The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
AlexAba, AlexA, Nicholas Schaeffer, Regf2, SomeInquirer
5,884 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
9 members (Giovanni1, Hutsul, MalpanaGiwargis, Fr. Deacon Lance, Fr. Al, griego catolico, 3 invisible), 68 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,222
Posts415,317
Members5,884
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#405913 05/23/14 09:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
Christ is risen!

This evening was was reading an article by Neil Moran called "The Musical Gestaltung of the Great Entrance Ceremony. The article is available here: Academia.edu [academia.edu]

On page 175, he discusses variant readings in the Cherubikon. focusing on the word "prosadontes", there is an older variant that is attested-"prosagontes". He points out that this other variant is where the in the Slavonic "prinosja�ce"-"offering". He also argues that Taft's dismissal of this translation as an errant reading is incorrect. Since the Ruthenian use has "prinosja�ce", should the translation of "trisvjat�ju pisn'; prinosj�ce" be "offer the Thrice-holy (Trisagion) hymn"? In the RDL, as well as the the Study Text of the Divine Liturgy offered on this forum, the translation is "sing" instead of "offering." Thoughts?

Adam

Last edited by akemner; 05/24/14 08:27 AM.
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 88
There's no real difference in effect, is there?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
I think it does make a difference, like the use of the participle during the priest's exclamation right before "Se hymnoumen". I think we can take "the thrice-holy hymn" to refer to the "Holy, holy, holy" of the Anaphora. "Offering" the hymn would then make it a part of the offering as a whole, whereas "sing" can imply the "Holy, holy, holy" is an interruption of sorts, or is sung to cover the silent prayers of the priest, instead of an integral part of the Anaphora (which is it for JAS, BAS, and CHR). The more i think about it, with the prayers of the Anaphora said aloud, "offering" is the preferred reading.

Last edited by akemner; 05/24/14 08:17 AM. Reason: Realized Slavonic interprets underlying Greek as an active participle, not aorist
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by akemner
Christ is risen!

This evening was was reading an article by Neil Moran called "The Musical Gestaltung of the Great Entrance Ceremony. The article is available here: Academia.edu [academia.edu]

On page 175, he discusses variant readings in the Cherubikon. focusing on the word "prosadontes", there is an older variant that is attested-"prosagontes". He points out that this other variant is where the in the Slavonic "prinosjace"-"offering". He also argues that Taft's dismissal of this translation as an errant reading is incorrect. Since the Ruthenian use has "prinosjace", should the translation of "trisvjatju pisn'; prinosjce" be "offer the Thrice-holy (Trisagion) hymn"? In the RDL, as well as the the Study Text of the Divine Liturgy offered on this forum, the translation is "sing" instead of "offering." Thoughts?

Adam
Thanks for bringing this interesting article to our attention.

The version in the Prostopinije (published prior to the Recension's promulgation by Rome in the 40's) and even the Levkulic pew book of the 70's do not necessarily follow the Recension text. Levkulic sometimes gives the Vulgata version.

The actual Recension text followed by the RDL and the Study Text can be found in the Apostol, p 730 and the Sluebnik, p 230, and in part has:

... pisn pripivauče, vsjakoe nyni itejskoe otloim popečenie.

Sing and not offer is, therefore, the rendering for this Recension text.


I believe the decision was made not to change the version the people sing since it was so familiar.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
Ah I see. I was using the Bokshaj Prostopinije and the Velikij Sbornik as my sources, and not the Roman edition.

Incidentally, when "now and ever and forever" was changed to "now and ever and to the ages of ages", the argument whether to change something based on what is familiar to people becomes rather weak and sounds arbitrary. I can understand using one source and sticking with it, though. However, it does raise the question about this apparent Russification in the Roman edition, and whether it represents an authentic Ruthenian tradition.

In Christ,
Adam

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 17
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 17
Originally Posted by akemner
I think it does make a difference, like the use of the participle during the priest's exclamation right before "Se hymnoumen". I think we can take "the thrice-holy hymn" to refer to the "Holy, holy, holy" of the Anaphora. "Offering" the hymn would then make it a part of the offering as a whole, whereas "sing" can imply the "Holy, holy, holy" is an interruption of sorts, or is sung to cover the silent prayers of the priest, instead of an integral part of the Anaphora (which is it for JAS, BAS, and CHR). The more i think about it, with the prayers of the Anaphora said aloud, "offering" is the preferred reading.
The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Singing, shouting, crying out and saying the triumphal hymn:"


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by akemner
Incidentally, when "now and ever and forever" was changed to "now and ever and to the ages of ages", the argument whether to change something based on what is familiar to people becomes rather weak and sounds arbitrary.

... ages of ages is the (literal) Study Text translation. The RDL retains the use of ... ever and forever.

Originally Posted by akemner
I can understand using one source and sticking with it, though.
The Study Text is a translation of the Liturgicon and does not reflect a choice of Slavonic sources. It is the BCC that (I believe) has decided (I'd say not inappropriately) to have the clergy follow Rome's Recension Liturgicon but the people continue the Prostopinje version. This of course refers to the Slavonic and not the English.


Originally Posted by akemner
However, it does raise the question about this apparent Russification in the Roman edition, and whether it represents an authentic Ruthenian tradition.

Why would it be a Russification? The Ruthenian Recension example text I gave is significantly different from the (Russian) Volgata Recension.


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
I apologize, and am terribly confused-please bear with me as I sort this out.

1. My understanding is then, is that the Study Text seeks to be a more correct or better translation of the Roman Edition Liturgicon (as opposed to the RDL or even 1976/1964 translation). Is this Correct?

2. Does Russian = Vulgata in this conversation?

3. If point 1. is correct, then the Liturgicon reflects a modern Russian (and Greek) reading of the Cherubikon, as opposed to a reading that is found in Ruthenian-produced sources (in this case, Levkulic, Bokshaj Prostopinije, and 1937 Velikij Sbornik, and I most, if not all, other sources). Thus, based on based on that distinction, the Liturgicon reflects a Russification of the text. I am concerned that if the aim is preserve and keep alive a real Ruthenian usage, but preference is given to the Russian text, then why confuse things further, and just use the Russian text?

4. I assume that the Study text is faithfully translating the Liturgicon. Thus the question I raise is tangential to the topic, and I apologize for getting off topic, since the RDL is also translating the Cherubicon more or less correctly (vocabulary-wise, but not grammatically-I think preserving the active participles would be better, though it it would necessitate rethinking "representing" as a different word-"depicting" perhaps-since "respresenting" is a terrible word to set, sing, and does not convey the graphic quality of "ikonizontes"/"obrazujushche" as well).








Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
Quote
The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Singing, shouting, crying out and saying the triumphal hymn:"

Right, "singing" in the Cherubicon it is a good parallel and ty-in. However, is there a theological reason not to use "offering"? The "Holy, holy, holy" is clearly a part of the Anaphora-is the "offering" referencing and reinforning the leitourgia of the people? Not everyone can offer bread or wine for the Eucharist, but when we sing the "Holy, holy, holy" we are participating the the offering of the Anaphora itself. Not only these times, but also with the "Amens", and when the Priest says "The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all. (sic)", the people respond "We praise You,...". This could also be rendered "We hymn You," or "We sing (to) You,", so that neatly ties the singing of the people with the offering. I still like it as a legitimate reading.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by akemner
I apologize, and am terribly confused-please bear with me as I sort this out.
Not at all. I inadvertently missled you; see below.

Originally Posted by akemner
1. My understanding is then, is that the Study Text seeks to be a more correct or better translation of the Roman Edition Liturgicon (as opposed to the RDL or even 1976/1964 translation). Is this Correct?
Yes.

Originally Posted by akemner
2. Does Russian = Vulgata in this conversation?
I'm referring to Rome's Slavonic text used by all except the Ruthenians. I don't know the present Russian Orthodox usage but it should be close to Rome's Volgata.

Originally Posted by akemner
3. If point 1. is correct, then the Liturgicon reflects a modern Russian (and Greek) reading of the Cherubikon, as opposed to a reading that is found in Ruthenian-produced sources (in this case, Levkulic, Bokshaj Prostopinije, and 1937 Velikij Sbornik, and I most, if not all, other sources). Thus, based on based on that distinction, the Liturgicon reflects a Russification of the text. I am concerned that if the aim is preserve and keep alive a real Ruthenian usage, but preference is given to the Russian text, then why confuse things further, and just use the Russian text?
I'm confused here too. The conventional wisdom is that the Ruthenian Recension reversed the Russian-Nikonian usage and restored the original Ruthenian forms. It did this in some significant places but here, as you correctly point out, it did not for some bewildering reason. I had forgotten my previous slip and correction: see Re: On Resistance to the 1941 Ruthenian Books

So, when I said above
Originally Posted by ajk
Why would it be a Russification? The Ruthenian Recension example text I gave is significantly different from the (Russian) Volgata Recension.
I was wrong; the opposite is the case.

Originally Posted by akemner
4. I assume that the Study text is faithfully translating the Liturgicon. Thus the question I raise is tangential to the topic, and I apologize for getting off topic, since the RDL is also translating the Cherubicon more or less correctly (vocabulary-wise, but not grammatically-I think preserving the active participles would be better, though it it would necessitate rethinking "representing" as a different word-"depicting" perhaps-since "respresenting" is a terrible word to set, sing, and does not convey the graphic quality of "ikonizontes"/"obrazujushche" as well).
The Study Text strives to be faithful, thorough and complete. IMHO the RDL in its innovations is too much the translators and too little of the received text.

Regarding the use of participles: Grammatical usages of a source language can be correctly translated and understandable though not conforming to the best expression in the receptor language. The Greek of the Creed, for instance, is a string of participial phrases conforming to the standard usage of the Greek, but it's not the English language's standard or preferred or expected syntax: Retaining grammatical equivalency in that example would, I think, sound awkward in English.







Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by akemner
... "The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all. (sic)", the people respond "We praise You,...".
" ...the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all." I'm confused -- not following this.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 17
Moderator
Member
Online Content
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 17
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by akemner
... "The thrice-holy hymn referred to is undoubtedly the Sanctus, which is why I would disagree about changing it because the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all. (sic)", the people respond "We praise You,...".
" ...the Sanctus is introduced by the exclamation: "Offering You, Your own, from Your own, in behalf of all and for all." I'm confused -- not following this.
No "Offering You..." Introduces: "We praise, we bless, we thank you, O Lord, and we pray to you our God."

In fact it does not so much introduce it as it is the first phrase of one long sentence.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
akemner Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 629
Likes: 9
Oh golly, that was a bad mistake "Singing, Shouting, &c" introduces the Sanctus, and of course "Offering You, &c" is the first part of "We praise You, ..." I was trying to bring together the point that "Offering" and "We praise (or could be rendered: sing (to)) You" in a way that shows the people's praise/song, as a part of their offering of the Anaphora. Maybe I am making too much of this line of thought. I thought that it made a good bookend for the "offering" reading in the Cherubikon, bringing the action that started at the Great Entrance home to the consecration.


Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5