’s “entirely new” translation was published34. Revised editions followed, such as the one in 1826. The learned Archimandrite Hilarion of Mount Sinai (1770–1838), later Metropolitan of Turnovo (the capital of Medieval Bulgaria), was acceptable to both the Patriarchate and the British and Foreign Bible Society in order to be assigned in 1820 to revise Kallipolitis’s translation into a language closer to that spoken by the people. Kallipolitis’s translation was by that time nearly two hundred years old35. Both the Patriarchs of Constantinople Cyril VI (1769–1821) and Gregory V (1746–1821)—both reviled and finally executed by the Ottoman government—supported the aims of the Bible Society to make available the Scriptures to the Greeks in their spoken language. Fifteen thousand copies of the 1831 Geneva edition were sent to the Governor of Greece, Ioannis Kapodistrias (1776–1831), who received them gratefully and distributed them to the students of the newly established schools. At the same year, a Gospel lectionary including for each liturgical reading section both the original Greek text and a revised NTHT translation started being published and circulated widely. It was promoted and probably even prepared by the Patriarch Constantius I (1770–1859)36. In a polemic work against NTHT written in 1841, Matthaios, Metropolitan of Kyzikos, wondered rhetorically “how much they are sinning, those who dare to translate the Sacred Scriptures into the vernacular (ἐκχυδάϊσιν), laboring in vain.” He stated that “the translation [of the Bible] into the vernacular was first devised by enemies of our sacred religion, that is, the followers of Calvin37.” Already in 1836 and 1839, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had issued two encycli-

33. The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer of the United Church of England and Ireland from 1820 uses the Greek text of the Textus Receptus. It is especially interesting that, in the edition of 1826 that was prepared for Greek audiences, the notorious Johannine Comma is included, while in the earlier international polyglot edition of 1821 it is missing.
34. In the preface, it is mentioned that: “The Modern Greek is an entirely new translation by Mr. A. Calbo, a Native Greek, of the Island of Zante.”
35. Selected related bibliography: Καραβιδόπουλος, Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, 66–67 ; Nomikos Vaporis, “The Influence of the Foreign Bible Societies in the Development of Balkan Literary Languages: The Greek Experience,” The Journal of Modern Hellenism 1, 1984, p. 80–81.
36. Συλλογή των κατά τας Θείας Λειτουργίας απασών των Κυριακών αναγινωσκομένων περικοπών του Ιερού Ευαγγελίου μετά της εις το Απλούν εκάστης αυτών Παραφράσεως, Athens, Σ. Κ. Βλαστός, 1831. It was officially intended for use in the primary schools.
37. Ματθαίος Κυζίκου, Αντίρρησις προς την εν είδει, γ΄, θ΄.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

91

cals that were also approved by the newly-independent autocephalous Church of Greece, stringently commanding that all translations undertaken by “enemies of our faith” be confiscated and destroyed and also all previous translations, even if undertaken by Orthodox “co-religionists,” be condemned38. Despite these polemic conditions, this was “the best” translation of all, according to A. Delicostopoulos39. The attacks it attracted are the reason for which surviving copies of Hilarion’s NTHT (together with Seraphim of Mytilene’s NTSM-03) are the most scarce among all the NT translations. The famous so-called “Vamvas’s” version of the complete NT, published in 1844, was described as “a paraphrase in the vernacular language” (παραφρασθεῖσα εἰς τὴν καθομιλουμένην γλῶσσαν). The translation of the Gospels was a revision of a previous edition prepared by Neophytos Vamvas (1776–1855), head of the School of Philosophy and later Dean of the University of Athens, as well as a close friend and follower of Korais in Paris. Today this would undoubtedly be described as a translation employing formal equivalence—although at that time opponents would have been more easily accepting of something termed a “paraphrase” (Gr. paraphrasis) rather than a “translation” (Gr. metaphrasis). Vamvas prepared the translation with the assistance of the Baptist Rev. Henry D. Leeves, Christos Nikolaidis Philadelpheus, Spyridon Valetas and others40. Of this first edition (NTNV-1844) 4,000 copies were placed at the disposal of the Greek Government for distribution and use in the public schools of Greece41. In often dire circumstances, Vamvas was assisted by people who shared the same ideals for unrestrained access to the Bible in the vernacular, like the Congregationalist Jonas King42. Under the allegation of attempting to “proselytize” the Greek people away from the Orthodox Church, this translation too was harshly attacked. Vamvas replied with outspokenness on this “provocative” accusation by saying that this was a “sophistry” aiming to “deceive” the common people and that, in contrast, “as Christians we ought to read the sacred Scriptures.” He insisted that the Bible Society offered to provide the resources for the translation out of “evangelical love43.” But, as a matter 38. Εμμανουήλ Κωνσταντινίδης [Emmanuel Konstantinidis], Τα Ευαγγελικά: Το πρόβλημα της μεταφράσεως της Αγίας Γραφής, Athens, 1976, p. 78–84. 39. Delicostopoulos, “Major Greek translations of the Bible,” p. 300. 40. See the section: “To the Readers” in the 1844 edition of Vamvas’s NT. Selected related bibliography: Καραβιδόπουλος, Εισαγωγή στην Καινή Διαθήκη, p. 67 ; Στυλιανός Μπαϊρακτάρης, Νεόφυτος Βάμβας, Ο σοφός διδάσκαλος του Γένους 1770–1855, Athens, 2008. 41. Darlow and Moule, Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture, p. 686. 42. Παύλος Βασιλειάδης, «Κινγκ, Ιωνάς», in Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Athens, Στρατηγικές Εκδόσεις, 2012, vol. 10, p. 55–56. 43. Νεόφυτος Βάμβας [Neophytos Vamvas], Σύντομος απάντησις περί της ανάγκης της μεταφράσεως των Ιερών Γραφών εις την καθομιλουμένην Ελληνικήν, Athens, Τύποις Λακωνίας, 1889, p. 23–30.

92

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

of fact, “the intense struggle over translation, coming at the precise moment of the controversy of the independence of the Greek Church, interweaved politics, national identity, and religion” and thus, “no room existed for purely religious debate44.” Vamvas’s translation of the whole Bible has been evaluated as “not of great philological merit45.” Despite the fact that it did not “have official church approval,” it has been the version with the longest and widest circulation in recent centuries. Vamvas’s Bible became a kind of Greek “authorized version” when published by the British and Foreign Bible Society under the title Τα Ιερά Βιβλία της Παλαιάς τε και Καινής Διαθήκης μεταφρασθέντα εκ των Αρχετύπων at Oxford in 1850 and at Cambridge in 1862. In the mid-1990s, the Evangelical Spyros Filos rendered Vamvas’s version into contemporary Demotic, revitalizing the interest of readers in this milestone of Greek sacred literature. At the dawn of the twentieth century, the conditions required for the Orthodox Church, as well as for contemporary theological scholarship to produce NT editions and vernacular translations seem to have been reached. Regarding textual criticism, high-level works like Nikolaos Damalas’s Ερμηνεία εις την Καινήν Διαθήκην (1876) were keeping biblical studies in Greece up to date with international advances. As regards the patristic interpretation, works like Theoklitos Farmakidis’s Η Καινή Διαθήκη μετά υπομνημάτων αρχαίων (1842) and numerous catenae published since provided the needed instruction for understanding the biblical texts through the lens of traditional exegesis. Technical issues regarding biblical chronology, archaeology, and language were reasonably covered in works like Nektarios Kefalas’s Ευαγγελική Ιστορία δι΄ αρμονίας των κειμένων των ιερών ευαγγελιστών Ματθαίου, Μάρκου, Λουκά και Ιωάννου (1903). For almost a century, translations of liturgical Bible readings into vernacular had been published, like the ones of the Apostolos (1807) by Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople and Theophylaktos’s interpretation of apostle Paul’s letters (1819) by Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749–1809)46. It seems that the translators were now well equipped to succeed in their demanding task. However, by the late 1890s, the promising Katharevousa had completely lost the flame of Enlightenment republicanism that it had carried in the days of Korais and Vamvas. In contrast with the so-called “hairy” forms of Demotic then in circulation, it provided a feeling of respectability and orthodoxy of the kind believed required for the sacred Scriptures. As a result, when the religious Anaplasis association requested approval for a translation of the Gospel of Matthew (Το κατά Ματθαίον άγιον ευαγγέλιον) into “simple Katharevousa,” this was granted both by the 44. Lucien J. Frary, Russia and the Making of Modern Greek Identity, 1821–1844, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 144. 45. Scouteris and Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox,” p. 527. 46. Delicostopoulos, “Major Greek translations of the Bible,” p. 300.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

93

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1896) and by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (1897) ; it was finally published in 190047. The reasons why the Synod approved the Anaplasis translation but not Queen Olga’s (intended only for family use, πρὸς ἀποκλειστικήν οἰκογενειακήν τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ λαοῦ χρῆσιν) remain unknown. No related archives are available today. It seems that it was not a linguistic issue, but rather there were suspicions of the queen being a possible agent of PanSlavism, in co-operation with the Metropolitan of Athens, Prokopios48. Furthermore, the centuries-long demand for a vernacular NT translation in Greek became even more pressing in the public socio-political sphere49. For instance, in a series of discussions in the Greek Parliament, Prof. Georgios Dervos (1854–1925), insisting that the NT should be prepared in vernacular only in the form of interpretation and paraphrase, warned of “a great danger that is at hand because of the translations of the Gospel, since discussion will rise about them, and consequently scandals, such as we may observe in the history of the Byzantine State and such as contributed quite a bit to its destruction.” This was a reply to Charisios Papamarkou (1844–1896), a brave and progressive figure who promoted changes in public education and had stated: “The Gospel must be translated into the vernacular, even into the vulgar language (χυδαίαν γλῶσσαν) and in this language it must be read at all the schools as well50.” But the reply by a member of the Parliament was that “not even the Holy Synod of Greece could allow the translation of the Gospel.” The Synod of the Church of Greece fully affirmed his words by issuing “an encyclical condemning the translation of Holy Writ into an ‘abortive and monstrous idiom’ as ‘an unforgivable crime and a repugnant and atrocious act,’” while it banned also “the publication of Bible translations into any variety of Modern Greek51.” As 47. At that time, it was still visible that “the Greeks were divided by their loyalty to two different ecclesiastical authorities,” i.e., the patriarchate of Constantinople, since the Ottoman empire, and the Church of Greece after the establishment of the Greek kingdom. Cf. Peter Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766-1976, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 275. 48. For possible consequences of the so-called Pan-Slavism, see ibid., p. 254. 49. See for example, Σωτηρίου et al. Φοιτητικαί σελίδες του 1901, p. 1215. 50. Πλάτων σύγγραμμα περιοδικόν παιδαγωγικόν και φιλολογικόν 12/1–3, 1890, p. 190, 192. 51. «Ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία ἀπεδοκίμασε καί ἀνεθεμάτισεν οὐχί ἅπαξ πᾶσαν οἱανδήποτε μετάφρασιν τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Εὐαγγελίου εἰς ἁπλουστέραν γλῶσσαν διά τε Συνοδικῶν ὅρων καί διά Πατριαρχικῶν καί Συνοδικῶν ἀποφάσεων καί ἐγκυκλίων. Παρά ταῦτα ὅμως πάντα, τολμῶνται καί μέχρι τῶν ἡμερῶν ἡμῶν μεταφράσεις τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Εὐαγγελίου, ὑπαγορευόμεναι ἐκ σφαλερᾶς ἴσως προαιρέσεως τοῦ καταστῆσαι αὐτό προσιτώτερον καί εὐνοητότερον τῷ λαῷ. Οἱ τοιαῦτα ἐπιχειροῦντες ἀντιστρατεύονται τοῖς θεσμίοις καί ταῖς διαταγαῖς τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας, ἥτις, ἐπί πάσι τοῖς ἤδη λεχθεῖσιν, οὐδέποτε ἐν τῇ σχεδόν δισχιλιετεῖ αὐτῆς πείρα σύνοιδεν ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ἐπικουρικόν μέσον πρός πληρεστέραν τοῦ Ἱεροῦ Εὐαγγελίου κατανόησιν τήν εἰς ἁπλουστέραν γλῶσσαν μετάφρασιν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' ἀπεδοκίμασε καί ἀνεθεμάτισεν αὐτήν.» (Encyclical of the Standing Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, November 7/10, 1901, Αριθ. Πρωτ. 3171, Διεκπ. 687/7-11-1901 ; Θεόκλητος Στράγκας [Theoklitos Stragas], «Περί αποδοκιμασίας και κατακρίσεως

94

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

V. Makrides noted, “the close collaboration of church and state, the thorough nationalization of the church, and the official presentation of the church as the most important bastion of Greek national identity” has been fairly observable since the time Greece became a free nation. This kind of temporal power enabled the Church to become “involved in socio-political and ideological conflicts, such as ‘the language question’ (as evidenced by the ‘Gospel riots’ [Evangeliká] of 1901 in Athens, caused by two different translations of the Scriptures in demotic Greek”—Pallis’s GoAP and Queen Olga’s GoQO)52. The Church as a major social institution proved either unwilling or structurally incapable of promoting a productive dialogue on this issue, with which it had become highly involved. Consequently, with “no real public dialogue on the language in the 1890s and 1900s” and “amid the swirl of misunderstanding and misinformation about the relevant issues, violence came to be seen by some as the only way to protect their interests53,” resulting in “political unrest and bloodshed54.” As a matter of fact, even as late as the first decades of the twentieth century, debates on Bible translation issues proved to be not just a matter of philological, theological, or linguistic dispute, but potentially a devastating occupation. The historical record demonstrated that almost all the pioneers of the Bible translations into Greek—like Ioannikios Kartanos, Cyril Lucaris, Seraphim of Mytilene—were ill-fated and ostracized, sentenced to life imprisonment and left to languish to death or defamed and damned posthumously into temporal oblivion. But even in our days, “all contemporary Greek [Orthodox] speakers are obliged at the divine services, the divine liturgy, or Bible studying, to pray, render worship, and praise the Lord in a language code far distanced from their mother tongue” and, consequently, “a first-hand understanding of the N.T.” is not possible55. P. Mackridge remarked that, “as a consequence of the Gospel riots ten years earlier, and particularly in view of the fact that a second edition of Pallis’s translation of the Gos-

πάσης μεταφράσεως του Ιερού Ευαγγελίου εις απλουστέραν Ελληνικήν γλώσσαν», in Εκκλησίας Ελλάδος ιστορία εκ πηγών αψευδών 1817–1967, vol. 1, Athens, 1969, p. 522–525 ; Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 251.) 52. Makrides, Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches, p. 57–59. See also Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 244–254 ; Kamusella, The Politics of Language and Nationalism, p. 261–263 ; Delicostopoulos, “Major Greek translations of the Bible,” p. 301–302 ; Philip Carabott, “Politics, Orthodoxy, and the language question in Greece: The Gospel riots of November 1901,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 3, 1993, p. 117–138 ; Κωνσταντινίδης, Τα Ευαγγελικά ; Κακουλίδη, Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, p. 22–23 ; Σωτηρίου et al. Φοιτητικαί σελίδες του 1901. 53. Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 253. 54. Κακουλίδη, Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, p. 8. 55. Δήμητρα Κούκουρα [Dimitra Koukoura], «Συγχρονικές δυσχέρειες στην κατανόηση του γλωσσικού μηνύματος της Καινής Διαθήκης», in Η Μετάφραση της Αγίας Γραφής στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία, Εισηγήσεις Δ' Συνάξεως Βιβλικών Θεολόγων 1986, Athens, 1987, p. 131, 135, 140.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

95

pels had been published in Liverpool in 1910, the 1911 constitution also included, for the first time, a clause prohibiting the publication of translations of the Bible without the permission of the patriarchate of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece; this clause has remained in subsequent constitutions, including (in a slightly modified form) the current one56.” In fact, the contemporary Constitution of Greece stipulates (article 3§3): “The text of the Holy Scripture shall be maintained unaltered. Official translation of the text into any other form of language, without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.” Despite the later addition of the term “official,” it is obvious that such a vague and paternalistic provision not only aimed to protect the Greek Orthodox “flock” from divergent dogmas but also intended to eliminate any possible attempt of non-Orthodox translators to translate the Bible for the general public. During the twentieth century the NT paraphrases published by pietistic para-ecclesiastical organizations or societies had a long and wide circulation among Orthodox believers. More specifically, in 1963 the organization He Zoe, which was founded in 1907, published the hermeneutical version of the NT (NTJK) prepared by the theologian Ioannis Kolitsaras (1903–1989). The brotherhood of theologians Ho Soter, which split from He Zoe in 1960, took over the publication of Prof. Panagiotis Trempelas’s (1886–1977) hermeneutical version (NTPT), which had been in circulation since 1952, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. Since then, both versions have had numerous printings that included minor revisions. Over the course of the twentieth century, more than forty translations of parts or of the whole NT were published. More literal translations (instead of hermeneutic paraphrases) gradually appeared, collaboratively prepared by teams of scholars that were more aware of the scholarship of NT textual criticism57. This was due not only to the influence of the growing ecumenical movement, but also to increased contact with international theological studies that resulted in the advancement of biblical studies in Greece. These versions have been used for academic purposes as well as in pastoral and educational contexts. One such translation was prepared by Professors N. Louvaris, M. Kapsis and P. Demetropoulos in 1960, published in a four-volume edition that included the OT translation by Prof. Athanasios Chastoupis (1955). Two important NT translations were made for the British and Foreign Bible Society / United Bible Societies by academics at the Universities of Thessaloniki and Athens.

56. Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 267 ; Scouteris and Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox,” p. 527–528 ; Κακουλίδη, Για τη Μετάφραση της Καινής Διαθήκης, p. 23.
57. Scouteris and Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox,” p. 528.

96

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

The first is the so-called “Four Professors’” NT edition (NTMG). It was translated into simple Katharevousa by Professors V. Vellas, E. Antoniadis, A. Alivizatos and G. Konidaris and was approved by the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church by “commending the effort and blessing the work” for this text “in the modern Greek Language.” The second, by Professors S. Agouridis, P. Vassiliadis, J. Galanis, G. Galitis, J. Karavidopoulos, and V. Stogiannos (NTTGV-85) appeared in simple Demotic in 198558. In later editions, it has been published together with the OT translation that was started in 1968 by V. Vellas, et al. and completed by Prof. M. Konstantinou in 199759. The translators of the NTTGV-85 preferred a critical edition of the Greek NT as the base text. This attempt—unprecedented among Orthodox versions until then—encountered fierce criticism from Church circles on the basis of pastoral peculiarities, and approval was rejected by the Church of Greece. All this changed after the revision in 1989 (NTTGV-89), a compromise that entailed adapting the translation to the Ecclesiastical Text. It was made by the same NTTGV-85 translation committee, except Agouridis, who refused to participate, and Stogianos, who had deceased. This version received official approval by the Church of Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Alexandria. Nikolaos Psaroudakis (1917–2006), an active politician for Christian socialism, started to prepare his NTNPs version in popular Demotic while in exile and finished it while in prison for political reasons. The personal efforts of Spyros Karalis to produce a comprehensible NT version as closely attached to the original Greek text as possible had noteworthy results. Both his NTMSK (based on a critical text, 1991) and NTKSK (based on the Textus Receptus, 2003) can satisfy the reader who understands much of the original Greek but needs help here and there in order to understand the meaning of the sacred text in the original language. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the NT in Modern Greek appeared in 1993 (NTNW-G-93), while the complete Bible circulated in 1997 (HBNW-G-97). Despite the undue emphasis given by critics on its unidenominational character, NTNW-G is an easy-to-read version in simple Demotic60. It is one of the few NT translations in Greek that are based on a critical text, and it is quite regularly revised based on 58. Selected related bibliography at Καραβιδόπουλος, «Νεοελληνικές μεταφράσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης», p. 119–120. 59. Contemporary Septuagint is the forthcoming new translation of the OT from the Septuagint, which is still the official OT text of the Greek Orthodox Church. On this translation, see Myrto Theocharous, “The Septuagint and its Long-Awaited Descendant: The Modern Greek Translation of the Old Greek Bible,” in the present volume. 60. Παύλος Βασιλειάδης, «Μετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου», in Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια, Athens, Στρατηγικές Εκδόσεις, 2014, vol. 11, p. 350 ; Jason David BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 2003, p. 38–39.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

97

developments in the field of textual criticism. A major revision was published in 2017 (HBNW-G-17, 2013 in English) that attempted to eliminate literal renderings considered to obfuscate the meaning of the sacred text. In the early twenty-first century, the obstacles to the work of the Bible Societies had been removed for good. Numerous notable versions came forth during the last decades of the twentieth century, increasing the availability of the Scriptures in vernacular Greek to various audiences with various prerequisites and requirements. Academic scholarship in the field of biblical studies has prominently advanced, focusing “on bringing together the patristic tradition with modern research methods61.”

Quality Characteristics Basic quality characteristics include: a) the Greek NT edition selected as the source text for the translators, b) the applied methods of the translation, c) the preferred form of the Greek language, and d) the religious affiliations of the translators. 3  Editions of the Greek NT text used as base text. A major choice that the translators have to face is the exact edition of the Greek NT that they regard as authoritative and therefore use as the base text. The tradition of the Orthodox Churches “values a Byzantine form of text62.” But a major paradox in the notion of “the” ecclesiastical text for the Greek-speaking people is that it is not the result of a uniform tradition retained in the diachronic liturgical practice. Actually, there is no one and only one “Ecclesiastical Text.” The “Patriarchal Text” is the authorized text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (1904), the only edition of the Greek text of the NT in the Orthodox Church63. Although the “Patriarchal Text” was aimed to provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of the ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople,” it is not actually a critical edition of all the available NT copies

61. Scouteris and Belezos, “The Bible in the Orthodox,” p. 528.
62. Michael W. Holmes, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion,” in Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd ed., Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 642.
63. Καραβιδόπουλος, «Νεοελληνικές μεταφράσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης», p. 115. The term “official” for this edition of the Greek NT is not clear enough. More specifically, the Patriarchate had already previously approved few editions of the Greek NT. Also, the cost of this specific edition was not covered by the Patriarchate itself but by private finance. When published, the Patriarch who commenced and financed this edition had already been replaced. In view of all these issues, what remains to be called “the authorized” and also “of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople” is a matter of question.

98

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

13 11

4

CT

ET

TR

Figure 1: Editions of the Greek NT used as base text for Modern Greek translations.

of the Byzantine tradition64. Furthermore, even the officially circulating editions of the liturgical NT texts differ from one another on both minor and major points65. As a result of this situation in the contemporary Greek religious environment, the basic dichotomy between the critical and ecclesiastical text remains. In general, Greek translators are extremely hesitant to use a critical text. The ecclesiastical NT text, as used in the divine liturgies, remains the most obvious choice for translators hoping for a positive reception of their work by the majority of the Greek Orthodox public. Amalgams of Greek NT texts are sometimes used as the basis for translation. Such a schizophrenic situation is clearly reflected in the NTTGV-85. While the Modern Greek translation is based on the Greek text of Nestle-Aland (ed. 26)/UBS (ed. 3) with divergences where deemed necessary, it includes, side-by-side, an edition of 64. See Καραβιδόπουλος, «Νεοελληνικές μεταφράσεις της Καινής Διαθήκης», p. 119 ; id., «Η κριτική του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης στην Ελλάδα», in Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, ed., Βιβλικές Μελέτες Δ΄, Thessaloniki, Εκδόσεις Π. Πουρναρά, «Βιβλική Βιβλιοθήκη» 40, 2007, p. 167–173. Although the preparation of the text by Vasileios Antoniadis was based upon the text of 60 manuscripts of lectionaries used in the Greek-speaking churches dated from ninth to the sixteenth centuries (mainly between the tenth and the fourteenth century), it does not include any kind of critical apparatus and cannot be characterized as a “critical” edition. (Καραβιδόπουλος, «Η κριτική του κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης στην Ελλάδα», 167 ; Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, «Το Εκκλησιαστικό κείμενο της Καινής Διαθήκης στη σύγχρονη έρευνα», in Τιμητικό αφιέρωμα στον καθηγητή Κωνσταντίνο Καλοκύρη. Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής. Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1985, p. 291–327, here p. 301.) 65. Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, «Κριτική θεώρηση του κειμένου των αγιογραφικών αναγνωσμάτων στην Ορθόδοξη λατρεία», in Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, ed., Βιβλικές Μελέτες Δ΄, Thessaloniki, Εκδόσεις Π. Πουρναρά, «Βιβλική Βιβλιοθήκη» 40, 2007, p. 291–303 ; Idem, «Το αίτημα της ομοιομορφίας του λειτουργικού κειμένου της Καινής Διαθήκης», in Διακονία. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη Βασίλειου Στογιάννου. Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1988, p. 137–155.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

99

the Ecclesiastical Text. The NTMSK is based on a “critical text” but, as is mentioned in the introduction, in some cases the punctuation of the Ecclesiastical Text is followed. The NTGZ also is based on the Ecclesiastical Text rather than the Textus Receptus, in contrast to what is mentioned in the foreword. The role of the accompanying original text beside the Bible translation has also been a hotly debated issue in the history of the Greek NT translation. Including the original NT text side-by-side with the translation was considered a guarantee for the orthodoxy of the translation. On the other hand, the inherent interpretational nature of Bible translation was raised as an argument against the translations made by non-Orthodox translators and, as a result, these efforts were from the outset condemned to be handed over to the flames. At the same time, extensive hermeneutical versions—actually gross paraphrases of the original text—have been promoted and read as the “New Testament” and have had the blessings of the Church and enjoyed wide circulation. Indicative also of this gloomy situation is the fact that the authors of scholarly studies and essays essentially avoid discussing or even referring to non-Orthodox translations, limiting in this way their horizons of Christian pluriformity66. 3   Methods of translation. The NT translations in vernacular Greek will be ranged from “literal” (ad verbum) to “free” (ad sensum)67. Following J. D. BeDuhn, the Bible translations are broadly categorized here within a four-fold scale as (a) lexical (or interlinear), (b) formal equivalent (literal), (c) dynamic (or functional) equivalent, and (d) paraphrastic68. 3   Forms of the Greek language. Since the publication of Adolf Deissmann’s research, it has been firmly established that “the linguistic basis—the morphology, basic vocabulary and syntax—of Septuagint and New Testament Greek is the common, non-literary language of the Hellenistic period as it was practiced throughout the

66. HBNW is a notorious example of a “transparent” translation for the specialists since the dogmatic prerequisites of the editors have fundamental differences with the doctrines of the Greek Orthodox Church.
67. Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence are two dissimilar translation techniques used to achieve differing levels of literalness between the original and target languages of a text. Both techniques are used in biblical translation. The two terms have often been understood fundamentally as sense-for-sense translation (translating the meanings of phrases or whole sentences) and word-forword translation (translating the meanings of words and phrases in a more literal method).
68. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, p. 11–26. Actually, BeDuhn describes these four translation types as possible stages in every translation project. This might be a likely procedure, but these four types may quite properly describe the literariness of translation of the Bible versions.

100

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

11

10

5 2 DnEq

FmEq

Par

Lex

Figure 2: Modern Greek NT translation approaches.

Greek-speaking world,” “an idiom usually reserved for non-literary documents69.” This “vernacular” character of the language of the Scriptures means that the LXX translators and the NT authors “wrote the language more or less the way they spoke it70.” But the vast majority of prominent Church fathers, like Basil of Caesarea, “wrote in the language and style of the great pagan Classics and rejected the simple Koine Greek of the New Testament as the vehicle for their published teaching and thoughts71.” They highly contributed to the sociolinguistic phenomenon of Greek diglossia that was inherited by the Byzantine era and may have existed even in ancient times. This meant that there was the archaizing official language of the authorities and the literary circles of the upper classes on the one hand, and the simple and natural language spoken by the broad masses of the people on the other. It seems that as late as the middle of the second half of the twentieth century this gap started to disappear once and for all. Actually, only the Church of Greece and the Greek-speaking Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople have remained until the present to support in practice this diglossia, being “the preserve of Byzantine Greek and Katharévousa72.” By “vernacular Greek” is meant either the Medieval (Byzantine) or the Modern (Neo-Hellenic) Greek, ranging from Katharevousa, Standard Modern Greek, Demotic to Radical Demotic. Radical Demotic (scornfully called μαλλιαρή) was used in the early twentieth century73. Since then a more moderate Demotic has been in use,

69. Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” in James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper, eds., The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Volume I: From the Beginnings to 600, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 23, 26.
70. Ibid., p. 27, 44.
71. John A. L. Lee, “Why Didn’t St Basil Write in New Testament Greek ?” Phronema 25, 2010, p. 11.
72. Kamusella, The Politics of Language and Nationalism, p. 261.
73. “The publication of Pallis’s translation of the New Testament—not only into extreme demotic but in the profane context of a daily newspaper—changed the language question for ever ; indeed, it proba-

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

101

22

6 Dem

Kath

Figure 3: Demotic and Katharevousa, the two main forms of Greek language used in the Modern Greek NT translations.

with elements borrowed from Katharevousa, or even from Classic Greek. Such a “PanHellenic” Katharevousa was the language used in Vamvas’s NTNV—certainly it was not the spoken language of the time, but close enough to it. It was the language hoped for and envisioned by A. Korais, who also aimed to influence everyday speech and make it a little more like Ancient Greek. Radical Demotic may be characterized as the language that Alexandros Pallis (1851– 1935) used in his translation of the Gospels. His work Η Νέα Διαθήκη κατά το Βατικανό Χερόγραφο μεταφρασμένη (GoAP) in 1902 might be described as provocative, a direct attack against those who harshly insisted on the demand for the revitalization of Classic Greek74. Stinging terms were included, some of them observable at first glance even from the cover like χερόγραφο (“manuscript”) and Πάβλος (“Paul”) instead of χειρόγραφο and Παύλος. Sadly enough, as Mackridge observed, “soon two separate issues were becoming confused: whether the Gospels should be translated into Modern Greek at all, and whether Pallis’s variety of demotic was appropriate for this purpose,” while “many readers were shocked by the sheer novelty of seeing a familiar text in the unfamiliar guise of a highly colloquial and sometimes idiosyncratic variety of their language75.”

bly held back the official adoption of demotic for several decades. Psycharis was sensible enough to leave religion alone, and he had advised Pallis to do the same, arguing that it was provocative enough for the demoticists to be challenging the secular authority of katharévousa without challenging the Orthodox Church as well. The action of Pallis and those who encouraged the publication of his translation ensured that the demoticist movement—and indeed the demotic language itself— could henceforth be associated with attacks on Orthodox Christianity.” (Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 251.) 74. A. Papadimas, describing the philological quality of Pallis’s translation, calls it “pitiful, to be truthful.” (Αδαμάντιος Παπαδήμας [Adamantios Papadimas], Νέα ελληνική γραμματολογία: Γενικά στοιχεία, Athens, Θ. Δημακαράκος, 1981, p. 49.) 75. Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, p. 250.

102

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

17 11

M

P

Figure 4: Modern Greek NT translations printed in monotonic and polytonic.

Greek orthography has used a variety of diacritics, starting in the Hellenistic period. The complex polytonic orthography aims to notate Ancient Greek phonology. However, the NT manuscripts were written from the very beginning in majuscule, i.e., entirely in capital letters with no accent marks at all. Although such diacritics had been used since the third or second century BCE, they were not used in the NT manuscripts until the ninth century CE, when the archaizing minuscule polytonic supplanted the previous script in the Byzantine manuscripts. An early reaction to this later scribal imposition is shown by the Cretan Demetrios Doukas (c. 1480 – c. 1527), the principal editor of the Greek NT text of the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), who strongly desired for it to become the Bible available to people of any educational level76. As noted by B. Metzger, the Polyglot “is printed without rough or smooth breathing marks and is accented according to a system never heard of before or since: monosyllables have no accent, while the tone syllable in other words is marked with a simple apex, resembling the Greek acute accent mark.”77 Astonishingly, “it is in fact a monotonic system almost exactly the same as that now in use in Modern Greek, which was officially introduced in 1982,” as J. Lee aptly observes78. This accentuation issue was part of a wider centuries-long, hotly debated move towards the simplification of the official Greek language. Yet even today that the language debate has settled, the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches insist upon using an archaic form of Greek, including the polytonic system, despite the official admission of the monotonic by the Greek state.

76. In his lengthy preface in Greek, the learned man mentions using polytonic script. John A. L. Lee, “Dimitrios Doukas and the Accentuation of the New Testament Text of the Complutensian Polyglot,” Novum Testamentum 47, 2005, p. 260, 263.
77. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968, p. 97.
78. Lee, “Dimitrios Doukas and the Accentuation of the New Testament Text,” p. 252.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

103

20

7

1 JW

Orth

Prot

Figure 5 : Affirmed religious affiliation of the translators.

3   Affirmed religious affiliations. M. Konstantinou observed that “Greece is a country where more than 90% of the population identify themselves as Greek Orthodox and officially belong to the Greek Orthodox Church.” Mainstream religiosity derives from a historically monocultural country, with great homogeneity. Consequently, “Orthodox identity became the feature of Greek citizens” and thus “whoever was not Orthodox could not be a true Greek79.” A result of this reality is that the vast majority of the Bible translations in Greek were produced by persons that confessed Orthodox Christianity. It is an inevitable reality that every Bible translation “involves certain ideas that the translator would like to see in the Bible80.” As a result, every translation attempt aims primarily at a specific target group of readers. Reader reception is governed by the hermeneutical presuppositions set by the translators or translation committees in the beginning of such projects. A rare case of an ecumenically accepted Bible translation—in English—is the New Oxford Annotated Bible, the edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible

79. Miltiadis Konstantinou, “Bible translation and national identity,” The Greek, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 12:2, 2012, p. 176–186, here p. 176, 178.
80. “Since there are many different forms of Christianity, bias in New Testament translation can be in various directions. Sometimes, translators make their biases explicit, by identifying themselves with certain denominations or interpretive agendas. The New American Bible was prepared by Catholics, for example. The New World Translation was produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New International Version translators confessed explicitly their commitment to ‘evangelical’ Christian doctrines and biblical harmony. And so forth. But even translations made by broad inter-denominational committees can be subject to the collective, ‘mainstream Christian’ bias of the translators. The hardest bias to catch is one that is widely shared, and it is quite understandable that the common views shared by modern Christians of many denominations would influence how the Bible is translated. Understandable, but not acceptable. The success of numbers or of time does not guarantee truth.” (BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, xv.)

104

De l'histoire de la traduction biblique

that has been accepted by the heads of the Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches81. Such a counterpart regarding the Greek NT is considered to be the NTTGV-89 that was prepared by eminent biblical scholars and is published by the Hellenic Bible Society. It is the prime translation in vernacular Greek used by Orthodox Christians (in private reading) and Evangelical Christians. Orthodox laity seems to prefer paraphrastic-hermeneutical editions, like NTPT/NTPTD and NTJK, while NTAD and NTTK exhibit a more sophisticated translation approach. Roman Catholics in Greece use, in their liturgical Bible readings, an unofficial translation prepared by Nikolaos Foskolos, while, in their private reading, they in general use the NTTGV-8982. HBNV is still used by the Greek Protestants and especially by the members of the Church of the Pentecost, while at the same time, other versions like HBSF and NTSZ are also used. Jehovah’s Witnesses include references from almost all the available versions in their publications, but in their teaching and preaching activities use primarily their HBNW-G83.

Concluding Remarks Since the cardinal role of the Scriptures is to provide spiritual guidance, it is surprising that neither the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople nor the Greek Orthodox Church have ever taken the initiative to officially translate, under their own auspices, the sacred Scriptures into vernacular Greek for public or private reading. In contrast, every translational attempt made mainly by courageous Orthodox clericals and also by theologians and laymen (either Orthodox or not) has been deemed condemnable for a number of reasons. Arguments against such translation have included accusations that translating the Scriptures was heretical and that doing so must be motivated by the desire to convert Orthodox Greeks to other denominations. As a result, almost all the Bible translation activity in vernacular Greek has been steadily escorted by total rejection and even violent reactions. Such fears combined with national and political reasons deprived the Greek common people for a very long time of the privilege of obtaining the sacred Scriptures translated into their everyday language. The notions that “for the Orthodox tradition the Bible does not stand on its own authority, but [it] is only one among many expressions of the experience of the church” and that, consequently, it should only be read ex81. Bruce Metzger, “The Revised Standard Version,” The Duke Divinity School Review 44, 1979, p. 77–79. 82. I am thankful to bishop Yannis Spiteris who in private contact provided me with the requested information. 83. Βασιλειάδης, «Μετάφραση Νέου Κόσμου», p. 350 ; BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, p. 38–39, 165. For the issue of conjectural emendations aiming to “restore” the Tetragrammaton in NT versions, see Pavlos Vasileiadis and Nehemia Gordon, “Transmission of the Tetragrammaton in Judeo-Greek and Christian Sources,” Cahiers Accademia 12, June 2021, p. 85–126.

The New Testament Translations into Vernacular Greek during the Printing Era

105

clusively through the prism of patristic exegesis provided the needed reinforcement for this repression84. Since the emergence of the independent Greek state, the Greek Church has sought to keep dormant the fruits of the belated Enlightenment in the Greek-speaking people. Even in the case of a recent translation of the NT, the NTTGV-85, a special committee was not appointed by the Church until after completion. The committee’s role was to point out the “unacceptable things” and “misinterpretations” within the translation that prevented it from becoming an “authorized” (έγκυρος) version by the Church of Greece85. A Bible translation in Modern Greek with the initiative and full approval of the Orthodox Church remains a desideratum86. On a different