Not that long ago, in another forum, a post (link) mentioned detailed studies evaluating and re-thinking the liturgical reforms in the post Vatican II Latin Rite regarding the text of the liturgy:



I commented at the time:



I would add to those comments that she also appreciates the importance of style and the need to preserve the rhetorical structure of the text when possible (Her critique is about changes in the original to new Latin texts, not a translation, but the same principles apply.)

Fr. David also commented on this aspect in translating ["A Survey of the Liturgical Translations of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia," David Petras, Logos:A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Volume 39, Nos. 2-4 (1998), p 249]:



And so, I offer for consideration an evaluation of the RDL translation of the hymn in tone 6 commonly sung at the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy. The text in black is the RDL; I’ve also included where appropriate the corresponding transliterated Greek, Slavonic, and an alternate English rendering (to illustrate the point); each is color coded on the same-sounding words heard, which show a common form and meaning, thus highlighting their collective impact on the hearer.

________________________________________________

It is truly proper to glorify you,

O Theotokos
[Theotokon Bohorodicu Birthgiver-of-God],

the ever-blessed, immaculate and the

Mother of our God.

More honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin,

gave birth
[tekousan roždšuju gave birth]

to God the Word; you, truly the

Theotokos
[Theotokon Bohorodicu Birthgiver-of-God],

we magnify

________________________________________________

[bold text attribute added and explained below]

Of course, Theotokos is accurate in so far as any transliteration of a word from the original is accurate. But is this also what is the best as a translation on the basis on style, clarity and fidelity to the linguistic tradition?

Also, that Theotokos is dogmatically and doctrinally correct and accurate is above reproach. But as pointed out on the forum in previous posts, if that is the standard for translation, then why do we translate and not transliterate the grand-daddy of such important, ancient and venerable terms, homoousios (in the Creed). Furthermore, those whom we look to as the transmitters of our liturgy, our tradition, those who have handed it on to us - must I say it, the Ruthenian Recension and not the Greek text - translated: they used and gave us Bohorodicu and not Theotokos transliterated into Slavonic.

To me there is a clear and reprehensible loss of clarity and style in the choice made here for the RDL translation. Mother (of God) and gave birth is a self evident connection [bold text above]. In the color coded forms, Greek, Slavonic, and the red English, a further connection is established by the style (through repetition) utilizing the inherent and basic meaning and verbal impact of the words. This produces, with overwhelming linguistic force, the thrust and theme of this hymn (following the red English rendering):

Birthgiver (of God) - Mother (of God) - gave birth - Birthgiver (of God)
[The same relation obtains in the Greek and Slavonic.]

This is language and style presenting a clear and powerful reinforced image.

The RDL has the disjointed and stylistically diluted

Theotokos

Mother (of God) - gave birth

Theotokos.

The inherent connectedness of the text is lost. I think this RDL version is a poor translation that does not do justice to what is possible in an English translation, especially considering, as quoted above, “that the most important function of any liturgical translation is to provide meaning for the person praying the text.”

Fr. Deacon,

Sorry I am not convinced, especially when the Melkites and the three major Orthodox jurisdictions use a similar translation.

RDL text:
It is truly proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim; who, a virgin, gave birth to God the Word; you, truly the Theotokos we magnify.


Melkite text:
It is truly meet to bless you O Theotokos who are ever blessed and all blameless and the Mother of our God. More honored than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim you who without stain did bear God the Word, you are truly Theotokos we magnify you.

Greek Archdiocese text:
It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.

OCA text:
Meet it is in truth to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blameless, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious without compare than the Seraphim, who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, verily Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Antiochian Archdiocese text:
It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, who art ever blessed and all-blamelesss, and the mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, thou who without stain barest God the Word, and art truly Theotokos: we magnify thee.

As it stands, examples of other translations do not per se make any direct comment on the validity of my analysis. An actual comment on that would be welcome.

I don't know the strength and influence of Greek in the liturgical patrimony of the Melkites and the Antiochians. But for the GOA, Theotokos is, I would think as a Greek/English community, within the realm of comprehension that I argued for in my post. The Greeks are in a unique position in preserving a cherished ancient/canonical form of a language that also has a modern counterpart. Slavonic for Slavic language speakers can present a similar conundrum.

And obviously, I would conclude that the OCA should reconsider.

Also, the point of my mentioning the work of Pristas was to indicate that a church can rush to judgment on texts without a thorough appreciation of the ramifications. It would be gratifying to find that the considerations I presented were indeed considered and are in the records of the IELC for its 12 years of deliberations to produce the RDL. And if considered, or even if not, why my appraisal is faulty on the merits of its facts, interpretation and conclusions.

Fr. Deacon,

I belive your analysis is flawed and your conclusion incorrect.

In this case the hymn is balanced with the title Theotokos at the beginning and end of the hymn. The hymn references both her motherhood and her giving birth and bookends these with the title Ephesus applied to her. In my opinion using Theotokos does not lose clarity or style anymore than using Christ in our prayers does and it seems the three largest Orthodox jurisdictions share my opinion. Since we have not used this title it will take getting used to and require catechesis.

You seem to rest part of your arguement on the fact that the Slav fathers, translated the title Theotokos, unlike the title Christ which they adapted to Slavonic. Perhaps you feel the ACROD text should have been adopted:

You are truly deserving of glory, O Birth-giver of God, the ever-blessed and most pure Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond comparison more glorious than the Seraphim, who as a Virgin gave birth to the Word of God, true Birth-giver of God, we magnify you.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon (et al.),



That the RDL translation "references both her motherhood and her giving birth" I also noted. Birthgiver-of-God also functions as bookends, with the added advantage of immediate comprehension and association with giving birth. Use of the title of Ephesus has its place, I just don't think it serves best here.




Then I think you've missed my point -- the point -- which is context and the interplay of words to form an integral composition. The use of Christ, for instance, in prayers has no bearing without knowing how it is used with the other words of the piece in the source language. And as noted, it comes to us as Christ and not "the Anointed."

This is so.


Yes, I think this is an important point.




No, on the basis of a new translation correcting what is required and striving for a gradual transition from the familiar text. (Although I accept that Mother of God is an acceptable translation for Theotokos/Bohorodicu I also like to have different words or word-phrases for different concepts, even though they may have the same basic meaning.)

With reference to the words and issues that were the focus of my analysis, however, I'd give this an A+. Since you mention this translation, how do you appraise it?

Fr. Deacon,

It is acceptable, if a bit strange to the ears. It is at least an accurate literal translation.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Can somebody explain why the term "Theotokos" was NOT retained when the Byzantine Liturgy was translated into the Slavonic language? And why the term "Theotokion" became Bohorodicen?

Ray

I remember:

"It is truly proper to glorify you, who have borne God, the ever blessed immaculate and the mother of our God, more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who a virgin gave birth to God the word, you truly the mother of God, we magnify."

That's what I grew up with.

Yes. It was done by good translators.

I agree with Father David Petras that translations should not sacrifice clarity for style.

I possibly disagree with him that the most important function of any liturgical translation is to provide meaning for the person praying the text. I would need to ask him to clarify this further. The most important function of any liturgical translation is to translate accurately – as literally as is possible and as elegant as is possible. The further qualification I would add in updating texts is to respect what is memorized and which is not wrong. His words could hint of ‘dumbing down’ the translation to provide meaning. That usually means also ‘dumbing down’ the theology. It is much better to translate accurately and gently lift up the people to understand. We can see an example of this in the use of the term “consubstantial” in the updated English translation of the Creed in the Latin Church. A number of bishops felt that “consubstantial” was a much too difficult word for Joe & Mary Catholic to understand. But in the end Rome didn’t consider Joe & Mary Catholic to be so dumb that they could not understand. This is a step forward.

I will note that in the RDL the use of gender neutral language most certainly sacrifices clarity for style (i.e., politically correct speech).


I agree with Father Deacon Tony. There is nothing wrong with using Theotokos or even Bohorodice. Either would be dogmatically and doctrinally correct.

But what was so inaccurate about the term Mother of God as a translation for Bohorodice (Theotokos) that long-standing texts that were memorized needed to be changed and people forced to relearn something that they knew by heart?

True, Mother of God is not the most accurate translation but we can look at the Lord’s Prayer (and elsewhere) and see where less then perfect translations were kept because they were memorized. What reasoning was used to decide that Mother of God could not be allowed to be used? This question has been asked numerous times and there has been no answer (though really the bishops should explain this and not leave Father David to be their only spokesman). It almost seem that there is a desire to be what some think is “Eastern” in terminology but not necessarily Eastern in the way one internalizes the Faith.

And what does the Church give up by not using the term “Mother of God” as a translation for Bohorodice (Theotokos)? The term Mother of God has a very long use in the English language. Almost anyone who speaks English – Christians and non-Christians – knows at least that the Mother of God is Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Why give up such an advantage by abandoning a term that is so well known?

“It is truly proper” was one of the hymns that was so well known that if you hit the first three notes the whole Church would join in and raise the roof. That is mostly gone now. What a loss.

On Saturday I went into the post office to purchase Christmas stamps. Last year the postal worker was a turban-wearing Sikh who actually offered me the ones with "the Mother of God with Child". This year the postal worker did not list them but when I asked for "Mother of God with Child" he knew exactly what I wanted. Would he have known if I had said "Theotokos with Child"?

It may not be accurate, but it is a logical translation. One who is a "God-birther" must be the Mother of God.

There is, therefore, another principle which should be attended to in any change. As Cardinal Newman writes,



See his sermon for the Feast of the Circumcision entitled, "Ceremonies of the Church."

I find it remarkable that, while many here oppose the RDL on the grounds it further distances ourselves from our fellow Greek Catholics and Orthodox, in an instance where the RDL makes a change in accord with what our fellow Greek Catholics and Orthodox observe that change is opposed as well.

There is no consensus among our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox about whether to translate the term "Theotokos" and if to translate it how to translate it. ROCOR in England and others use "Mother of God." Johnstown uses mostly "Birthgiver of God" but you can also find "Mother of God" and "Theotokos". The Greek Orthodox do not yet have an official translation.

For years Father David Petras always preferred “Godbearer”. I'd have to check but I think he changed his mind at the Stamford Conference when Bishop Kallistos said that “Godbearer” was not accurate enough. I think that was also when Bishop Kallistos said that he prefers “Theotokos” but recommended “Mother of God” as the only option for those who wished to translate it.

Amazing how some can be such fanatics about using what they think is required Orthodox terminology while being even more fanatical about prohibiting a fully Orthodox Liturgy! Window dressing. Appearance before substance. Excuse me, appearance before essence.

Let us ask the questions:

After 1 1/2 years of the official promulgation of the RDL, how many churches have increased membership? How many have declined?

Food for thought.

Ung (resident Chicken Little)

There is no consensus among our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox about a lot of things in the Liturgy, like the antiphons, what litanies can be suppressed, etc. yet that has not prevented criticism of the RDL on these points.

But lets leave the other complaints against the RDL aside. We are talking about use of Theotokos. Hapgood and ACROD use Birthgiver. The Melkites use Theotokos, the Antiochians use Theotokos, the OCA uses Theotokos and while not having one official text the GOA has several approved texts the most commonly used being the Holy Cross Press edition which uses Theotokos. The majority of Orthodox using English use Theotokos.

U-C,

An even better question is why has our membership been declining since the 60s if not before then? Why are some trying to blame the RDL for what has been occuring in our Church for decades? Because it is convenient for their cause? (I do recognize some have left over the RDL).

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree. There were cracks in the foundation years ago and the entire structure was starting to lean a bit. It's easy to make the RDL a scapegoat for all our ills. I hear how the "old" liturgy, contrived and chopped up as it was in practice, will restore heaven on earth. It's not going to happen. We have had a crisis in leadership and identity for years. Unless God raises up a saint and puts him in charge, the future for us doesn't look promising.

Fr. Deacon,

They left because, like at my former GC church, from at least the 1950's on, (based on conversations that I have had with people around then) the people were taught that "Catlik is Catlik, and it doesn't matter where you go, as long as it's Catlik!" At the same time as this, the Holy Name Society was formed, stations of the cross were hung up, a "confessional" was installed, the church was repainted with a large mural of the crowning of Mary by the Holy Trinity based on the famous mural by Velázquez Coronation of the Virgin painted behind the altar, the altar servers started to wear cassocks and surplices, May crownings began, altar rails put in to allow kneeling for Communion, need I go on? With at least 10 other "Catlik" parishes in about a five mile radius of this church that were doing the same thing, why go to the Greek Catholic church, which became increasingly farther away as people moved out of the old Rusyn neighborhood where the church was to more suburban post War II housing tracts being built.

This went on until the 1970s when a young Vostochnik pastor came in and tried to revive Eastern Christianity and install an iconostas, and almost got booted out for it. By then it was too late, the damage has been done. The RDL has had little effect in this parish, as it's not all much different from what was being done before, except for the music.

Beacause of the numerous churches I attend, nobody sings the RDL parts of the liturgy, even if they are lucky enough to have a cantor. I attend parishes that use a combination of Levkulic/Green RDL books and when the older tranlations for the fixed parts are used, people sing. When the new RDL parts are used nobody sings. The parish life in theses churches have dropped off considerably since the RDL. Now to say or act like the RDL has nothing to do with the significant drop in laity participation which leads to parish drop-outs is absurd. Why is our Church, what's left of it, in such denial? Recongnizing the problems is the first step in recovery. Continuing on with our heads in the sand and not dealing with these real problems will all but gurantee
our Church will disappear into oblivion!

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Ung

And I can point to our parish where, since the green book, participation has increased a lot. Also since the book we continue to take in new people.

Great! But I would bet that your parish is in the minority. I would love to survey every parish in the Metropolia and see what the results would find.

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

Ung

The impact of the RDL promulgation on the most authentic participation of the people in the DL, full congregational singing, is an important topic. I proposed here in the initial post the examination of a short, well-defined hymn of the liturgy with an emphasis on the approach to the English translation. A current thread is examining the aspect of the chant and singing in more general terms, and I recommend it for consideration: Ensuring Beautiful Liturgies.



An new English translation should be aware of existing translations. What I propose here is a fresh look at this particular text, and considerations based on the meaning of words and the structure of the text, both of which serve to convey what the composition is saying. It is also necessary in the case of churches that have a more immediate liturgical language than the Greek to take that tradition, the medium for handing on the liturgical rite, into account. One of my first posts on the forum inquired about the Present status of the Ruthenian Recension.


I've intended to say more about the translation of the hymn in light of and in response to some previous posts, but I need to work on it more. This can get involved because it brings in aspects of the Greek text, the Slavonic text, the factors that necessitate changing a familiar translation that may be doing an adequate job, and the compatibility of a new English translation with, in this case, tone 6 Samohlasen (which can always be done but one would prefer something that seamlessly slides off the tongue).

Father Deacon’s statement is misleading. Our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox allow a lot of freedom. None PROHIBIT the full Liturgy. Even the Greek Orthodox are adding back all the litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn.


Following your logic then we should add back all the litanies and other removed parts of the Liturgy and correct the rubrics to the 1942 so that we can be like the Orthodox? Shall we start using Elizabethan English, too?

So far no one has provided any real justification for the change. “Mother of God” worked just fine.

Father Deacon’s statement is misleading. Our fellow Greek Catholics and the Orthodox allow a lot of freedom. None PROHIBIT the full Liturgy except our bishops. Even the Greek Orthodox are adding back all the litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn. The trend in the OCA, Johnstown and the Melkites is towards the full Liturgy.


Following your logic then we should add back all the litanies and other removed parts of the Liturgy and correct the rubrics to the 1942 so that we can be like the Orthodox? Shall we start using Elizabethan English, too?

So far no one has provided any real justification for the change. “Mother of God” worked just fine.

Why not? I love the use of Thee, Thou, Thy, etc in the Orthodox Church. It is very reverent.

This is the translation in the 1965 liturgicon and the old Pew Book. As such it was the familiar version to all in the BCC. Based on what has been said so far I offer this critique and comparison.

It does the job. It approximates the first direct address Theotokos/Bohorodicu as "who have borne God" which at least maintains the theme of birth through the use of borne; "the mother of God" is used for the same direct address at the end of the hymn, and this is not consistent. As I point out in a previous post, using Theotokos essential nullifies the birth theme, however, to the extent that it is somewhat intelligible, it reclaims the sense of being a direct address and that the same word/phrase is in both places.

Essential, the RDL just replaced those two phrases in the former translation with the term found in the Greek version, Theotokos. Some of of the plus and minuses in doing this have been noted. The RDL version with Theotokos achieved a certain consistency at the expense of clarity, immediate intelligibility, and sustaining the theme of birth present in the hymn in the Greek and Slavonic. Also, I still find it very awkward to sing to the given Tone 6 Samohlasen setting.

The question of a literal, accurate, yet unstrained translation requires commenting on this translation and the others provided in a previous post, and the tie-in with the words in the ekphonesis introducing the hymn. Because of language fonts and formatting I have put my comments in a pdf file. It is rather detailed and so may not be of general interest. It basically has two points:

1. the hymn has a (proposed) chiastic structure that can be an aid in its interpretation and, therefore, translation

2. certain English words in the hymn and ekphosesis do not maintain and may be unable to maintain the distinction found in the Greek and emulated in the Slavonic

Here are some examples using the ACROD text. The ekphonesis is as in the RDL and is the same as in the '65 liturgicon and is, I believe, a basic, standard, rendering into English; here the RDL's Theotokos is the '65 liturgicons's Mother of God, and is here rendered consistent with the hymn's proposed text as Birthgiver of God:



In this ekphonesis: the word blessed is not the same as in the hymn's blessed; the word glorious is not the hynm's use of glory which is, however, the same as the hymn's word blessed; and Virgin is not the same as the hymn's use of virgin. Some of these issues are reflected in variations in the other translation versions given in an earlier post.

Consideration is given to the hymn making an allusion to Luke 1:48 all generations will call me blessed. After some allowances and compromises I suggest:

Also, I provide a suggested setting in Tone 6 Samohlasen indicating it is quite singable (more so for me than the present version).

Link to the pdf file: link

Might I recommend printing out and reading Deacon Anthony's work at the link he gave? It is very good analysis and bears a more careful study than (at least I) can manage on a screen.

In the end, though, I still see no reason for any change to this text. The 1964 text and musical setting were both quite good and had become a theme song for our Church. There was no reason whatsoever to destroy it. It met the standards of accurate translation and sing-ability. Any change should have waited until such time as there is a text common to all Byzantines.