Since the promulgation of our reformed Liturgy, my wife has been more patient than myself. She wants to experience the "new" Liturgy before making any hasty decisions. Over the past six months, she has been incrementally disappointed with the music that she hears and the translations that she reads (especially the inclusive language). Yesterday at the communion hymn we heard:

The just man will be remembered forever, evil news he will not fear...

instead of

The just man shall be in everlasting remembrance, an evil report he shall not fear...

I'm wondered why this was not retranslated as: "The just person..."

My wife is now ready to look into the Orthodox Church.

I think I know why they didn't neuter the "just man". With the new version the just "man" means only male. If the saint being commemorated is a woman it now has "the just woman". This is a novel innovation and uncalled for. According to Tradition, Christ is the just man. Ultimately, when we sing of the just man being in everlasting remembrance, we are speaking of Christ. Whether a man or woman saint, it is Christ, His justice/rightousness that we are praising. Christ is the just man. The new order puts the focus on the saint him/herself. In the case of "the just woman" the reference to Christ is practically lost.

I did not know this. Ouch!

Any evidence to back this up?

Or why was it retranslated at all given the closeness of the two versions?

In general, the translator must first do the homework. What was the point of the change and what was the source? Is the standard the Slavonic of the Recension text? Is the standard the Greek text? Which is the more primitive witness of the text (recall the Nikonian reform and that Greek therefore presumably original does not per se guarantee truer or better)? Even if the Greek is the more primitive, should we accept and preserve the certainly legitimate ("canonical") expression of the Recension Slavonic (if we, "Ruthenians" don't, who will?)? Is the intent that the text is a biblical allusion or is it an exact, if partial, quote of the scripture? Which Scripture is normative or preferred, the Septuagint or the Hebrew? What is the Scriptural context? A good translation should include and in a sense be a good exegesis (reading out of the text and not an eisegesis, a reading into it) of the text. With respect for this standard and with caution, should the translation make a needed advance in the interpretation and/or the scope -- the meaning -- of the text?

There is also a practical, pastoral consideration. We start with an accepted but less than perfect text. If it really needs to be corrected or improved, fine. If the change is just a different imperfect text then why change it? Change for its own sake? Translators are a danger when they operate on the principle, We want to change it, we can change it, we will change it. Instead, the guiding principle should be pomalij, pomalyj, pomalij [slowly x 3; striking the breast each time for good measure].

Dn. Anthony

Great question!

Indeed!

I was wondering this on Sunday, specifically because of the change in the response immediately before Holy Communion to "Approach with fear of God and with faith."

Why, oh why, was the text changed from "God the Lord has revealed Himself to us!" to "The Lord is God and has revealed Himself to us!". This change is small but indicative of the whole, but it really makes no sense to me, even musically speaking. It is far easier and more pleasing to the ear (my ear, at any rate) to sing the response in the old way than in the new.

I really do wonder if changes like this were made just to make more changes.

Has anyone else noticed that it seems that the word "shall" has been removed from the Liturgy? Did the reformers feel that this word is too complicated for us to understand?

"Remember me O Lord, when You come in Your Kingdom"

This reads very awkward to me. What was the problem with:

"when You shall come into Your Kingdom"?

It truly does seem that there were many changes made---for the sake of change.

R
________________________

Glory be to Thee, O Lover of Mankind

I notice another change in the Communion prayer.

"Accept me as a partaker of Your mystical supper, O Son of God"

has been changed to

"Accept me TODAY as a partaker of Your mystical supper, O Son of God"

What is the reason for the change? It is more faithful to Slavonic text? Or another text? What is the source of the change?

I look forward to the reasons behind this change. Inserting the word TODAY seems limiting to me. But if it is more faithful, I want to know.

The inclusion of "today" reflects a more accurate translation based on the Church Slavonic text.

"The Lord is God" is a common Orthodox translation (UOC, Antiochian, Fr. Ephrem (Lash)); I suspect that "God the Lord" to comes from an attempt to keep the (inverted) word order of the Slavonic, while omitting the "and". My 1922 copy of The Guardian Angel (English/Slavonic Greek Catholic children's prayer book) has "The Lord is God and hath appeared unto us."

This text is also sung at Matins; the Sisters of Saint Basil used to translate it as "God is the Lord and has revealed himself to us." The problem here is that the theological statement is missed:

If God exists, He IS the Lord / Kurios (i.e. the One In Charge). So "God is the Lord" is pretty much obvious, a theological truism for a monotheist.

But saying The Lord (= Jesus Christ) is God is a theological assertion of Christ's divinity - an ESSENTIALLY Christian statement.

This translation was changed back to the older usage in the MCI Matins books years ago, and the change is now in the Divine Liturgy text as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

The word "dnes" (today) appears in the Slavonic text.

Mikey Stilts asked: "Any evidence to back this up?" -- in regard to the the words "just woman" instead of the "just man".

See new pew book, page 232, 5th Sunday of Great Fast, St. Mary of Egypt.

It may be worthwhile to mention here that in the OT "The Lord" is equivalent to "Yahweh," and the expression "The Lord is God" appears numerous times in that context, against those who would follow foreign gods.

Providentially, this leads right into the NT confession of Jesus as Lord!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

This translation of the common Communion Hymn (koinonikon) for venerable saints (separate common texts for men and women) has been in the Commons of Saints in the metropolitan Typikon for the past - 6, 7- years? or perhaps more. It's not "new" with the new books, but has been in circulation for a while.

Since this communion hymn is quoting Psalm 111 (In the Douai translation, "The just shall be in everlasting remembrance; he shall not fear the evil hearing") it is not clear that there is a word "man" that is being translated - and based on the references in our liturgical texts for the departed to "the abode of the just", I suspect that making Our Lord the PRIMARY referent of "the just" or the "the just man" may be misleading in this case. Every saint is an image of Christ; but are we REALLY saying in the communion hymn that God will remember Christ, and make sure nothing bad happens to Him? Or are we recounting the blessings of a just man (or woman), who is conformed the the likeness of Christ, living in holy fear and observing God's law?

We certainly change "him" to "her"* when singing Many Years or Eternal Memory; and in English, "the just" might be either singular or plural. Since it is singular here, either a just man, or a just woman, is indicated. The exact translation that ought to be used, of course, is open to discussion - is anyone actually here actually suggesting that "the just person" would be the optimal translation?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

* I mean, the priest COULD intone Eternal Memory for Mrs. Misulich and conclude "and remember him forever", but I doubt even our staunchest "man includes men and women" advocates would actually do that...