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...

Aha! Thank you, Jeff, for that little catechesis. It does make more sense, even if a bit grating to my ears, at least at present.

Psalms 110 and 111 are paired alphabetical psalms. Together they are a paean to the wonders of Creation. They are traditionally sung at the eating of the Paschal lamb. Some teach that Jesus led the disciples in singing these songs before they went out in the Garden after the Last Supper.

One could argue for an adjusted use of those sense lines for the saint of the day, in male and female terms, and be all right in terms of meaning and tradition in the typical common of saints.

But to use it in that way in the divine liturgy may not be such a good idea, in that the divine liturgy really is for the communion of the faithful, and the reference should be to all of humankind, and evocative of the patriarchal and paschal references of the Psalms from which the lines come.

So in this case it may not be so much wrong or dangerously misleading, as it is a weak approach to what should be a powerful and evocative small hymn of anamnesis.

We are still a patriarchial people, as well as a hierarchical Church. One should not try to erase that reality but smudging the words. Primarily because it cannot be erased. We are what we are.

Blessings,

Mary

While the above statements are true, my question is whether such a Christological interpretation is intended or warranted here. The response is a direct quote of the Greek from the LXX of portions of Psalm 117:26,27. The first phrase is also directly quoted from the LXX in the NT: Matt. 21:9; 23:39; Mk. 11:9; Lk. 13:35; Jn. 12:13. Certainly in the context of the entry into Jerusalem the "He" is Jesus. Taking the above explanation, "The Lord (= Jesus Christ)":

Blessed is He (Jesus Christ) who comes in the name of "The Lord (= Jesus Christ)."

The beginning of the second sentence is where the conundrum especially lies. It is in the Greek and Hebrew (the Slavonic of the recension follows the Greek) either a "verbless sentence" -- perfectly acceptable in Greek or Hebrew -- or it is not. That is:

LXX: THeos kurios
God Lord

MT: EL YHWH
God Yahweh

We might be tempted as English speakers to go by word order:

God is Lord.
God is Yahweh.

Yahweh, however, is a proper name so, Yahweh is God. The convention in Greek is that word order usually conveys importance but the subject is denoted by the definite article, which in this case, just to keep things murky, is absent.

Both forms, God is the Lord, The Lord is God, are found in standard translations.

Finally, has THeos Kurios "revealed Himself to us" or, as a translation of the LXX has it, "has shined upon us."


If that is not complicated enough, the old translation "God the Lord" could be supported by the only other occurrence of this form, Josh 22:22.


Dn. Anthony

I have a different problem with this. It surely sounds like the substitution of "into" with "in" is grammatically incorrect.

I always picture a new model car called, for example, a "Chrysler Kingdom". "Remember me when you come in your kingdom." The word "into" does not have this problem.

Nice.

This topic was recently touched upon in a programme on Ancient Faith Radio (but don't recall the programme name). If I recall correctly...

When these words were uttered by the 'good thief' he meant when Christ came into His Kingdom (where He was soon heading, so to speak).

As Christ has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven, He is already "in" His Kingdom. In light of this we pray that He remember us when He comes 'in His Kingdom', i.e., when he returns in the full glory of His 'Kingship'.

Dear Recluse,

On the other hand, this is quoting Luke 23:42, for which the RSV has "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingly power" - and the old Orchard commentary has "the Good Thief asks no more than than Jesus will not forget him when he comes as Messias in the glory of his kingdom."

If the sense of the passage is that Jesus is returning in kingship and glory, rather than that he is making a royal entrance into an existing kingdom, then "when you come into your kingdom" might actually be less accurate. In modern English we tend NOT to use "kingdom" as a syn. for rulership (except in the Lord's Prayer!), whereas this sense was much more common a century or two ago.

Jeff

This is all very nice, but it ignores the import of Jesus's reponse.

Clearly the Kingdom is already with the Good Thief.

The Realized but un-Recognized Eschaton.

When you come into your Kingdom...is indeed the most faithful to Scripture and revealed eschatology.

Mary

I shall side with Mary on this one.

Good, because Mary was coming to remind you that spiritual warfare requires dying for the faith, not killing for it!!

We die so that we may live again.

If there is violence in its earthly material sense, it is not for the Christian to exercise it.

M.

Yes. I am aware of the that. Our violence is a spiritual warfare against the passions and the various logismoi that attack us on a daily basis.

_________________________
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind

I presumed you know.

You were playin' around with the word.

I was just playin' back!!

M.

You see what I did. I was responding to your "violence" post in the other thread.

Cross-eyed!!

M.

Is this so? I have it as:

RSV Luke 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

And even:

NRSV Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."


Some others:


DR Luke 23:42 And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

ESV Luke 23:42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

KJV Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

NAB Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

NAS Luke 23:42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

NIV Luke 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

NKJ Luke 23:42 Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom."


The Slavonic and Greek liturgical texts apply this in different ways that are intriguing. The Greek (Rome, 1950) omits the "when you come" and there is only one petition.

The Greek has the preposition en rather than eis so one might conclude in rather than into, but the majority of translations are favoring en=into.

What is the intent of the prayer? Are we quoting scripture or modifying the intent to the present situation? Or do we quote scripture "rigorously" and then apply it - know how it applies -- to the moment?

A more drastic and clear-cut example as I recall it, from the Roman Mass, before Communion, using:

RSV Matthew 8:8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.


OLD/Latin: Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof...

NEW: Lord I am not worthy that you should come to me...

And alterations in both at the end of the prayer (servant becoming soul or I).

Dn. Anthony

Father Deacon,

I apologize. My quote was from the RSV - Catholic Edition (Ignatius Press).

Jeff

Oddly enough Jesus's response does not vary to reflect the possible variations in meaning of the thief's words.

That to me is the determining factor.

Jesus teaches in that moment that He is the Kingdom, outside of time, eternal, imperishable, realized, though too often, un-recognized.

In his passion death and resurrection, it can be rightly said that Jesus came into His own.

The liturgy as it stands neglects to invoke any of these revealed truths.

The current statement is dull and trite and lifeless by comparison.

Not a true remembrance.

Mary

Hmmm.. We do say "For thine is the Kingdom", not "For Thou art the Kingdom." Following further the lex orandi - if His is the Kingdom, when we say he "comes into it", do we mean this like an inheritance? Or as one enters a conquered country - in which case Christ is conquering... himself? We say His IS the Kingdom, not His WILL BE the Kingdom - hence the motion what would be implied by ordinary usage is a bit jarring.

Again, "when you come into your kingdom", with the ordinary meaning of kingdom, seems opposed to your theological statement; what is Christ waiting for? A king bears a relationship to the territory he rules, and to the rulership. Which is the thief referring to? Which is the Church referring to?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

The text in question is the Communion Hymn from Psalm 111[112]:6, which is used for numerous classes of saints.

The Grail Translation gives this as �The just man will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear.�

The translation from the LXX given in Holy Transfiguration Monastery�s Psalter is: �In everlasting remembrance shall the righteous be; he shall not be afraid of evil tidings.�

That the altered text has been used and Scripture has had its inclusiveness reduced in the texts offered by the Typicon for several years does not mean that such a revision of Scripture is acceptable (and no one should call it a �translation� because it is not).


The meaning of the psalm verse is clear. �The just man� or �the righteous� is inclusive of any man who is just � male or female from Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. �Will be remembered� or �in everlasting remembrance� speaks of God�s memory since only He is capable of �Eternal Memory�. �Evil news he shall not fear� or �he shall not be afraid of evil tidings� means that the righteous are not afraid of such things because the Lord delivers the �just man� (the �righteous�).

Scripture should never be rewritten to give it new meaning. When it is rewritten it often limits the meaning of what the Lord breathed into it. The Communion Hymn �The just man will be remembered� (or �In everlasting remembrance shall the righteous be�) has a dual purpose. It raises the life of the saint being remembered at the Divine Liturgy as an example and it teaches the world that each is called to be just (righteous) so that he will be remembered by God. Changing the Scripture to �woman� reduces this call to only females while the inclusive term �man� includes all men � male and female from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming. There are also other problems with revising Scripture to suit the message the editor wishes to replace the Scriptural message with (such as the instability it brings to the Church�s Liturgy). The Vatican has numerous directives on the need to accurately translate and not rewrite Scripture. There has been such a tremendous effort here to produce new books it is a shame that incorrect agendas of revision have replaced the principles of authenticity and accuracy. I really hope the Vatican strikes down these books before much damage is done to the faithful.


The text used for the intonation of �Many Years� or �Eternal Memory� is not a direct quote from Holy Scripture.

The text used for the Communion Hymn IS a direct quote from Holy Scripture.

There is a qualitative difference between texts used in Liturgy that are Scriptural and Non-Scriptural.

As to the exact translation it would be good if our Slavonic and Greek experts could provide us with a literal translation we can examine. The principle of the translation given to us by the Church applies (i.e., the many Vatican directives). If it is clear in the original it should be rendered clearly in translation. If it is ambiguous in the original then it should be ambiguous in translation. The translators surely mean well but they do not know better than God and have no authority to rewrite the words that God has breathed. If the word �man� is used in the original it belongs in the translation. If indeed the term �man� is not used in this psalm verse then one could render it as �The just will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear.� Translators should never introduce words that are not in the original text.

It is never acceptable or appropriate to change Scripture.

The Church, in this as in so many other Scriptural tropes, acknowledges more than one meaning. Christ brings the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ is the Kingdom. Christ is the Good News! The Kingdom is the Good News! The Gospel is the Good News! Christ brings the Gospel! Christ is the Word.

You see what I mean.



There really is no "further" in your limited view of that Scripture passage. It dead ends where you leave it.

However the fathers and the Church have taught for centuries that the Church is the Body of Christ and we enter into heaven through the Body, through Christ, which fits very well with a translation of "entering into the Kingdom" as in penetrating the Word.

The Incarnate Christ, second person of the Trinity, son of God, true God, true Man, in the fulfillment of the will of the Father, enters into his eternal inheritance. Interpenetrates the Caritas that is Trinity and redeems the world.

The thief sees Christ as King of the Jews and so imagines a Kingdom, into which he asks our Lord to lead him.

And Christ says that this day the thief will be with him, King and Kingdom, Redeemer and Word of Life, in Paradise.

Your Church's rendition of all that is now lost...tossed out, I believe is the better image.

Mary

Jeff,

I�m not a language expert. That is why I requested someone to post a literal translation from the Slavonic and Greek for us to examine.

I see nothing wrong with �The just will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear� if indeed the use of the term �man� is not a correct translation to the original. It works nicely with the various melodies normally used by Ruthenians for the Cherubic Hymn. There is nothing lacking in English and there is no difficulty in understanding the text.

Response to your PPS: From what I have read the corrected English texts of the Roman Mass now under review in Rome changes �Lord, I am not worthy to receive You but only say the word, and I shall be healed� to something more accurate. The actual Scriptural Verse is: �Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.� (Matthew 8:8bRSV) But even here the purpose of the Scripture is different than the Byzantine Communion Hymn. This text is purposely being placed on the Communicant�s lips as both a profession of faith and a request for healing, sort of like: �Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but speak only a word, and my soul shall be healed.� [I seem to remember that this was one of the texts under consideration.�]

Again, I pray Rome orders a correction to the errors that have been introduced in the Revised Liturgy and prohibits those texts from being used so as not to mislead the faithful.

John

Dear John,

I see two things got confused here. You stated that Scripture can NOT be changed ("the just woman"); but allow that the Church can change is to reflect particular circumstances ("soul may be healed" instead of "servant may be healed"). But the Church"s commemoration of a particular woman saint is precisely the sort of circumstance that one might claim justifies a clarification - in which case your "Scripture must never be changed" argument is somewhat weakened. Or is it that a woman cannot be an image of Christ, and a Christlike woman MUST be referred to as a man?

Personally, I have no problem with "the just man" OR "the just", and would be happy with either. But the original accusation was that a reference of Christ was changed to be a reference to a human being - which would be a much more significant issue. If the text honors a monastic woman, would saying "the just woman" mislead the faithful, and in what way?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Because that prayer in that place is not a reference to the "saint de jure" but it is a reference to the communion of the faithful!!!!!

The new translation changes the entire meaning of that text in that place in the divine liturgy.

Mary

Mary,

So on the feast of a martyr, when the Church sings "Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His faithful", we should make sure NOT to connect this with the day's martyr? I would certainly acknowledge several additional meanings, especially the great Archetype of all martyrs, but you seem to dismiss any connection with the liturgical day being celebrated.

Any on feasts of angels, "And his ministers a flaming fire" should refer to.... what? The servers igniting themselves accidentally with the candles on either side of the priest?

The days' liturgical hymns, if they have an obvious connection to the celebration, should be allowed that connection!

Jeff

Non sequitor

Refrain:

Psalms 110 and 111 are paired alphabetical psalms. Together they are a paean to the wonders of Creation. They are traditionally sung at the eating of the Paschal lamb. Some teach that Jesus led the disciples in singing these songs before they went out in the Garden after the Last Supper.

One could argue for an adjusted use of those sense lines for the saint of the day, in male and female terms, and be all right in terms of meaning and tradition in the typical common of saints.

But to use it in that way in the divine liturgy may not be such a good idea, in that the divine liturgy really is for the communion of the faithful, and the reference should be to all of humankind, and evocative of the patriarchal and paschal references of the Psalms from which the lines come.

So in this case it may not be so much wrong or dangerously misleading, as it is a weak approach, inappropriate to the moment, and out of place, to what should be a powerful and evocative small hymn of anamnesis.

We are still a patriarchial people, as well as a hierarchical Church. One should not try to erase that reality but smudging the words. Primarily because it cannot be erased. We are what we are.

Blessings,

Mary

Mary,

Out of curiosity, then, are you in support of singing the psalm itself at Communion, with the triple Alleluia refrain of the Communion Hymn? Of just abbreviating it to the single verse?

Jeff

The paired psalms? Don't you think that would a tad long?

Would not the single line be sufficiently evocative of the traditional patristic use of the Psalm itself, expressed in the New Testament context of the faithful justified through Baptism in Christ, and in the context of the communion of the faithful in the Divine Liturgy?

Mary

Jeff,

The Byzantine Communion Hymn is a purposeful Scriptural reference, intended to be sung together with other verses from that psalm. The Latin Response to the Invitation to Communion is something different, a quote from Scripture rendered as both a statement of faith and as a request for healing. They are two different things. If you wanted a legitimate parallel here it would be: �If I were a just man I would be remembered forever; I would not fear evil news� (but I would never advocate such). Rendering the Latin Rite�s Response in the way done to the Byzantine Communion Hymn (changing it to say �women�) would be: �Lord, that woman is not worthy that you should come under her roof, but speak only a word, and her soul shall be healed.� The problems with changing what is meant to be a quote from Scripture by altering it to limit the Scriptural meaning to only include woman are clear. (The least of which is that one must continue to give new mean to Scripture by revising each psalm verse taken with the Communion Hymn to also be exclusive to the woman saint being commemorated.)

You might also consider that even if you could justify the changing of the text for the purpose you seem to want to change it for, it is not up to the an individual translator to take upon himself the revision of texts which all Byzantines hold common. There are processes to seek common agreement to changes of texts that are held in common by many.

You wrote: �Or is it that a woman cannot be an image of Christ, and a Christlike woman MUST be referred to as a man?�

You are getting all muddled. In the Communion Hymn the woman saint is not being referred to as a man. In Standard English �man� and �he� are inclusive of all men, males and females, from Adam and Eve until the last child conceived before the Second Coming. When the Communion Hymn uses the inclusive term �man� it can be seen as a call to all men present � both male and female and even those growing in a mothers� womb � to be just so that they will be remembered eternally. Changing it to �woman� limits the Scripture and makes the Communion Hymn a false statement. I understand that some people are offended by Standard English and the fact that it uses the term �man� to mean �male and female human beings�. Altering Scripture and other texts is not the answer to their being offended. Education is. All of us who are faithful have an obligation to educate such people as to what Standard English is and what the Vatican directives mean and why they were issued.

You wrote: If the text honors a monastic woman, would saying "the just woman" mislead the faithful, and in what way?

I answered this more than once already. Please read my original post and this one. The Communion Hymn is also an individual call to each man � male, female, Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived � to be just (righteous) so that he will be remembered eternally.

Have you read the Vatican teachings on the dangers of altering Scripture to suit agendas? If not, you really should.

John

Jeff,

Look to your post to find the answer.

When there are several different meanings present in a quote from Scripture it is wrong for the translator to limit these meanings breathed into it by God, and replace them with the preferred meaning of the translator. Making the various connections is the job of the homilist or pastor. It is not the job of the translator.

Correctly translated the Scriptural verses do allow the obvious connection to the celebration. They also allow other connections, some obvious and some not. The translator does a disservice when he puts limits on the meanings breathed into the Scriptures by God.

John

Thanks for your note, John; I'm glad we are in agreement that there are multiple meanings to the Communion Hymn, and that the reference to the day's feast need not be excluded. (This was my point at dispute with Mary: the idea that the Communion Hymn must ONLY refer to those present physically, and not to the ones(s) being commemorated.)

I agree that where several meanings are present, they should be maintained to the best of the translator's ability.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

No need to apologize, especially under the circumstances. Who would have thought two versions calling themselves RSV would be so different? And why the change for the Catholic Edition? Quite a stretch it seems to me.

IF, and I say IF reservedly, John has actually indicated that the communion hymn is a paean to the saint or saints of the day, in that place during the divine liturgy, then I will have to regretfully disagree with both of you.

Mary

Mary,

It seems to me that Jeff�s posts have been less then focused on this issue, to the point where I�m not sure whether he respects Scripture or not.

As to the �paean to the saint or saints of the day� I don�t think anything I wrote supports such a suggestion (the context of your use of �paean� seems to be as I would understand it). There is no doubt that this text from Psalm 111 was chosen specifically as the Communion Hymn for certain classes of saints. But that does not make it a hymn of praise to the saint. Psalm 111 is a hymn of praise to God. I seem to remember reading that it was written after captivity (and thinking of it as such gives it perspective when sung at Communion on a day when we remember a martyr). The psalm carries with it the general idea that the man who embraces God and follows Him is blessed, and then lists some of the specific conditions in which man is blessed. The verse chosen to be sung at Eucharist is still a hymn of praise to God but also kind of a �pull quote� chosen as a linking of us to the saint whose memory we are celebrating at that Liturgy. The faithful are reminded that each who is just (righteous) has his name written in the Book of Life and God does not forget those written there. We are called to be like the holy martyr we are remembering because his name is written in the Book of Life. If we follow his example (praising God even to death) we, too, shall have our names written in the Book of Life. And once it is written in the Book of Life we will not have any reason to fear evil news because if we continue to trust in the Lord He will remember us.

The verses from the Psalm 111(112) (RSV) put it in context:

1. Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments!
2: His descendants will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed.
3: Wealth and riches are in his house; and his righteousness endures for ever.
4: Light rises in the darkness for the upright; the LORD is gracious, merciful, and righteous.
5: It is well with the man who deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice.
6: For the righteous will never be moved; he will be remembered for ever.
7: He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is firm, trusting in the LORD.
8: His heart is steady, he will not be afraid, until he sees his desire on his adversaries.

If you praise the Lord He will remember you forever. When sung at Eucharist the psalm verse is a hymn of praise to God with the enumeration of the most important of the things that comes to those that praise God, together with the calling to mind the example of the martyr.

John

Yes, John.

It seemed to me that you were focusing on the communion of the faithful, in the context of this hymn. And as you say, the choice of the hymn based upon the class of saint for that day does not indicate that the hymn is directed to that saint alone.

Again we've been set up to appear as though we are presenting an "either-or" choice in our critique of the translation.

Again the more inclusive text is the original text.

Mary

"When you come into your Kingdom...is indeed the most faithful to Scripture and revealed eschatology."

It may be faithful to the Vulgate, but it is not faithful to the Byzantine text. The Orthodox translate it as "in your Kingdom," which is the correct translation of the Greek Byzantine text. and I have read quite polemical arguements about why "into" is wrong and "in" is superior. Suffice it to say every Orthodox translation as well as the Melkite uses "in your kingdom."

"Receive me now, O Son of God, as a participant in your Mystical Supper; for I will not betray you Mystery to your enemies, nor give you a kiss like Judas, but like the thief, I confess You; remember me, O Lord, in your kingdom." Melkite Liturgy

"Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom." GOA Holy Cross Press Translation.

"Of thy mystical supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant, for I will not speak of thy mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief will I confess thee, remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom." OCA and Antiochian Orthodox Liturgy

"Even if the text of the NKJV is on the whole that of the Church, it needs careful checking and revision before it can be called Orthodox. One small example will indicate what I mean. The NKJV, like its ancestor of 1611, which here follows the Latin Vulgate, reads at Luke 23:42, �Remember me when you come into your Kingdom.� This prayer, we are told in a note, �is highlighted in the hymns and worship of the Orthodox Church�. It isn�t, because the Church�s Gospel and all the liturgical texts derived from it in both Greek and Slavonic have �in your Kingdom�, a reference to the Second Coming of Christ in his kingly power, as described in Matthew 25:31-46." Archimandrite Ephraim from a review of the Orthodox Study Bible

Fr. Deacon Lance

Three things:

1) "Being more Orthodox" in the construction of the RDL appears to be exceptionally arbitrary.

2) The translations that you offer are indeed accurate. The RDL does not use any one of those translations, and it is that difference that makes the difference.

3) Apparently the Orthodox have also ignored Christ's response in their exegesis.

The RDL translation remains a boggle.

M.

Re: "The Just man shall be in everlasting remembrance" Psalm 11:6

I repeat my earlier comments regarding this reference being primarily to Christ. Then I will give a patristic reference to support my thought.

"With the new version (RDL) 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."

Here is a quote from a commentary on Psalm 111 by Our Venerable Father (St.) Jerome: "I have told you frequently that all interpretations in the name of the just man point to Christ. If the saints are types prefiguring the Saviour, the truly holy man, for example Isaiah, is a type of the Lord and Savior, and so, too, are Joseph, David, Solomon, and the rest of the saints. Now the happy [blessed - makarios] man who is being described in this psalm is a just man in truth, but this just man is a tpe of the true just Man..." Homily 38 on Psalm 111. Quoted in "Grace for Grace - The Psalter and the Holy Fathers", J. Manley, Pg. 427.

Although we observe the memory of the saint, the justice/righteousness we celebrate is ultimately that of Christ. "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.'" 1 Cor.1:30-31 (RSV). "And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'" Jeremias 23:6.

According to the Jerome Biblical Commentary (JBC) and the notes in the Jerusalem Bible and the original greek both are possible interpretations - "When you come into your kingdom" and "in/with your kindgom" (emphasizing the parousia) all duly noted in the discussion.

However, in thinking about this something struck me about the use of repetition in the Bible and in Orthodoxy.

The thief repeatedly speaks his request. "The imperfect form of the word elegen indicates that the good thief spoke his request repeatedly." (JBC). He's dying and he's repeatedly muttering this. I wonder to what degree this passage and others have informed the Orthodox practice of repetition in prayer?

Connect this to the previous passages. Everyone up to that point had been judging Jesus. Peter does not assert his true judgment of Jesus and denies him 3 times. Pilate REPEATEDLY asks the people "what evil has he done? What evil has he done." Pilate is examining Jesus for guilt or innocence.

Only the good thief turns to look AT HIMSELF for guilt or innocence. He acknowledges Jesus' innocence. The good thief admits that he (the thief) is really the guilty one. "What evil have I done? I deserve this...Jesus doesn't...Remember me... Remember me." The thief is our model.

The good thief is you and me at the Divine Liturgy.

It is only at the end of the Divine liturgy that this is finally revealed to us and we as individuals take up the good thief's words as our own. We thought we were doing God a favor asking for mercy and what not. Now, we stand not in the role of the blessed or righteous but in the shoes of the guilty, condemned, base and vile thief muttering over and over like the insane criminals that we are "Remember me a sinner, remember me a sinner...remember me a sinner....remember me a sinner...."

Not until my evil is acknowledged as THE problem, not until I acknowledge my own sinfulness, that I am the guilty one, can I cry out... "Remember me when you come with your kingdom. Remember me when you come with your kingdom for judgment." The good thief is the model of our salvation because Jesus is the only innocent one, the unblemished lamb.

St. Augustine, Sermon XVII, On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xi. 25, seems to support this:

[And how did the robber attain to this blessedness, but because he held on that way, in which �He showeth His salvation�? That way, from which let not thy foot wander. For in that he accused himself, he praised God, and made his own life blessed. He looked in hope for this from the Lord, and said to Him, �Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.�

For he considered his own wicked deeds, and thought it much, if mercy should be shown him even at the last. But the Lord immediately after He had said, �Remember me��when? �when Thou comest into Thy kingdom,� saith, �Verily I say unto thee, Today shall thou be with Me in paradise.� Mercy offered at once, what misery deferred.] [end of Augustine quote]

R.

Just to be clear, I am not the author of this unattributed quote. -- Dn. Anthony (ajk)

It's been very clear to me!!

Mary

Indeed; I didn't want to appear to be stealing your thunder. -- Dn. Tony

There are days when I would be happy to give it to you...no charge!!

M.

Just wanted to note that I very much appreciated the notes from Lazareno and Rufinus this morning. It was nice to log on to two gently reflective notes.

I would just say to Lazareno that in the case of this particular Psalm, in that it is a clear paean to Creation, that the just are those who have been justified in Christ, so that the direct reference is to mankind, in Christological context. That does not negate what you've said at all, but does account for what is there in Scripture in terms of referent and emphasis.

Mary

Though certainly not an expert I am able to provide some language resources and hopefully neutral commentary. There are (at least) three "strands" in the current thread. They deal with:

1. Luke 23:42

2. Psalm 117(118):26,27

3. Psalm 111(112):5-7

This post addresses 3.

For texts in general, some basic considerations:
1. Are we dealing with a received text or a critical text?
2. What languages are relevant (e.g Slavonic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin)?
2. Is the usage a quote from, a paraphrase of, an allusion to, or an abridgment or ellipsis of, a Scriptural text?
3. What is the context in the Scripture?
4. What is the context in the (liturgical) usage?
5. What is the interpretation (hermeneutics)

Because of the different language scripts I have put the text in a pdf file. Unfortunately it is large, 2.14MB. The texts are:

1. LXX Greek
2. MT Hebrew
3. GCU Slavonic (& DR English)
4. Vulgate Latin
5. Levkulic "pew" book

Some color coding identifies key words.

Psalm_111:5-7.pdf

My comments:

[Note that verse designations can vary; part of a verse does not necessarily mean incomplete.]

The Communion Hymn text is a continuous (integral) part of verses 6(second part) & 7(first part) in the LXX. The referent appears to be identified in the preceeding verse, v5, which has aner (man=male). The Hebrew has 'ish, man=male(=husband) and the Slavonic muzh (man, male) but the Latin has homo (man, generic; but in verse 1 vir=man, male; LXX aner; MT 'ish; S: muzh). The connective (LXX:hoti, MT:chi, Vul: quae, Slav:jako, For) that begins v6, however, is not a relative pronoun, so there is not that strong a link to the referent; there isn't an explicit pronoun for the 3rd person verb "remembered." Note also that the connective and the phrase immediately following it (see below, For) are not part of the selection. The next subject is dikaios/tsaddik/pravednik/iustus, the "just-one" masculine grammatical gender, singular.

Taking an interlinear approach for the LXX starting with v6 (with color coding here as: not part of the hymn; the hymn):

For into the age not shall-be-moved [verb indicative future passive 3rd person singular] into remembrance eternal shall-be [verb indicative future middle 3rd person singular] just[adjective normal nominative masculine singular no degree]
from report evil not shall-be-afraid[verb indicative future passive 3rd person singular]

I have used shall above to convey the future tense, taking it as equivalent to will and not implying determination.

The adjective "dikaios" implies some "one" hence just-one. The middle voice (shall-be) is usually associated with self-interest or reflection: he-shall-be-himself, she-herself-shall-be etc.

These are some of the hopefully relevant (and hopefully correct) facts. Keeping track of things across languages in even this small portion of text can be challenging so I apologize in advance for blunders or confusion.

Dn. Anthony

Into/In your kingdom.

In the greek - eis tav basileian sou.

In the vulgate - in regnum tuum

Eis takes the accusative and is most accurately translated into. This is the case with the latin "in".

It would seem that this is a case of what the Hebrew scholar Robert Alter calls the heresy of explanation in his introductory essay to the "Five Books of Moses". Rather than translating words as they are written in a particular historical context they are translated according to a larger theological vision.

It does not make sense from the perspective of the thief. Did he know that Jesus would come in full glory to rule? No. Jesus response is that "today you will be with me."

One finds these little changes to be quite disquieting. Although it might be correct to say "in your kingdom" this seems to be found in a gloss or footnote and requires explanation. It might be a translation that is more appropriate to a Catechism than to the Divine Liturgy.

Finally, the people make the make the mental connection between what they are saying and the biblical account. This should echo the words of the translation of the Bible translation embraced by the BCA and as used in the Gospel readings. One's mind is drawn to an extraordinary scene when one says this small fragment. One's mind should not be drawn to a huge theological argument or to a footnote.

If "in" is correct here, was it changed in the reading of this story in the gospel used at the Liturgy? I bet you not.

Into, into, into. This is what the grammar calls for. To condition its translation with a theological interpretation may be "theologically correct" but it is not a right thing to do. What should take precedence in order of determing the translation of words is - the Bible embraced by the Church.

With prayers for all to Sts. Peter and Paul,
Rufinus

So, being "theologically correct" is not the right thing to do?!? If this was one of the principles used in preparing the RDL then it explains quite a lot!

If we should follow more accurately what is written in the Bible should we have some fun and find all the instances in the RDL where Biblical references are not followed word for word?

Consistency? What's that?

Do I hear calls for a careful, exact, accurate, faithful and elegant translation?

Nick

That has been the goal for years. This was thoroughly discussed at the Symposium on English Translations of Byzantine Liturgical Texts at St. Basil's College, Stamford, Connecticut, June 1998. Papers were presented by (in order as they appear in the group photo):
- Prof. Mark Bailey
- Prof. Paul Meyendorf
- Fr. Peter Galadza (convenor)
- Archimandrite Anthony Griffith
- Archimandrite Serge Keleher
- Bishop Kallistos Ware
- Bishop Basil Losten (sponsor)
- Bishop Nicholas Samra
- Fr. Anthony Ugolnik
- Archimandrite Ephrem Lash
- Fr. Deacon John Chryss�vgis
- Fr. David Petras
- Prof. Michael Thompson
- Archimandrite Robert Taft (missing from photo)

Readers will note that some of the presenters post here on ByzCath.

I have made several overtures to get these articles and permission to make them available online but my leads fizzled. If made available and permitted I would be most pleased to scan and post them for everyones scholarly enjoyment.

Dn. Anthony

Fr. Dcn. Anthony,

The two volumes of Logos in which the proceedings were published are still available on back-order from the Sheptytsky Institute. Sorry, but I can't offer any help on obtaining permission to make them available publicly.

_____
Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

If anyone interested was discouraged by the file size, it is now reduced to 168kb.

Elijah Maria: "I would just say to Lazareno that in the case of this particular Psalm, in that it is a clear paean to Creation, that the just are those who have been justified in Christ, so that the direct reference is to mankind, in Christological context."

Thank you for your comments. I would like, however, to clarify what I was trying to say originally. The Revised Liturgy gives us "The just woman will be in everlasting remembrance..." The Just spoken of here is firstly the saint being celebrated that day. But ultimately, it is Christ. "The just woman" rendition in the RDL is an invention. The term "just man" is inclusive of both the saint (male or female) and of Christ. But the term "just woman" refers exclusively of the woman saint being memorialized.

The problem here is similar the effort to pluralize the "Just" in order to avoid using a masculine personal pronoun.

For example, the first words of Psalm 1, "Blessed is the man" is rendered in the "inclusive" Grail Psalms (1983) as: "Happy indeed are those". By pluralizing the text, any reference to Christ is practically eliminated. St. Eusebius said: "Every man desires bliss; that is why this first psalm describes 'He who' is truly happy. The first blissful One is the Savior. The psalm concerns Him who is the 'Bridegroom' of His Church."

Dear Lasareno,

Thank you for your expanded comments. Given the general gist of the counterpoints, and potential for confusion, I think it is necessary to move our position out, explicitly, and point by point. I very much enjoy discussing with you.

Mary

In/Into

On the other hand, "...when you come in your kingdom..." does make sense theologically in the context of the person saying it in the liturgy at this point in time waiting for the second coming of Christ. I defer to the Bishops. I always land up with this as the safest course of action.

Lazareno's and other's psalm commentary is fascinating and well done.

It makes no sense in terms of Catholic eschatology, particularly in the context of liturgy, which is a sacramental action "outside of time."

And also it is a moment of anamnesis, not a moment of the "now" for each of us where we are at the time.

Mary

Two excellent points. Ugh! Thank you.
Rufinus

My pleasure.

M.

"It makes no sense in terms of Catholic eschatology, particularly in the context of liturgy, which is a sacramental action "outside of time."

And also it is a moment of anamnesis, not a moment of the "now" for each of us where we are at the time."

I would judge it unwise to dismiss the opinion of the entire English speaking Orthodox world.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Said it before, say it again...

We did not translate precisely as the Orthodox did.

And IF the Orthodox all do truly intend to reference the second coming, then those translators also neglected to pay attention to Christ's response.

Mary

So Mary is right and every Orthodox/Eastern Catholic translator is wrong?

"We did not translate precisely as the Orthodox did."

I hope you are not contending that because the new translation is not word for word the same as the current Melkite and Orthodox translations something different is intended.

"Accept me today as a partaker of your mystical supper, O Son of God, for I will not reveal your mystery to your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas , but like the thief I profess you:
Remember me, O Lord, when you come in Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Master, when you come in Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Holy One, when you come in Your kingdom."
2006 Byzantine Catholic Translation

"Receive me now, O Son of God, as a participant in your Mystical Supper; for I will not betray you Mystery to your enemies, nor give you a kiss like Judas, but like the thief, I confess You; remember me, O Lord, in your kingdom." Melkite Liturgy

"Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom." GOA Holy Cross Press Translation.

"Of thy mystical supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant, for I will not speak of thy mystery to thine enemies, neither will I give thee a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief will I confess thee, remember me, O Lord, in thy kingdom." OCA and Antiochian Orthodox Liturgy


"And IF the Orthodox all do truly intend to reference the second coming, then those translators also neglected to pay attention to Christ's response."

They did not neglect it. Christ's response has no bearing on the thief's intention. The thief as a good (or not so good) Jew of his day would have had no expectation of an immediate reward in the afterlife. What he did expect was the Messiah to establish the Kingdom and asked to be remembered when Christ established it. Of course, we know the Kingdom was already present and yet also to come. This is the tension we live in and why we pray in the Anaphora: You brought us out of nonexistence into being, and raised us up again when we had fallen, and left nothing undone until you brought us to heaven and gave us your kingdom to come.

The Eastern Church has always viewed this text eschatologically. That Mary or the Latin Church disagrees matters not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Mary is not a part of the Latin Church.

To say "Remember me in your Kingdom" leaves the intended meaning flexible, and the timing open, as it should be.

To say "Remember me when you come in your Kingdom" is a much less flexible translation and falls into the pit that has been pointed out here in this thread.

Christ's response has every bearing on our anamnesis.

The new order's translation remains a boggle.

Mary

This form is also supported by the Greek and Vulgate Recension Slavonic texts published by Rome. But this form is also an alteration of even the Byzantine Majority Text of scripture in that it has dropped the verb phrase "when you come." As such it already may convey a different sense: �remember me in your kingdom" versus "remember me when you come in your kingdom." Also, in the usages just noted the request is said only once.

The Ruthenian Recension form, however, repeats the petition three times, and the conjunction and verb are retained; thus, it seems, it is a direct quote from scripture. The additional words are jehda prijde�i (Levkulic "pew" book p 24; Slu�ebnik, p 270 ), hotan elthēs in the Byzantine Majority Text and also the standard critical edition. The verb in Greek is subjunctive aorist active; I would love to know the mood-tense-voice of the Slavonic. I wonder if the use of the future in the former translation - "when you shall come" - is not an attempt to convey the sense of contingent but expected as done.



I'm sure Archimandrite Ephraim knows better; he's not telling the whole story. He seems to have gotten himself frazzled by the zealous publishing practices of nuovo Orthodox. I do hope that by merely invoking the double whammy of "Latin" and "Vulgate" together he is not implying that the reading is automatically suspect and discredited. The fact is that a good case can be made, objectively, for each version of the scripture, with a slight edge going to "into your kingdom."

Also, is Archimandrite Ephraim saying that ��in your Kingdom�� is, per se, � a reference to the Second Coming of Christ in his kingly power� when used in �the Church�s Gospel and all the liturgical texts derived from it in both Greek and Slavonic�? Is the �Second Coming� meaning conveyed by the prayers above in which �when you come� is not included? Is the thief also aware of this �Second Coming� meaning? A standard and �ecumenically� respected scholarly grammatical analysis (Zerwick, Rome:1996, p 278), gives �in your kingdom� as a variant reading but is unclear as to whether a �coming� is understood by this phrase alone. According to Zerwick the Greek of �in your kingdom� really conveys the sense �(when you come) in your kingly power, as king (i.e. at the final resurrection)...�

So, why do the liturgical texts noted above not include the words �when you come� as found in the Scripture? What is the explanation for why the Ruthenian version differs by retaining these words and their three fold repetition in �Remember me...�? And since the Recension differs in this significant way, should its conformity in the remaining phrase be presumed?

Dn. Anthony

Dn. Anthony:

Your two posts are a good beginning of an analysis of the issues at hand and your questions help to narrow the issue. I don't think that it is an Orthodox/Latin thing but a matter of understanding the grammar and the theololgy behind it. (Whether Orthodox or Latin, the majority of people are in the Church for a show, a spectacle, a photo-op, a pretty ceremony and really do not care about these issues. It is good to read that there are a few others who care about this details.)

1)I couldn't figure out the tense of the greek verb. Thank you.

2) Could there be two different primary documents at the root of all of this?

Yes. I too would love to know the mood-tense-voice of the Slavonic.

As for the three fold repetition, I've explained in a previous post why I thought this was repeated. I think that it accurately reflects the tense of the verb and (well, read it).

These debates and reflections are great. Until now (with something like this forum) we have never had the ability to go into depth on some passage of the liturgy and its Biblical roots. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Rufinus

Dear Rufinus,

This kind of assertion demeans us all. Particularly those of us who care about the details.

I care about the details precisely because I love all souls in Christ and hope to be able to love them as Christ loves them...unconditionally.

I believe I could say the same for Father Deacon Anthony.

Mary

I attended an OCA liturgy this morning, and while the above quote is correct, the opening line of the Beatitudes was different. While the RDL has

"Remember us O Lord, when you come in your kingdom."

the OCA has (quoting from memory here, so cut me a little slack)

"In your kingdom remember us O Lord, when you come into your kingdom."

Where the OCA translation parallels the RDL (following "when you come") it uses "into" just as did the NRDL (non-revised Divine Liturgy). I have not taken the time to look up what other jurisdictions do in the translation of the beatitudes, nor do I know what the Greek or Slavonic text might be at this point. I just found it interesting.

Dear Mary,

I didn't mean to demean anyone on the list; certainly not you or Father Deacon Anthony. You bring up such good questions and lead us down paths of investigation into the details of theology.

My comment about the people in general comes from a frustrating year trying to get parents to care about their faith. I should have left it out of my post. Forgive me.

By "it's not a Latin/Orthodox thing", I meant that these concerns are exactly as you but it: "We care about the details precisely because We love all souls in Christ and hope to be able to love them as Christ loves them...unconditionally." How beautiful. How difficult - to love unconditionally. This is precisely what I meant and your words convey it with greater elegance than my own.

Rufinus

Very well said. It is Christ who is the just man, and the saints (both male and female) become just by being incorporated into Him.

Not to worry, dear heart. I step in that quagmire frequently. It is indeed impossible to love unconditionally without great grace and the unrelenting will to fully accept the grace.

The grace is there, but so often this will is weak.

Fondly, in Christ,

Mary

According to my resource The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, that is indeed the case. As indicated in the critical apparatus, each reading, which is witnessed by a number of text sources, is also witnessed by one of the two most ancient of the "Great Uncial Codices." Fr. Raymond Brown (of blessed memory) explains their significance:



The reading eis tēn basileian is found in B; the reading en tē basileia is found in S.

The scholars (combined Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant representation) who prepared this critical edition of the scriptures give a grade to their choice of the preferred reading. They chose the eis reading with a grade of {B}. One might have expected a draw but the eis reading is also found in P75. Brown again explains:



Thus the most ancient known document also supports the reading having eis (into). This does not discredit the other usage; a judgment, however, is made on the information and sources available.

Dn. Anthony

1988 UGCC text:

Bishop Dimitri of the OCA, as I recall, made the point that both "in" and "into" are acceptable translations and both have historical precedent in English translations. Personally I prefer "into", as for me at least singing it in Tone 1 Kyivan as we normally do on Sundays (whether Divine Liturgy or Typika) it seems to meter a bit more evenly.

Dn. Anthony -

YES! BRILLIANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

What scholarly work. I thought that this might be the source of it.

I cannot tell you how happy this makes me! I suspected that this wasn't "simply" a theological interpretation issue.

May God love you and shower you with abundant blessings.

I shall light a candle and pray for you this weekend before the Divine Liturgy. Whoa!

Rufinus

Fr. Deacon Anthony,

But the Orthodox don't care what the Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus say because they rely on the Byzantine Text whose oldest representative codex, at least as far as the Gospels, is the Codex Alexandrinus. If fidelity to Orthodox texts is the goal then we can or should only translate from and compare to the Septuagint Old Testament and Byzantine Text New Testament. And I certainly can't see the methods of Fr. Brown being approved of by the majority of Orthodox even if a few of their scholars do.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Excellent. You and Fr. Deacon Anthony will share the candle.

Rufinus

Dear Rufinus,

Thank you for your words of appreciation � and the candle!, and happier still to be sharing it with a brother-deacon.

The ultimate question here still remains: What do we make of our received liturgical text, the Ruthenian Recension text of the prayer before Communion, and its development? With its inclusion of the words from scripture �when you come,� and its three-fold repetition, the Ruthenian Recension text exhibits a uniqueness among the cited examples of that prayer. How, why, when etc. did this come about?


*****************************************

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your insights.



Some, apparently, even discount Alexandrinus.



Not even a mention of Vaticanus here. Is this a blind spot? Is the problem here parochialism? The critical method approach to a NT text, whatever its shortcomings, at least keeps us aware of the big picture, the other folks, fellow Christians who give their witness to, and preserve in their own way their ancient tradition of the Scriptural text. Is the witness of the entire Alexandrian text-type of the earliest scriptural documents simply �bogus�? Ironically, Codex Sinaiticus was found in the (Orthodox) Monastery of Saint Catherine by Constantin von Tischendorf who was there at the behest of (Orthodox) Tsar Alexander II who, upon obtaining the Codex and presumably realizing its significance, had it quickly published in facsimile form.



Does such a monolithic text exist?



Just to be clear, the writings of Fr. Brown that I quoted are a different work entirely from the critical edition of the NT, and I don�t believe Fr. Brown collaborated in the work on the critical edition either. Bringing the two together is my doing. I used Fr. Brown�s words because I thought they were an accurate, succinct description of the ancient texts. I don�t see how his �methods� (whatever the Orthodox may think of them) can pertain to the quoted facts which, I believe, he renders in an unbiased and accurate way.


Dn. Anthony


____________________________
* From Scriptures in the Orthodox Church: 2. Can You Tell Me Which Translation [of Scripture] The Eastern Orthodox Church Uses and Why? by His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of Proikonisou and Presiding Hierarch of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver. Original article title: "Which English Translation Of The Bible Should I Use"? (Source: Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin: March 1995, Volume 3, Number 3., pp. 14-17).