Thanks!

That is not a Litourgikon. It only contains the basic text of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

It is still to be used "ad experimentum" and looks, from the feeling at the last synod, as being approved for use as our translation in English.

We printed sufficient copies for the bishops and clergy, I believe, in Lebanon. But we did not print official copies for the people, in case any texts changed.

Presumably most parishes would have used whatever electronic means is at their disposal to reprint or project the new text.

I for one do not see any reason to change from what we are using (essentially the Raya text) for one which is fundamentally inferior in quite a number of ways. One gets the impression that all these recent translations are written by people who have very little capability for writing in English or feel for the English language--and I include in that quite a number of American-born, university educated clerics. This should not surprise: I deal with graduate theses on a regular basis, and even my low expectations are constantly being disappointed. My wife, a professional translator in charge of setting standards for and the hiring of translators, tells me that only people scoring in the top five percent in reading comprehension have the potential to make good translators.

Stuart:

Christ is in our midst!!

And I thought I was the only one who stumbles over much of what passes for written communication in the last number of years. Unfortunately, I think that the push for pliitically correct language in the academy is at the root of the problem you identify. And I'm not sure how one remedies a structural, institutional problem with such long standing support from those now in control of the education establishment.

I haven't seen the new translation, but from new translations I am familiar with in the Latin Church, they are written by people who don't pray. Putting words together on paper do not make for good prayer. As Metropolitan Anthony says in his books on prayer, a man should pray for a number of years the prayers written by others to get the "feel" for prayer and the way that the Church prays before he goes off to compose prayers.

Bob

It's not just political correctness that is to blame. Grammar is no longer taught, nor is writing stressed as much as it ought to be. But, as far as liturgical translation goes, I would point a finger at the decline in rhetoric and a failure to understand the fundamental orality of liturgical texts--which, like the Bible, were meant to be read aloud. I recently read an article by a woman who teaches people to read and understand the King James Bible. She made an important point: this was a book meant to be read aloud, and when one does so, the first thing one notices is how well the sentences flow, unforced and without a hint of awkwardness. Moreover, and aside from the issue of some arcane vocabulary and obsolete terminology, most of the problems of comprehension also fall by the wayside.

The rule that I learned, early on, and by shameless plagiarism of good writers, is to write as one speaks, and to speak plainly in a manner that conveys the plain meaning of what you want to say. Underlying the problem of poor writing is the problem of poor speaking--most people can't even say a proper English sentence, let alone put one on paper.

In earlier times, people would say "let us hear that play."

Just reading Shakespeare, as another example, is to ignore the manner it was intended to be experienced. It never occured to me to understand the Bible, much less the KJV, in the same sense. The same concepts apply. People who can't make heads or tails of Hamlet or Lear in a class see a live performance and are blown away.

I know that the late Archbishop Raya's translation moved one of the Litanies to a different place and he used the Epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom in the Liturgy of St. Basil, and those need to be fixed, but there was also a 1956 translaton of the Liturgy that came from Rome that was just fine. There were no problems with it. What I'm afraid of is a watered-down set of Liturgies that take away the meaning... that's exactly what happened to the Latins. There's no reason why the 1956 English translation of the Greek Liturgy can't be used.

Yes, the 1956 translation of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom was the best one as well as the one that Capella Romana sings on it's Divine Liturgy in English CD, which is from england.

I have created an EPUB (i.e., eBook) version for use by the people, if anyone is interested. Available in Arabic or English.

It does not contain all the rubrics, nor all possible variations. It is more in the style of a Western pew book.

Dear Matta:
How does one obtain it?

I love that recording. It's one reason my gaze is fixed eastward.