I went to Vespers tonight, and as I was cantoring, I noticed two things. First, the prayer of the Holy Prophet Simeon. The current translation of this scripture(Luke 2:29 and following), from IELC's second revised edition of Vespers, July 2005, renders it �Now you may dismiss your servant, O Lord.� The Greek word translated as �Lord� is �despota,� which also, and more correctly, may be translated as �master,� especially since we usually reserve �Lord� for �Kyrios.� Nevertheless, here, the IELC has decided that �despota� should be �Lord.� But on the very next page, in the prayer �Most Holy Trinity have mercy on us: Lord, cleanse us of our sins; Master, forgive our transgressions,� the word �despota� is rendered �Master.� Why the change? In the space of two pages, the same word in the original is given two different translations. If "Master" is used in the prayer to the Trinity because of the mention of "Lord" on the previous line, why not retain "Master" in the prayer of Simeon, so that the translation will be consistent?
What is particularly strange is that the 2002 edition of Vespers renders the prayer of Simeon as �Now you may dismiss your servant, O Master.� This means that someone made the conscious decision to change the translation of �despota� when referring to Christ from �Master� to �Lord,� while retaining the translation of �despota� as �Master� on the following page.
I noticed another thing: it has been argued that for various reasons we may not use the word �orthodox� in the Liturgy, and instead we translate it as �of the true faith.� That is, in fact, how the current Vespers text does it: �O God, strengthen the true faith forever and ever.� But as we sang the Troparion of Basil, I was shocked to find that it reads �Guide to Orthodoxy, teacher of piety and holiness. . . .� Shouldn't it be �Guide to the true faith, teacher of piety, etc.?� If we can't use �Orthodox� in the Liturgy or the Vespers, why can we use it in the troparia?
To me, these look like inconsistencies of translation, like errors. But, I know that the people behind the translations are not the sort of people to make errors. There must, therefore, be some deep reason for the shift in the translation of �despota� and the change in the permissibility of the word �orthodox� from the Liturgy to the troparia. What is it?
Is there a way to subscribe to a thread without posting in it? I'd like to follow this discussion but have nothing to add to it.
You dont have to log into the forum to read the postings. That how the bishops and some clergy prefer to do it so I am told
and no one knows they are there reading. You also could do the same.
Dear Pseudo-Athanasius,
Thank you so much for bringing these two inconsistencies to my attention; they shall not go to waste!
Fr. Serge
Originally posted by Pavel Ivanovich:
You dont have to log into the forum to read the postings. That how the bishops and some clergy prefer to do it so I am told and no one knows they are there reading. You also could do the same. Pavel,
I know nothing of their viewing habits, but I was referring to the email notification I get on subscribed threads. I wanted to follow when it was updated without having to post in it to be able to check off the Email Notification box.
Change your details on the profile to modify what you want, or consult the Administrator directly.
The variations you mention, P-A, are all found in the 1976 Byzantine Book of Prayer, which in turn took translations from Archbishop Raya's Byzantine Daily Worship:
Canticle of Simeon: "Now you shall dismiss your servant, O Lord"
Usual beginning: "O Master, forgive our transgressions"
Commemorations: "and all you Christians of the true faith"
Common Troparion of a Confessor: "Guide of Orthodoxy, mirror of piety"
So in essence the IELC is keeping texts unchanged that we are currently using in each of these cases. Since there are recurrent calls on this forum to change as little as possible in our current texts, I fail to see much to build a conspiracy theory over.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Dear Jeff,
The problem with the translation is not that it changes things, but that it is incorrect. If the 1976 edition is incorrect, but the errors are not to be fixed, what's the point of a new translation?
Besides, wouldn't the texts to be considered not be the Byzantine Daily Prayer book, but whatever texts were used for Vespers?
Originally posted by Pseudo-Athanasius:
The problem with the translation is not that it changes things, but that it is incorrect.
But is it incorrect? Or is this an issue of style rather than substance? Let's look at how other Eastern Christians have translated these into English.
The Melkites (in Archbishop Raya's books) have "Now you shall dismiss your servant, O Lord", but "O Master, forgive our transgressions."
The Old Believers (Erie prayerbook) have "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant", but "O Master, forgive our iniquities."
Mother Mary and Bishop Kallistos Ware (Festal Menaion) have "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant" but "O Master, forgive our transgressions."
The Ukrainian Catholics (My Divine Friend, 1959) have "Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord", but "O Master, forgive us our iniquities."
The Ruthenian Catholics (1976) have "Now you shall dismiss your servant, O Lord", but "O Master, forgive our transgressions."
And the proposed People's Book (which matches the current MCI Vespers book) has the same - but somehow it is incorrect? Do you plan to ask the Melkites, and Old Believers, and Bishop Kallistos to correct this mistake as well?
Yours in puzzlement,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Dear Jeff,
Yes, it is incorrect. The text is Luke 2:29. Look in the New American Bible, or the Greek text, if you have it handy. The word is "despota," the same word that is translated "master" in the following prayer. "Lord" is properly reserved for "Kyrios."
Shouldn't we translate the same word the same way? It doesn't really matter what the old texts say, if they aren't faithful to the original.
There is a difference between apparent inconsistency and incorrectness. It has already been noted pointed out, even by Fr. Serge, that there are times that different words in the target are used to translate a given word in the sources to communicate most properly the original meaning. Despota may be an example. In the dismissal at liturgy, it is translated into English by various juridictions as Father or Master. Is this variation really "incorrect"?
What about the Canticle? This is straight out of Luke. There should, I would think, be an effort for consistency between the scripture and the quotation from it. The translation "Lord" has a long history in English Bibles. So there is a dilemma: consistency with other tranlsations of "despota" in the services or in the Bible.
I suppose that we can look forward to a continuing proliferation of Bible translations where we will have to face the question of the degree to which the decisions made in crafting the KJV or DR should be binding the retranslation. Won't that be fun?
P-A, you started by asking what the "deep reasons" are for the inconsistency (I'm not sure which 2002 Vespers text you are referring to), but the IELC is using the same translations for these phrases we have had to 40 years. I question whether there is really evidence for some sort of plot here.
As far as "Orthodoxy" - I suspect that if I told my pastor, and the OCA pastor down the street, that we had "ninety Orthodox Christians" at our Divine Liturgy this morning, both would be surprised. At this point, changing "Christians of the true faith" to "Orthodox Christians" will require both some explanation, and some getting used to. I'm glad to see the word Orthodoxy starting to appear in our official books, and I hope the trend toward consistency continues. Would you really rather we avoid the word entirely until we can use it everywhere? (E.g. "Commemoration of the Holy Images" in Msgr. Lekvulic's 1978 book, versus "Sunday of Orthodoxy" in the proposed book.)
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
P-A: You responded to my question before I posted it!
Let me make the point more technically: the mapping of words in language to another is, in general, not isomorphic. Therefore an "inconsistency" in words used to translate a given source word into a target cannot be taken as indicating, ipso facto, an incorrect translation.
djs - as to whether the variation between "Father bless" and "Master bless" in requesting the dismissal is correct, that depends on which one chooses in addressing whom: in that particular context one says "Master bless" to the Bishop (or in the cathedral even in the bishop's absence) and "Father bless" to the Priest.
Fr Serge
Dear djs and Jeff,
Yes, occasionally the same word can be translated differently in diferent spots, but I don't see that there's any reason to do that in this case. I see lots of reason not to do it, especially in that our original Greek text of the liturgy was written by people who either spoke or read the original Greek of the New Testament. So, if there is a juxtaposition of "despota" with "despota," it is probable that there is a good reason for it, theologically, or at least that we are supposed to recall using the word in the canticle just a few minutes before.
This is similar to my reasons for preferring "Master" for "Despota" in the liturgy. If we decide to use different words to translate the same word, we run the risk of losing parallels and threads of meaning in the original, such as the parallel between the priest as "despota" and Christ as "despota."
Why translate "despota" from the Canticle as "Lord?" Just because lots of other people do? If we are just going to go with the flow, why change our translations at all? The idea behind a new translation is to improve things, isn't it?
Yes, Father. In fact, IIRC I made that point in the context of the discussion of the Deacon's "Despota" at the beginning of the Liturgy.
Dear Jeff,
You write that you are glad to see the word "Orthodoxy" appear in our books; so am I. But if the approach to that word is going to be incremental, that presumes that there is already a new translation planned after the present new translation.
If we are capable of celebrating the Sunday of Orthodoxy, why can't we pray for all orthodox Christians? If the one is offensive, so would the other, and, conversely, if one is inoffensive, so is the other.
This is similar to my reasons for preferring "Master" for "Despota" in the liturgy. If we decide to use different words to translate the same word, we run the risk of losing parallels and threads of meaning in the original, such as the parallel between the priest as "despota" and Christ as "despota."
The relevant question is: are/were these parallels really there or is that an artifact or our translation and our distant perspective on the source language? You say that the parallel is between Christ and the Priest. Other learned posters strongly objected to making a parallel with one person of the Trinity. What is the right meaning and theology?
This makes me think of another example: You expressed a dissatifaction with "Holy Gifts to Holy People" preferring the less specific text that was open to broader interpretations. But are they actually there? The Greek and Slavonic or English never fired the neurons for me like the French or German:
"Les Choses Saintes aux saints"
"Das Heilige den Heiligen"
English picked up things from here and there; our talk of "holy" (things) is germanic, but of holy people - saints - is romance. Now I think: food that makes saints. Is this right?
Btw, I checked, and two of the three Bible translations approved for use in the BCC according to FD Lance use "Master" in the canticle, the other, "Lord".
that presumes that there is already a new translation planned after the present new translation.
Isn't this obvious. While I don't know if one is already "planned", one is certainly expected. Fr. David has explicitly said this. This is, of course, why incremental progress, tempered with an understanding of where we are, should not be taken as obstacle, but as a path, possibly the surest one, toward our goals. This process allows a gradual, corporate convergence to a "best" practices - which would probably see wide use across jurisdicitions. What are the other alternatives?
Originally posted by djs:
This makes me think of another example: You expressed a dissatifaction with "Holy Gifts to Holy People" preferring the less specific text that was open to broader interpretations. But are they actually there? The Greek and Slavonic or English never fired the neurons for me like the French or German:
"Les Choses Saintes aux saints"
"Das Heilige den Heiligen"
Just for a point of clarification, the French according to Diaconie Apostolique, 2000 Editions de Chevetogne, "La Divine Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome" (which is the authoratative French translation for both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics) reads
Aux saints les choses saintes! As you can see the earlier version was corrected with 2000 translation. The earlier Swiss version has been withdrawn for various reasons including translation inaccuracies.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Who is fluent and serves in French also.
Just for completeness, here is the link I used.
http://www.pagesorthodoxes.net/liturgie/liturgie.htm Here's one with the newer version.
http://www.assomptionorient.altervista.org/ortodoxie/la%20divine%20liturgie.htm The reversed syntax now has the sound of a toast.
Father, do you hear different things when you serve in different languages in which you are fluent?
djs,
I checked the website that you cited, and the liturgy listed is the older rendition. Having served as recently as nine weeks ago both in Paris and throughout Belgium, the edition that I cited above is used almost exclusively with a few holdouts of only a few of the older priests.
I believe as far as the Orthodox in France go, the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in France have promulgated the use of only one translation for francophone parishes. When I was about to use the older version one time at Saint Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Paris, the hierarch serving presented me with the newer version and asked that the older one not be used in the future. It is a shame though, for what is not shown on the website that you cited, is that parallel Greek and Slavonic was also provided to cut down on the need for multiple service books.
From what I understand from the fathers at Chevetogne, the same is being done in Eastern Catholic parishes in the francophone parishes throughout the Europe. This is being done for both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics to cut back on the numerous efforts and difference that existed before this, besides the liturgical and linguistic inaccuracies and abbreviations.
As far as the use of of different renditions, the francophone parishes are less tolerant of variations and were the ones that requested a more accurate translation, culminating with 2000 release.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
the francophone parishes are less tolerant of variations and were the ones that requested a more accurate translation
Well, they are used to being governed by the Academie Francaise. We are not used to being governed at all.
Btw the website referred to a Monastery St. Michel. This is not at Mont St. Michel is it?
Originally posted by djs:
the francophone parishes are less tolerant of variations and were the ones that requested a more accurate translation
Btw the website referred to a Monastery St. Michel. This is not at Mont St. Michel is it? AH! If it was only that simple, the need for this forum section would not be necessary.
No, I do not believe that this is the infamous Mont St. Michel Monastery. That monastery is exclusively Benedictine and does not have any Byzantine Chapels there. I have been to Mont St. Michel several times and stayed with the brotherhood there. The order that you gave in your second link is one I am totally unfamiliar with.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Well, they are used to being governed by the Academie Francaise. We are not used to being governed at all.]
Isn't there some famous quote about organized religion? If not, there should be. Sometimes in conversation with people, they will tell me of their problems with organized religion. I reply that I would like to try an organized religion; is there any such thing?
Karl,
The Academie Francaise governs the use of the French language and its application. It has nothing to do with religion, that would be un-French
.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Mon cher Pere Antoine!
Vive le roi chretien!
fraternellement dans le Seigneur Jesus-Christ,
Serge
The site for the second link Fr Anthony was from:
site de la famille des Augustins et des Oblates de l'Assomption
I thought it odd that it mentioned Plovdiv. So I consulted St Google and it is from an Augustinians of the Assumption Byz Catholic site.
Can you find a link to the official, Orthodox version?
djs,
Right now there is no official Orthodox version. The AEOF (the French Orthodox Bishops Council) is using the Chevetogne 2000 edition. I just emailed Chevetogne about why they do not have it online, and my guess is that their response will be the restrictive copyright they have on most of their materials.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
The use of "orthodox" has rich meaning in the English language. I am thinking of Chesterton's book, "Orthodoxy." Since we live in an English speaking world, he may have some insights for us. Chesterton writes in the first chapter:
But nearly all
people I have ever met in this western society in which I live
would agree to the general proposition that we need this life
of practical romance; the combination of something that is strange
with something that is secure. We need so to view the world as to
combine an idea of wonder and an idea of welcome. We need to be
happy in this wonderland without once being merely comfortable.
It is THIS achievement of my creed that I shall chiefly pursue in
these pages.
Here is another gem of "orthodoxy:"
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern
world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues.
When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered
at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose.
The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage.
But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander
more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern
world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues
have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other
and are wandering alone.
Here is another quote from Chesterton which adds some interesting insights on whether we ought to use the term "Orthodox." It is from a work called, "Heretics" which admittedly, other than this portion, I have not read.
XX. Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Orthodoxy
Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too
little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found
our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has
not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument,
that there has been in the past, or will be in the future,
such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself,
there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against
the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern
notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned
with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting
away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth,
it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions,
into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming
to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty.
When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of
something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms.
It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down
a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut.
Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal
who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools,
in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined
as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine
and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous
scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense
of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human.
When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism,
when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has
outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality,
when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form
of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process
sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals
and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas.
Turnips are singularly broad-minded.
By all means let us use the term orthodox without fear. But let our words reflect the reality of that which we are or should be.
Chesterton'w works can be found online here:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/
Many, many thanks!
Fr. Serge
Avery Cardinal Dulles has a wonderful article in this month's issue of "First Things," entitled, "The Orthodox Imperative." It is not available on-line yet but it should be in the near future at:
http://www.firstthings.com/
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
Many, many thanks!
Fr. Serge
Maisie Ward's biography of Chesterton just appeared at Gutenberg.
Cick here. [
gutenberg.org]
I noticed some more inconsistencies this past Saturday at Vespers. The prayers of the priest in Vespers (in the MCI edition) use the phrase "who loves mankind." The tropars and stichera use some variation of "who loves us all."
Now, if the motive for the latter is, to some degree, to reduce the offense given by the word "mankind," what will happen when those who may be offended hear the priest prayers?
If "mankind" can't be uttered, it seems it shouldn't be uttered anywhere. If it is permitted sometimes, it should be permitted all the time.
Dear Friends,
In our English translation of the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy, the word for "Orthodox" is given with a small "o."
I think that is nonsense.
But what do you think?
What difference does the capitalization make?
Alex (Orthodox Druid)
Orthodox=a religion
orthodox="right teaching" or more generally "of the true faith"
Catholic=a religion
catholic="throughout the whole" or more generally "universal"
It is my understanding that the word orthodox when used in the liturgy is referring to the second definition and would therefore use a lower case letter, just as the word catholic is referring to its second definition and therefore uses a lower case letter.
I believe they are referring to their roots in the Orthodox religion (and its entailing theology, praxis, spirituality, etc), which would be using the first definition and therefore the capital letter. They can correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
Dear Wondering,
Well, that's just it.
What religion does "Orthodox" refer to?
If the Administrator is serious, and he really is, then by saying "Orthodox in communion with Rome" - he is affirming that the Orthodox religion was and, for him, myself and other Oblate novices etc., is all about communion with Rome.
In that sense, "Orthodox" refers to more than one "religion" insofar as there are "Orthodox" who are in communion with Rome, others who are out of it, and then the Oriental Orthodox who are out of communion with the first two.
We always have these disagreements at our parish.
And we have a genius who STILL has a mission to cross out even "orthodox" from the liturgical pamphlets . . .
Alex