www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy New Catholic Missal

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11324/1191245-455.stm

I found this part interesting:

"In 2001 the Vatican ruled that all translations must be literal, from the Latin, and eschew gender-inclusion."

Would not the case then be for the Byzantine Ruthenian Church, the translation must be from Slavonic, not Greek, and eschew all the gender inclusive language?

ALexandr

Don't rely on the secular press for accurate reporting of religious topics.

That's what some of us have been pointing out: As was done for the 1965 liturgicon, translate from the Slavonic of our recension aided by the Greek where further clarity is needed; translate "as literal as possible, as free as necessary"; gender inclusivity is automatic given a literal-oriented translation employing standard and accepted conventions of the English language on gender.

While the BCC is not directly addressed by the 2001 Vatican directive, consider that the BCC's 1965 liturgicon (ahead of its time!?) conformed to the directive while the 2007 RDL liturgicon intentionally and with gusto , does not conform. So now at every Divine Liturgy our proclaimed theology -- and what I believe should be considered an embarrassment -- is that Christ "loves us all" because we don't want to say something as literal and true and profound and beautiful as He "loves Mankind." And it also seems that our present liturgical translation -- what it stands for and where its headed and leading us -- is, sadly, something of a metaphor for our Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church.

For those who might find this confusing, it means English, lacking a neuter, the use of the word "man" (and its derivatives, such as "mankind") automatically includes women; and that the use of the pronouns "he", "him", "his" and "himself" automatically includes the possibility of a female when sex is not specified (thus allowing pronouns to agree).

As regards the 1965 translation of the Liturgicon, the more I compare it to the RDL, the more impressive it becomes, both as a work of scholarship and a work of art. A humble translator would have approached it with respect and could have accomplished most of the necessary revision using a pencil with a light touch.

Embarrassing, but not nearly as embarrassing as having to say "We offer Your own to what is Your own, everywhere and always", which is not a translation or even a paraphrase, but shear invention.

The actually rendering is "always and everywhere" but that doesn't change the problem. That unconventional rendering is based on the academic conjecture of a recognized scholar. I have no issue with academic conjecture within reason, that's what scholars should do. Those who take such, the speculation of one man, one academic, however, and make it a significant element of the liturgical translation of one church need, IMHO, to rethink their priorities and judgement. Other details were covered in a previous thread, Is "always and everywhere" in the RDL a good translation? , in which link I summed up my considerations.

The problem is, it's not a translation at all, and when challenged on the point, all we get is talk about "manuscript evidence". Well, if such evidence exists, normal academic review would demand it be presented for outside scrutiny. Instead, we get Ozian logic ("Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"). The implication of said academic is the existence of a text that justifies that rendering. That nobody else seems to have found it, and that people have been writing homilies and commentaries on "Thine own of thine own we offer Thee, in behalf of all and for all", which is not only the classic English rendering, but the only correct one (whether one goes with the Greek or the Slavonic sources).

In this instance it's not "manuscript evidence." No one was disputing the Greek (or Slavonic) just whether the Greek is an idiom that is obscured by the usual literal rendering in English. The big "manuscript evidence" stink involved "Mercy, peace" instead of the literal -- from both received Greek and Recension Slavonic -- "Mercy of peace."

I distinctly remember Father David Petras saying the translation was justified by variant texts, but he never produced the goods. In any case, it is not the job of the translator to resolve ambiguities or impose his own interpretation of idioms. The translator lets the text speak for itself. One of the cardinal errors of ICEL was its relentless didacticism and efforts to remove all possible ambiguity from the text of the Roman Missal. Of course, in the process of disambiguation, they arbitrarily imposed their own understanding upon the text, which a translator should never do.

There is a direct parallel in the original ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo: in translating "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And also with you", the translators assumed (and said so in many places) that "And with your spirit" was a Semitic idiom best translated "And also with you", which, it turned out, was entirely false (as both Father Robert Taft and Archimandrite Serge pointed out in separate articles).

As for Milost' mirom, I have no doubt that "Mercy, peace, the sacrifice of praise" was the original response, but if anything, this is far more ambiguous than "Thine own of Thine own . . ", which makes the RDL both inconsistent and incoherent in its approach to the original Slavonic text.

I never heard Fr. David speak on the topic but in his writing he gave a reference to the source: author's name and publication. There, as I recall, the text was not in dispute.


Why "no doubt"?

[BTW the Recension has the genitive, i.e. Milost' mira as does Rome's 1950 Greek (eleon eirēnēs).]