The RDL has: "Holy Gifts to holy people." I could have done without "people" but I always disliked Holy "Things". Do we have the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts or Things? I think Gifts an improvement.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The designation in the Greek and Slavonic does not have a word corrresponding to Gifts nor, for that matter, to Things. Things might sound nebulous but Gifts adds more than what is present in the Greek and Slavonic, which convey the sense using just the form of a neuter-plural adjective.

Dn. Anthony

More like "the Holies for the Holy?"

Why would the Orthodox want to use a Protestant Bible? I understand the Greek basis but at the same time, what did they use up until the 16th century? Isn't there a truly Orthodox translation, or, did they use the Vulgate. Using a Protestant Bible seems bad judgement to me.

Well stated.

The noun "gifts" is not in the Slavonic or the Greek, and so it should not be in the English.

Yes, that makes it ambiguous in the English. But is also ambiguous in the Slavonic and the Greek. An exact translation preserves the ambiguity of the original, and the 1964 translation does this amazingly well.

To 'guess' and opt for one meaning or another, doesn't faithfully translate the ambiguity, but is a gloss.

We deserve an exact translation. Exacting translations preserve even the ambiguity of the original.

We also deserve pastoral sensitivity. Changes should be made only to improve literal accuracy, and should be respectful of what has been memorized over the past 40 years.

Unnecessary change harms souls.

Dear Administrator,

But how else to translate "Darov" but "Gifts?"

Alex

Alex,

Are you suggesting that the word "gifts" should be brought to this text? Father Serge, in his excellent review of the RDL (pp. 235-236) says that adding the word "gifts" is possible but that it might preclude the fullness of the meaning here. Leaving it ambiguous allows it to refer to the Holy Gifts (the Eucharist) and also the Saints (those here on earth who can receive the Eucharist), possibly personal holiness (Fr. Serge references St. John Chrysostom) and more. It seems that changing the text to add the word "gifts" also limits the text. It also seems that since we can see that Scripture can have many levels of meaning so, too, can the texts of the Divine Liturgy.

John

General Note: This discussion (which probably should be split off since it has nothing to do with the Orthodox Study Bible) is about the correct translation of "Svjataja svjatym".

John,

Yes, I agree with bringing "Gifts" to this text because the reference is not ambigous but clearly refers to the Holy Eucharist. Please note that in the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts the intonation is Holy Pre-sanctified Gifts for the Holy. By using the qualifier Presantified for Holy it is clear the reference is to the Eucharist and nothing else.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

yes, I misquoted, I had a memory of yet another liturgy heard elsewhere. Having stood corrected, I do not like Holy Gifts to Holy People" any better.

Holy things to the Holy is more poetic, and more accurate to the Greek & Slavonic texts.

Since my name has been invoked, I appreciate the aversion to "things" - "thing" is an overused word in modern English - but it does still serve a legitimate purpose.

I suppose my preferred translation, or at least the translation which best fits the criteria I prefer, is "The Holies to the holy"!.

The reference to the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts is persuasive, but not entirely convincing. However, the uniting of the ecphonesis "Ta Agia tis agiois" with the elevation of the Lamb would make it difficult to dispute that the phrase refers to the Eucharistic Gifts.

Beyond that, I shall check again in the relevant volume of Taft.

Now, back to the Bible. While I share the preference for the Revised Standard Version, when it comes to the Old Testament we need a serious, freshly-done translation of the LXX, taking into account what Taft has aptly termed the "sitz im Gottesdienst". I'm not opposed to consulting other translations - it would be foolish not to do so - but ultimately our Church tradition has its own criteria.

Fr. Serge

Father Deacon,

We will have to disagree. I would not add anything to the English text that is not in the Slavonic or Greek text without seeking consensus across the entire Church (in all languages). [That the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy might have such a reference has some, but not a lot, of bearing on the translation from the original languages.]

To me the adding of the word "gifts" limits the text from having multiple meanings. I wish we had the original Taft article that Fr. Serge references. It apparently speaks to the ideas I noted above being possibly all contained in this text.

John

"sitz im Gottesdienst" (I'm familiar with Sitz im Leben. What's Gottesdienst?)

The direct translation of the LXX in my wife's side-by-side Greek/English is from the late 1800s. What is the latest translation from the LXX?

Terry

Dear and Esteemed Administrator,

I bow to your erudite experience and knowledge, but a proper translation of the actual Slavonic text "Svyateye" (Svyatym) in English would be, literally, "That which is Holy."

(Don't know where Fr. Archimandrite got the "Holy of Holies" - it just doesn't bear it out.)

In fact, "Things" does not figure here at all, especially not in English (and we have it in our poor English translation up here too). "Svyateye" resembles in tone and style a non-descript statement of "That which is Holy" in the same sense as "I Am" as God told Moses when asked His Name.

Anything approximating "things" does not exist in the Slavonic tradition, is a break with that tradition and harms the linguistic/theological harmony of the liturgy in this respect.

Better "Gifts" if one must add that word to "Holy ___ for the Holy."

"Holy Things" already indicates something is amiss in the translation.

With respect,

Alex

We just can't do in English what the more inflected languages can do with a few words.

The Slavonic I believe is just a literal rendering of the Greek.
The Greek has ta hagia tois hagiois. ta and tois are definite articles which Slavonic does not have.

hagiois is a dative plural masculine or neuter; the dative has the sense of to or for (or sometimes by means of). The masculine plural also by context can be understood as standing for both male and female.

hagia is neuter plural nominative, accusative or vocative

Each word is an inflected plural, so it's like

Holies Holies

that is

(the) Holies [nominative plural neuter] [to/for] (the) Holies [dative, masculine & plural=(male+female)]

Thus:

Holy (Things=neuter) to/for Holy (Ones=male+female).

So, I would say, for instance,

Holy Things to/for the Holy (or to/for Holy Ones).


Dn. Anthony

Dear lanceg,

No sir, it is not.

Alex

Dear Father Deacon Anthony,

Even though this cannot apply to any English translation, the anachronistic Ukrainian translation(s) tend to keep the Slavonic words where appropriate, since people wisely realize there are some ancient words that are best left alone, such as "Svyateye Svyatym" Suschu Bohoroditsiu, Nasuchney etc.

But what is evident is that liturgical translators don't appear to have some sort of agreed standard (apart from what their bishops tell them) to guide their work.

This is a case in point.

And also why so many English-speaking UGCCers up here go to great lengths to learn the liturgy in any language but English and defend the Slavonic/anach. Ukrainian liturgy. That includes Western Ukr. Canadians.

Alex

Alex,

Thank you for the post. Please see my earlier responses to Deacon Lance.

I understand the issues involved, and I can appreciate that the word "things" is not exact. But it is better to leave the translation ambiguous rather then limit it by adding words. That allows all the nuances Father Serge mentioned (that are referenced in Father Taft's article) to be preserved.

Keeping it ambiguous might even allow the additional shades of meaning. I know the quote does not appear to come directly from Scripture but think about it it terms of:

Wisdom of Solomon 6:9 (RSV)
For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness.

LXX 6:10 (Sir Lancelot's translation)
For they that keep holiness holy shall be judged holy, and they that have learned such things shall find what to answer.

6:11 (Douay)
For they that have kept just things justly shall be justified....

It seems to me that that all the possibilities of meanings that Father Taft suggests in his article need to be considered at length before one could choose to limit the text by adding the word "gifts". And that should be done by common agreement of the entire Church (Orthodox and Catholic).

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

John

I'm not understanding the point here. I don't know about "anachronistic Ukrainian" but the Slavonic is link (see last line of page 264).

I unfortunately have not formally studied Church Slavonic, but I'm looking at Archbishop Alypy's GRAMMAR of the CHURCH SLAVONIC LANGUAGE and I see for hard declension adjectives inflected forms that are the same as in the "Svjataja svjatym" in the above link, and these forms correspond to those indicated for the Greek as outlined in my previous post.

So it seems all the more that the Slavonic is just trying to be as literal as possible a rendering of the Greek.

Dn. Anthony

Yes! I meant to comment before that I think this captures the very succinct sense of the Greek and Slavonic if one understands "Holies" as referring to something for which neuter gender is appropriate, and that "Holy" has the {collective} sense of a plural, i.e. males+females.

With that understanding, I'd say it is a very nice rendering.

Dn. Anthony

Since I did not use the phrase "the Holy of holies" which Alex seems to have attributed to me, I also don't know what its relevance here might be.

As I indicated, "Sitz im Gottesdienst" is an expression coined by Father Archimandrite Robert Taft. It means the liturgical context in which one finds a Biblical phrase or expression.

Fr. Serge

Dear and Esteemed Administrator,

I certainly agree with your point on following the Church in this!

Hats off to you as you are in the forefront of dealing with these difficult issues that make someone like me so very happy that I worship in a "tried and true" foreign tongue!

I had just read the new Basilian Horologion in Ukrainian - it's not a translation but a tragedy.

Cheers,

Alex

My apologies, Father Archimandrite . . .

Dear Father Deacon Anthony,

Up here in the UGCC we are going through something like this with our "new translation" now.

Although laity like me who have no training in this whatever apart from attending Church have no say in the matter, the rendering of a word in a correct fashion from another language must, as we have come to appreciate, reflect other concerns involved with the "liturgical rendering" of the word.

But since I don't worship in English, I should really just shut up.

Cheers,

Alex

Alex,

please do not feel like you shouldn't share because you do not worship in English. You know the texts. Your posts have been illuminating.

So you are having liturgy problems up there, too?

Lance

Alex,

I bow to your knowledge, I am not an expert, I am guilty of dispensing second hand knowledge. This thread is shedding a lot of light on the issue.

Lance

Exactly, gifts is an interpretation and as such explains too much, limiting what is not spelled out in the original to an assumed specific meaning that is obviously not intended -- otherwise one would find the Greek or Slavonic word for gifts.




This is coming at it from the opposite approach: The expectation of finding a word in the Greek or Slavonic because it is in the English and is translated as "Gifts." This is a reasonable expectation but the problem is that there is no such word in the original language version.

In an analogous way, one would be hard pressed to come up with the word anthropous/chelovik in the creed given the present translation which has just "for us" rather than "for us xxx." Ironically, in this case a word is there in the original, I would say even a very significant, theologically important word, and it in effect is ignored -- is absent, certainly abandoning the full force of the meaning of the original -- in the current translation.

Dn. Anthony

Darov does indeed mean "gifts" (in the genitive plural). But since "Darov" does not occur in the ecphonesis "Ta Agia tis Agiis", I fail to grasp the relevance to the present discussion.

Fr. Serge

It is relevant to the discussion because "gifts" is in the RDL translation. The question is rather, what is it relevance of "gifts" in the RDL translation to the intent of the Greek/Slavonic original?

Dn. Anthony

Why is it a tragedy? More Latinizations?

Regarding the Ukrainian translational issues, these are apples and oranges compared to the RDL. In most cases the newer UGCC translation (the 1988 Synodal translation) is closer to recent Ukrainian Orthodox translations ("viki vichniy","Hospodevi pomolimsya", the translation of the Our Father, etc.) than the "archaic" Ukrainian.

It is as much an issue with familiarity as anything else. The older Patriach Josyp (Slipiy) translation is what everyone grew up with and knows. I prefer it not because of issues of precision, accuracy, etc. but simply that is how I learned it, learned the music to those texts, etc. and it is closer to Slavonic - really for no other reasons. When I try to sing the newer the older still wants to pop into my head.

I assume by "new" brother Alex is referring to the 1990 Rome/Toronto Molitvoslov reprinted in Zhovka again in the later 90s.

To play the devil's advocate for the English edition of the Horologion also printed in Zhovka and distributed by the Eparchy of Stamford, it is currently the largest single-volume collection with proper texts from the Octoechos, Triodion, Pentecostarion, Menaion, etc.

While obviously abbreviated from the full Horologion and accessory texts, having microscopic print, missing some clarifying notes and somewhat clumsy to use (good thing they put so many colored ribbons in it ) I can take it while travelling or have it at work and make the effort of praying the Horologion without needing a briefcase or bookshelf full of liturgical books. For the Little Hours outside of Great Lent the UGCC Anthology is also great.

For Ukrainian, I generally use the KP Chasoslov. It is a wonderful book (as are all of the KP series).

How do the Stamford Horologion and the Melkite Horologion (published by the Eparchy of Newton) compare to the Horologion published by the Bostonites / Holy Trinity Monastery under Archimandrite Panteleimon as well as to the "Unabbreviated Horologion" sold on some Orthodox websites?

Just asking.

My mistake. The Unabbreviated Horologion was published by Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville while the "Great Horologion" was published by Holy TRANSFIGURATION Monastery under the Bostonites / Holy Orthodox Metropolia of Boston

The Unabbreviated Horologion from Jordanville (1st Edition), uses "Holy Things for the Holy". BUT, it also carries a disclaimer that it is not an official English translation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

As to the Great Horologion, published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, your guess would be as good as any, since that volume does not contain the Divine Liturgy in it. One would not expect to find the Divine Liturgy in the Greek Horologion, but rather in a Liturgikon or Ieratikon, which this organization does not publish.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Lanceg,

Actually, I"m totally out of my depths here, English, Slavonic or Ukrainian, but thank you!

I agree totally with Father DIAKon, and it is true that the Basilian Chasoslov is very handy. The Ukrainian used is more updated, but there are some serious grammatical problems that others with the requisite qualifications will address in future.

Alex

For many many reasons in light of the colloquial usage of the word "thing" "things" in USA English........ it is not proper to refer to the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as "things."
A "thing" in colloquial USA English is something the speaker doesn't seem to care that much about. "Hey Stanislaus, hand me that thing would ya?" In other words, you and Stanislaus are dry walling your friend's new room for his 80 inch flat screen and you meant this, "Hey Stanislaus, hand me the extension cord."

Do I make sense? Think about it for a while and you'll see what I mean.

RSV Mark 12:17 Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things [ta] that are God's." And they were amazed at him.




Wild Thing

(Chip Taylor, ca. 1965)



I would say he cares.

To answer the part of the question concerning the Melkite Horologion from Sophia Press: it is just that an horologion: the normal texts for the liturgies of the hours. It does make it easy to read by separating liturgies for the various classes of feasts, and for the Great Fast.

It does not, however, contain any texts from the menaia, triodion, pentekostarion, nor the oktoekhis (except a couple of theotokia).

The Melkites do not have all these in a single volume in English. Yet.

It is possible (although expensive) to obtain complete English translations of the Octoechos, Triodion, Pentecostarion, and so forth.

I suppose the ultimate (in terms of current technology) will be a "Typicon" program on some form of computer, loaded with all the liturgical books and programmed to produce the correct combinations for each day of the year (the program should include such matters as the changing of the combination from one year to the next).

Fr. Serge

WHERE?

For that matter, has everything been translated into English? I think Athos and the Russian monasteries have a lot of liturgical material that have not yet been translated. Even the Typikon itself has not been completely translated, right?

Hapgood apparently consulted quite widely and had much input from both the Russian and English-speaking Orthodox contingents before finishing her significant translation, and she used "Things". Certainly in a Victorian context it was indeed understood.

Nearly every English translation from Slavonic in common use from Hapgood to ROCOR and OCA, UGCC and the previous BCC make use of "Things".

My opinion is that in English this additional clarifier is necessary, and this is one example of how strictly literal translation does not always work well or without some pitfalls.

I agree with Lanceg, and think it is preferrable to the much more ambiguous "Holies for..." The UGCC and OCA translations (that of the OCA having been greatly the work of Fr. Schmemann, intimately familiar with English and Slavonic) have "The Holy Things..." (my emphasis) which is perhaps the best rendering.

One of the more unusual versions is that of Bishop Fan Noli of blessed memory; in his translation from the Greek for the Albanian Orthodox he renders the translation as "Sacraments for the Saints"!
FDRLB

Dear Father DIAKone,

"The Holy Things . . ."

Perfect!

That's what I "feel" when I experience the DL in Ukrainian!

You got it, Pontiac!

Alex

The Typicon itself will, of necessity, be the last book translated into English, because it cannot be done without translations of everything else. Now, where to get what:

Horologion: there are 3 good ones in English - that from Holy Transfiguration Monastery (the largest version), that from Holy Trinity Monastery, and that from the Old-Rite parish in Erie. Each has its pleasures and its drawbacks.

Psalter: you want the one from Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

Liturgicon: so far the best I know of is from Holy Trinity Monastery - but the most complete is the parallel Greek-English one by Robinson, reprinted by Eastern Christian Publications.

Gospel Book: I suggest the Gospel Book published by the Antiochian Archdiocese (using the RSV).

Epistle Book: the Greek Archdiocese publishes a good one.

Octoechos: from Saint John of Kronstadt Press.

Menaion: choice of 2. The Saint John of Kronstadt Press version is translated from Church-Slavonic; the Holy Transfiguration Monastery version is translated from Greek.

Lenten Triodion: the translation by Mother Mary and [Metropolitan] Kallistos. The basic volume is published by Faber and kept in reprint by Saint Tychon's Monastery, South Canaan, PA - and you will also need the supplementary volume.

Pentecostarion: the version published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

Trebnik: So far the version published by Saint Tychon's is the most complete. A larger one is expected from Saint John of Kronstadt Press.


Hope that information is of some help.

Fr. Serge

The song is from 1965. I still stand by my distaste for the word "things." In my generation it is a word that is used because the speaker does not feel it is important enough to describe what he is saying.
I thought of that movie with Charlie Sheen when he played a pitcher when I read that song

To slightly add/subtract from Father Serge's list above;

Epistle; the black epistle book from the Byzantine Catholics.

I would also add the St. Tikhon's Horologion as an acceptable edition. One nice thing about it is that the Lenten variations are given as separate services rather than needing to flip around (one still does, but much less frequently). The print is also sizeable, so it can be read with candlelight from the analogion.

In the portuguese translation there is what is equivalent to "What is holy to the holies" ("O que é santo, aos santos").

Metropolitan/Archbishop Joseph (Raya) of holy memory also published an Epistle Book - unfortunately I don't have a copy. And I seem to remember that someone has done an Epistle Book from the King James Version.

As to Ta Aghia tis Aghiois - in general I share the distaste for applying "thing" to a human being, let alone to Almighty God. But there are exceptions for linguistic reasons. Still, one might say simply "The Holies to the Holy" or something along that line. Or one could keep it in Greek. A few words of Greek can actually be helpful in calling attention to a particular expression.

Fr. Serge