www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Ta aghia tis aghies

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