No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Translation of the Scriptures and the Ecumenical Patriarchate: The Translation Efforts of Hilarion of Tirnovo
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Extract
In the beginning of the nineteenth century, Constantinople continued to be the intellectual and religious centre of the Greeks despite rival flourishing educational and economic centres in such cities as Smyrna, Kydonies (Aivali), and Chios. Moreover, it was the ‘national’ centre of the Greek people. It was natural, therefore, that the subject of a new translation of the Scriptures, a project affecting all Greeks, should have arisen once more in the Ottoman capital.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1975
References
1. The first complete translation of the Scriptures, confined to the New Testament, was made during the patriarchal tenure of Kyrillos I Loukaris (1612; 162O-38 intermittently). The translation was the work of Loukaris’ close friend, Archimandrite Máximos Kallipolites and was ‘inspired’ by the Calvinist Cornelius van Haga, ambassador of the Netherlands to the Ottoman Porte. For this chapter of the translation controversy see my study, The Controversy on the Translation of the Scriptures into Modem Greek and its Effects, 1818-1843 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1970), The study was published by Georgetown Publications in a limited edition for private circulation. The present article is from the same study, slightly revised.
2. For the early history of the Bible Society, see J. J. Owen, The History of the Origin and First Ten Years ofthe British and Foreign Bible Society (New York, 1817). A much more comprehensive work is C. Canton, A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society (5 vols.; London, 1904-10).
3. ‘The sole object… of the Society is to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures… without note or comment’. See Reports of the British and Foreign Bible Sodety with Extracts of Correspondence, etc…. Volume the First for the Years 1805 to 1810 Inclusive, Reprintedfromthe Original Reports (London, 1811), p. 3. Hereafter the work will be cited as B.F.B.S., Report No. X (XXXX).
4. B.F.B.S., Report No. 4(1808), p. 175.
5. B.F.B.S., Report No. 5 (1809), p. 249.
6. Ibid., p. 250.
7. Ibid.
8. By the ‘ancient’ language, Usko undoubtedly meant not Classical Greek but Byzantine, which derived from Atticistic Greek.
9. B.F.B.S., Report No. 5 (1809), p. 250.
10. Ibid., p. 268 and Report No. 6 (1810), p. 293.
11. The Society’s letter to Koraes is not extant nor is Koraes’ original letter in French. See ibid., pp. 252-3 for the English translation. Richard Clogg, who has searched the archives of the Bible Society, has discovered a more complete text in English. See his ‘The Correspondence of Adhamantios Korais with the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1808’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, XIV (1969), 65-84.
12. The 1638 edition was published in Geneva and was authored by Maximos Kallipolites; the 1703 edition was published in London by Archimandrite Serapheim of Mytiline with some revisions, while the 1710 edition, unknown to Koraes, was published without revisions in Halle, Saxony, by Anastasios Michaelos of Naousa, Macedonia. See Vaporis, The Controversy, pp. 21-2, 25-7; Adamantios Koraes. “ATaKTa, III (Paris, 1830), p. viii.
13. B.F.B.S., Report No. 5 (1809), p. 252.
14. Ibid., p. 253.
15. 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 Sodety (2 vols.; London, 1903), II, 680-1; B.F.B.S., Report No. 75 (1819), p. 204.
16. B.F.B.S., Report No. 8 (1812), pp. 205, 223, 235, 522.
17. Ibid., p. 417. The metropolitan also had a copy of the Halle 1710 edition.
18. Ibid., p. 236.
19. B.F.B.S., Report No. 11 (1815), p. 467; Darlow-Moule, Catalogue, II, 681.
20. B.F.B.S., Report No. 11 (1815), p. 467. Most Orthodox consider such books as Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom of Sirach (Ben Sirach), and Maccabees as Deutero-Canonical, while others attribute to them full canonical status. For a discussion of the Septuagint canon, see V. Antoniades, 
(Athens, 1936), pp. 35–7. A briefer and more accessible discussion can be found in F. Gavin, Some Aspects of Contemporary Greek Orthodox Thought (London, 1983), pp. 19-20.
21. B.F.B.S., Report No. u (1815), p. 467.
22. Ibid., p. 470. The Patriarch’s original letter in Greek is reproduced on pp. 468-9.
23. K. Oikonomos, in his 
(Athens, 1839), p. 305, attributes Kyrillos’ permission to the Patriarch’s ‘simplicity of soul’ while M. Siotes, 
III (1959), 13-14 [English translation in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, VI (1960), 7-55], actually uses thephrase ‘psychological and diplomatic blackmail’. Ibid., p. 14.
24. See Barlow-Moule, Catalogue, II, 681. The absence of the Patriarch’s letter is characterized as a deliberate abuse by M. Siotes, 
p. 18. There is no proof, however, that the Patriarch issued the letter with the understanding that it was to appear in each volume.
25. Perhaps its greatest piece of news was the approval of a Russian Bible Society by Tsar Alexander I in 1813. The R.B.S. issued a bilingual Greek New Testament in 1817 for the Greeks of the Ukraine, followed by a complete diglot Bible in 1821. See Darlow-Moule, Catalogue, II, 642. For the R.B.S. see B.F.B.S., Report No. p (1813), pp. 367-8, 494-5; S. R. Tompkins, ‘The Russian Bible Society: A Case of Religious Xenophobia’, The American Slavic and East European Review, VII (1948), 851-68; and Judith C. Zacek, ‘The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church’, Church History, XXXV (1966), 411-37. Interestingly enough, Judith Zacek (ibid., p. 417) notes that Alexander in emphasizing the need for a Russian translation from the Slavonic, pointed out to the Holy Synod ‘that the Greek Patriarch had already authorized a modern Greek version of the New Testament for the Greek Orthodox flock’. Siotes (
, p. 9), on the other hand, believes that it was the Greeks who were influenced by the Russian example. In this instance, both are correct. The Russians were influenced by the approbation of Kyrillos VI, while Gregorios V had his opinion reinforced by the Russian decision.
26. B.F.B.S., Report No. 12 (1816), pp. 134-5.
27. B.F.B.S., Report No. 13 (1817), p. 26.
28. B.F.B.S., Report No. 15 (1819), p. 203. It is interesting to note that jowett expressed sincere joy over the progress being made by the Greeks in education. Ibid.
29. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 153.
30. B.F.B.S., Report No. 15 (1819), p. 202. See also Neophytos Vamvas, 
(Athens, 1839), p. 33. [Hereafter cited as Vamvas, 
31. B.F.B.S., Report NNo. 16 (1820), p. 19.
32. See Matthew of Kyzikos, 
(Constantinople, 1841), pp. xxviii-xxix. Hereafter this work will be cited thus: Matthew of Kyzikos, 
when reference is made to the main body of the work, and Samuel Kypriou, 
when referring to the introduction of 1841. Cf. B.F.B.S., Report No. 13 (1827), p. 154. See also Library of the Theological School of Halke, MS. No. 192, p. 7. (Hereafter cited as Halke MS. No. 192.) This MS. contains Hilarion’s 
(Report) and 
(Apologia). Subsequent to the writing of this study both were published in an admirable study by V. Sphyroeras,
33. On Hilarion see ibid., 225-51; J. F. Clarke, Bible Societies, American Missionaries, and the National Revival of Bulgaria (New York, 1971), passim; idem, ‘Ilarion of Tirnovo in the Light of Historic Criticism’, Actes du Premier Congrès International des Études Balkaniques et Sud-Est Européenees, IV (1968), 260-78, and N. Phoropoulos, 
VI (1965), cols. 870-1.
34. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. 19.
35. Vamvas, 
p. 33.
36. Ibid., pp. xlvi-xlvii. Siotes’ contention (
p. 19) that Williamson preferred Oikonomos to Hilarion as translator, but that the Bible Society agent realized, from his conversations with Oikonomos, mat the latter would not ‘serve the purposes of the enemies of Orthodoxy’, is to be rejected. In this instance, Pinkerton’s information (B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 [1820], p. 19) and Vamvas’ (
p. 303) is more reliable while Siotes’ is based on speculation. It is true that Williamson considered Oikonomos for the job, but the latter was too ‘busy’ then. See J. F. Clarke, Bible Societies, p. 138.
37. Later, Oikonomos (
p. 303) would call Hilarion a hireling of the Bible Society.
38. Vamvas, 
p. 36; see text on pp. 35-7. Cf. Siotes, 
p. 21.
39. Vamvas, 
p. 36.
40. Ibid.
41. C. Papadopoulos, 
(Athens, 1920), p. 155. Hereafter cited as Papadopoulos, ‘Ioropia. S. S. Bairaktares, ’O
(Athens, 1965), PP. 3-5.
42. Made honorary member of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Member of the Academy of Sciences, received numerous decorations and a pension. See Papadopoulos, 
pp. 155-7.
43. Vamvas, 
p. 34; Samouel Kypriou, 
p. 11.
44. Vamvas, 
p. 34.
45. See his letter to Leeves in ibid., pp. 37-8.
46. SeeSiotes, 
p.21, who relies on Samouel 
p. l, but cf. Papadopoulos, 
p.153.
47. Created ‘Catholic Preacher of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’, later appointed ‘Preacher and Teacher of the Ecumenical See and All Orthodox Churches’. Ibid., pp. 152-4.
48. See Siotes, 
pp. 19, 21, 25, based on Papadopoulos, 
p. 152. Neither cites any sources or offers any evidence.
49. See Papadopoulos, 
, p. 152.
50. Ibid., p. 151.
51. For the details, see Tompkins, op. cit., 263, 267; Zacek, op. cit., 488-32.
52. Patriarch Gregorios not only approved of Nikodemos the Hagiorites’ translation of and commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul and the Catholic Epistles, but personally translated works of St. Basil and Chrysostom, and of the latter, those on the Scriptures. See Bairaktares, 
pp. 3-5, and T. Th. Gritsopoulos, 
DIEE, XIV(1960), 182-84.
53. It is important to note that while on this tour, Pinkerton succeeded in establishing local Bible Society chapters in Corfu, Zakynthos, Cephallenia, and Athens. In Corfu, Baron Emmanuel Theotokes was nominated president by Metropolitan Makarios, while in the other three chapters, the respective metropolitans became presidents. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820). pp. 9, 11, 12, 14; Report No. 17 (1821), pp. liv-lv. This puts to rest the allegation that there was widespread opposition to both the Society and the translation at this time.
54. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. 18. The critics of the translation make much out of the fact that Pinkerton arrived in Constantinople with letters of recommendation from Prince Galitsyn addressed to the Russian ambassador and to the Greek and Armenian patriarchs. See Siotes, 
p. 23, and Samouel Kypriou, 
p. xxv. The details are from Vamvas’ 
p. 33. It should be pointed out that that was and still is to some extent the only way to get anything done in that part of the world.
55. Ibid., p. 11. See also Vamvas, 
p. 33, and Papadopoulos, 
p. 153. Skarlatos Kallimaches served as Hospodar of both Wallachia (1821) and Moldavia (1807-10; 1812-19), while his brother served as Dragoman of the Porte (1819-21). See D. Zakythenos, 
(Athens, 1957), pp. 100-1.
56. B.F.B.S., ReportNo. 16 (1820), pp. 18, 25.
57. Extracts from Hilarion’s Report were published as ‘Extracts of a Greek letter from Hilarion …’ in B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), pp. 152-8, not without some editing.
58. Ibid., p. 153.
59. See Vamvas, 
pp. 33-4; B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1837), p. 153; Halite MS. No. 192, p. 41; Sphyroeras, 
p. 270.
60. B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), p. 19.
61. Text in Samouel Kypriou, 
pp. xxvii-xxix. An English translation in the English version of Siotes’ 
p.24, note 19. Siotes, following Oikonomos (
p. 305), sees reservations in the letter where none exist. Ibid., p. Sì.
62. In addition to the many inhabitants of ‘Illyria’ who spoke Albanian, Pinkerton sought the translation for the people of Poros, Spetsai, and Hydra, whom he discovered to be Albanians and not Greeks. In fact, Pinkerton estimated that one-third of Athens and much of Attica also spoke Albanian. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16(1830), p. 15. For the Albanian translation see Eulogios Kourilas, 
VIII (1930), 59-71, 110-11, 253-5.
63. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. 23.
64. Ibid., pp. 23, 25.
65. Ibid., p. 25. See also J. F. Clarke, ‘The Russian Bible Society and the Bulgarians’, Harvard Slavic Studies, III (1957), 69, 81.
66. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. 25; Kourilas, 
VIII (1930), 66.
67. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. 25.
68. See his remarks, ibid., p. 26.
69. Siotes, 
pp. 21, 22, 23.
70. Ibid., pp. 20, 22-3.
71.
p. 13.
72.
pp. xxviii-xxix.
73.
p.305.
74. DIEE, XIV (1960), 182, n.2.
75.
p. 5.
76. B.F.B.S., Report No. 16 (1820), p. s6.
77. B.F.B.S., Report No. 17 (1821), pp. liv-lv.
78. Ibid., p. 66.
79. Ibid.
80. According to Leeves, both Hilarion and Konstantios witnessed the execution of Patriarch Gregorios V. See B.F.B.S., No. 18 (1822), p. 47.
81. Ibid., p. 49, see also Sardeon Germanos, 
VIII (1937), 182.
82. B.F.B.S, Report No. 18 (1822), p. 47.
83. Ibid., p. 43.
84. Quoted by J. F. Clarke, American Missionaries, p. 137.
85. B.F.B.S., Report No. 19 (1823), pp. 93-4.
86. See Halke MS. No. 192, pp. 1-5; Sphyroeras, 
pp. 252-3.
87. Sardeon Germanos, 
vols.; Constantinople, 1935-8), II, 161-5. The majority of high-ranking Greek lay and ecclesiastical figures were executed during Eugenios’ reign. See D. A. Kokkinos, 
(10 vols.; 3rd ed., Améns, 1956), I, 369–99, and N. Moschopoulos, 
(Athens, 1960), pp. 150-5, 181-6.
88. The Turks always referred to the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire as Rum or Romans, a legacy of the Byzantine Empire.
89. Germanos, 
II, 161-2.
90. Ibid., p. 208. For a rather negative portrait of Anthimos, see M. I. Gedeon, 
(Athens, 1922), pp. 7-11.
91. Ibid., p. 10.
92. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
pp. 37-8.
93. Ibid., p. 2.
94. Ibid., p. 3.
95. Ibid., p. 38.
96. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 15s; Halke MS. No. 192, pp. 4-5; Sphyroeras, 
pp. 253-5.
97. He cites the Latin, Arabic, Persian, Slavic, and Greek translation of the Bible, and the fact that no dispute ever arose over these translations. Ibid., pp. 266-7 and especially p. 296; B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 156.
98. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 158; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 11; Sphyroeras, 
p. 267.
99. B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), p. 155; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 19; Sphyroeras, 
pp. 261-2.
100. B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), p. 155; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 19; Sphyroeras, 
p.262.
101. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1837), p. 158; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 27; Sphyroeras, 
p. 266.
102. Halke MS. No. 192, pp. 21-22, 23; Sphyroeras, 
pp. 263-6. How accurately the faith could be safeguarded in translation, Hilarion attempted to prove by comparing John 21:15 in the original Greek with a Latin and French translation, and the same text in modern Greek with the same Latin and French versions.
103. B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), p. 154; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 16; Sphyroeras, 
p. 260.
104. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 154; Halke MS. No. 192, pp. 10-11; Sphyroeras, 
p. 257.
105. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 158; Halke MS. No. 92, p. 28; Sphyroeras, 
p. 267.
106. See Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 23.
107. See Halke MS. No. 19s, pp. 38-68; Sphyroeras, 
271-301.
108. Samouel Kypriou, 
p. xli.
109. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
pp. 2, 128; cf. Samouel Kypriou, 
pp. ii-iii.
110. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 5.
111. Ibid., pp. 10, 38, 40. Hilarion had said: ‘Have we (I, your Eminence, or any of the other bishops) truly examined all that the God-fearing Fathers have taught concerning theology, and taught this to [our] Christians? I doubt that this has ever taken place.’ Halke MS. No. 192, p. 47; Sphyroeras, 
p. 280.
112. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 10; cf. Hilarion’s letter in B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), pp. 153, 157, 158.
113. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 95.
114. Ibid., pp. 44, 105; cf. Halke MS. No. 192, pp. 5, 26, 228-9; Sphyroeras, 
pp. 254, 260-1, 266; and B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), pp. 152, 157, 158.
115. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 12; cf. B.F.B.S., Report No. 33 (1837), p. 153. The absence of a record among the archives of die Patriarchate is in itself, of course, no proof of permission not having been granted to Hilarion, for often documents were not immediately recorded and later some were lost, taken, or stolen. In addition, many patriarchs, upon leaving the patriarchal office, took with them the documents of their reign. Fires, too, contributed to losses. On the condition of the archives, see G. Arampatzoglou, 
116. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
pp. 13, 14.
117. Ibid., p. 132; cf. Samouel Kypriou, 
p. ix.
118. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 57.
119. Ibid., p. 43. This was still the view of learned faculty of the School of Theology of the University of Athens in 1901. See meir 
pp. 3-4.
120. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 126.
121. Ibid., p. 43.
122. Ibid., pp. 44-5.
123. Ibid., p.45; Halke MS. No. 192, p. 42; Sphyroeras, 
p.277.
124. Matthew of Kyzikos, 
p. 50.
125. Ibid., p. 104. Matthew was horrified by the possibility of people taking certain passages of the Old Testament literally, especially those that speak of God having hands, feet, or walking and talking, and expressing passions and feelings; ibid., p. 115.
126. Ibid., p. 119.
127. Ibid., p. 122.
128. Ibid., p. 2.
129. Gedeon, 
38.
130. Ibid.
131. Germanos, 
II, 164-5.
132. Gedeon, 
p. 11; Germanos, 
II, 165-7.
133. Gedeon, 
p.12.
134. B.F.B.S., Report No. 22 (1826), p. 98. J. F. Clarke (American Missionaries, p. 139) believed that Hilarion almost became patriarch while in Constantinople, but was unsuccessful and had to return to his see.
135. Despite the Patriarchate’s unequivocal position on the translation, it does not appear that the decisions of 1883 or 1824 were published or widely circulated. In fact, Matthew’s refutation was not published until 1841, and men primarily as a reaction to the new situation in Greece.
136. B.F.B.S., Report No. 22 (1826), pp. 98-9.
137. V. Stephanides, 
(Athens, 1948), p. 741.
138. B.F.B.S., Report No. 22 (1S26), p. 109.
139. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 70. See also R. Clogg, ‘The Publication and Distribution of Karamanli Texts by the British and Foreign Bible Society Before 1850, 1’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XIX (1968), 57-81.
140. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), pp. 83, 84, 88.
141. B.F.B.S., Report No. 24 (1828), p. 85.
142. B.F.B.S., Report No. 23 (1827), p. 59.
143. Ibid.
144. J. F. Clarke, American Missionaries, p. 140.
145. Ibid., p. 471.
146. Ibid., p. 170. See also Darlow-Moule, Catalogue, II, 683.
147. G. Browne, The History of the British and Foreign Bible Society: From its Institution in 1804 to the Close of us Jubilee in 1854. Compiled at the Request of the Jubilee Committee (London, 1859), I, p. 94.
148. Ibid., p. 97.
149. Ibid., p. 101.
150. B.F.B.S., Report No. 25 (1839), pp. xliv-l.
151. Clarke, American Missionaries, p. 181.
152. Germanos, Spanned, VIII (1937), 183. The text of Hilarion’s restoration on pp. 188-3.
153. Clarke, American Missionaries, pp. 146, 198, 231. Samouel Kypriou (
pp. lii-liii), who feels he must ‘save’ Hilarion for the Orthodox Church, tells us that in the ‘end’ Hilarion removed himself from the translation project and had a change of heart. Further, had he lived, Samouel Kypriou speculates, Hilarion would have condemned the translation. We know, of course, that this is far from the truth. Also ‘apocryphal’—to me at least—is the story, furnished again by Kypriou (ibid., pp. lii-liii) mat Hilarion was appointed by Patriarch Konstantios to refute a Protestant work appearing in Greek translation, but illness and death prevented its completion. This I believe to be an example of an attempt to remove Hilarion from the lists of those who cited him in support of the translation in Greece.
154. Clarke, American Missionaries, pp. 236-7. Clarke rightly believes that the Patriarchate objected to die Bulgarian translation only because it came from the Bible Society, ibid., p. 871. On the other hand, the Patriarchate had published many Bulgarian books on the Patriarchal Press.
155. Darlowe-Moule, Catalogue, II, 646, 683. This 1828 version of Hilarion’s translated New Testament was his unrevised text. See Clarke, American Missionaries, p. 141.