www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1

It occurred to me as I was walking away from the computer that I may have confused things by using Theotokos as an example for my question on the standard of literal translation.

Birthgiver of God is not actually a literal translation in the strict linguistic sense. Theotokos must be transliterated since there is no one word in English to meet the meaning of Theotokos in conciliar or in later ecclisiastical use.

So in that sense we are already making adjustments to literal translation, if you see what I mean.

But my question still remains, do you and Father Serge see literal translation as the primary criteria and standard for good liturgical translation?

Eli

Eli,

First, this is what you admit is a tangential question. It properly belongs in a new thread. I will respond on the condition that you not respond back to me. If you wish to discuss the issue further you are welcome to start a new thread. If you have not read the book you should really not be posting in this thread. I understand that the moderator is going to delete any posts not directly relevant to Father Serge�s book.

What I have consistently advocated in translation is what Biblical scholars call an �essentially literal� translation. This style attempts to present the exact wording and style of the original text. The �essentially literal� style takes into account the needs of grammar, syntax and idiom of the English language. The �essentially literal� style tries its best to present what was said as it was said and not to recast it into something else (what was thought to be said).

For rubrics I advocate an exact presentation of the original, allowing only for the need to present the Slavonic text in clear and elegant English. The rubrics in the English edition should be identical to the rubrics in the Slavonic edition. It seems logical to match the style of the book layout to that of the official 1942 Slavonic edition.

There is nothing new about my position. It is the same one I�ve had from the start of these discussions.

Regarding the translation of the term �Theotokos� I can appreciate that the term �Mother of God� is not exact. Somewhere Bishop Kallistos has written that he preferred not translating the term �Theotokos� but, that if you did translate it, the term �Mother of God� is best. I have noted elsewhere in these discussions that the larger part of the English speaking world has never heard the term �Theotokos� but that almost everyone (even nonbelievers) know who you are talking about when you say �Mother of God�. Given the wide acceptance and common usage of the term �Mother of God� I see no reason to change it in our texts.

The term �Birthgiver of God� is literal but not elegant English. I�ve also seen �she who gave birth to God� which is less literal but a bit more elegant.

Eli, you seem interested in this topic. Why not get the book and read it?

Admin

Dear Eliloft,

You state:

I believe in order to keep this topic focused, since it is a discussion about Father Serge's book, then the poster should read or be reading the book. A poster can buy, or borrow a copy. According to some recent posts, the majority of our clergy may possess a copy of this work.

If this was a thread on how great a specific new car drives, the car's strengths and weaknesses, mpg, safety, etc., then would you expect someone who has not seen, driven, or owned the particular car to post?

Eli, if this thread was about your own parish and your parish' Divine Liturgy, and I have not visited it and experienced the Divine Liturgy, viewed the iconostasis, heard the faithful sing, and smelled your parish's brand of incense, would I have valid input into your parish' thread? I could ask you to describe it, and then sigh and wish I had a piece of that Heaven, but then my contribution to that particular thread would most likely be done. To come into your thread and say your priest does not perform the DL correctly, or use the proper brand of incense that I prefer, or that your cantor sings in a manner that I do not like, [if I have not attended DL at your parish] would be very disrespectful to you and those who have visited and now are sharing their personal observations and feelings.

This thread is intended to share thoughts for those who are currently reading, or have read, Father Serge's book. This request is not meant to have an air of exclusivity, or appear to be discriminatory.

For discussions to the potential reformation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, such as literal translations, inclusive language, rubrics, etc., there is a separate sub forum for these posts.

Thank you.

Michael B.

You won't see me agin!! Not here. Not for a while. No problem!

I have moved over to the other general section on the revised liturgy.

Now I will be cutting and pasting from here because most of my questions are for Father Serge or Father David or Mr. Vernosky based on what they are saying here. I hope that will be acceptable or I will be cut out of the discussion entirely.

Eli the Mensch

Dear Father,

Are you saying that Kai pantwn � kai paswn is literally translated "all men and women?" Kai is the literary device that means Both...and but I did not think that pantwn-paswn indicate any gendered meaning at all.

There is a very important theological meaning, with respect to how we are Redeemed, in that pantwn-paswn as far as I can see, but I fail to see how an essentially literal translation indicates any particular gendered meaning.

I believe I can ask this in the context of this section since it is in response to a direct bit of text belonging to you, and the question is addressed directly to you.

Eli

It is impossible to translate that phrase literally into English, because English does not have gender-determined pronouns for "all" (a distinguished predecessor once suggested, tongue in cheek: for all the hims and all the hers). Greek, French, Church-Slavonic and other languages do have such gender-determined pronouns.

Fr Serge

Dear Fr. Serge: So is "all men and all women" of the 1965 translation consdered something of a gaffe? What is the origin of this translation? Was it Rome?

Dear Father,

Would a fair sense translation be something similar to �each and every single one, one at a time, as well as together as a group"?

I think this is a very important ecclisiastical and theological statement about how we are redeemed and how we are to envision ourselves as Church. Has this meaning been abandoned in the Church?

I am not seeing clearly how the gender reference can be taken directly from the phrase itself.

Eli

I don't follow the problem here. To put it VERY simply:

και is a Greek conjunction meaning "and"

παντων is a MASCULINE Greek pronoun meaning "all"

πασων is a FEMININE Greek pronoun meaning "all"

και παντων και πασων therefore means "and all (male) people and all (female) people.

I do hope that is finally clear. And don't blame me; I didn't write the phrase.

Fr Serge

Dear Father,

I guess that will teach me to stay out of Greek-English dictionaries!!

I don't think there's a problem so much as I am trying to understand how something that is translated so differently in a G-E dictionary comes up here as a male "all" and a female "all" with no other nuance of meaning between the two words indicated, where one would be all in its wholeness and all would be one in its individual parts.

I am not suggesting that you are responsible at all. Just trying to make sense of the phrase and why it might be translated "and all men and women" when it seems to me there is much more to the phrase than the gender of who am "all."

For example I asked a priest friend to tell me how he'd translate that in Latin and he said that if he were to do it, he'd write "pro omnibus et pro singulis".

And then a monk from GOARCH had indicated that kai....kai in parallel construction would translate as 'both...and' which is the only reason I asked about that.

Maybe I should check the Slavonic. If I find it to be interesting I'll note it here.

Eli

CIX!

That priest has just failed both first-year Greek and first-year Latin. 'και παντων και πασων' translates most simply as 'pro omnibus et omnibus' - if one can bear the repetition of 'omnibus'. If one wishes to keep the gender distinction, one may translate it as 'et cunctorum et cunctarum', as Erasmus of Rotterdam did.

The sense of the Greek in no way permits 'pro omnibus et pro singulis'.

The Greek monk is entirely correct.

The Slavonic has 'и всѣхъ и вся', which works out exactly as does the Greek.

There has been the statement that these Greek words are male and female pronouns meaning "all".

The Greek monk who explained the Kai...Kai construction to me said that one is either masculine and neuter and the other is either feminine or neuter and that the context would indicate the gender. He is inclined to the translation that would render both words as neuter with one emphasizing the collective sense of "all" and the other indicating the individuation of the elements in "all" and so he was in agreement with the Latin rendering.

Eli

Response to Father David Petras.

[Sorry that this has taken almost a week; life has been busy!]

Happy Fourth of July, everyone who celebrates it! In days of yore, the Irish Embassy in Dublin used to throw a reception for all the Americans who cared to show up � but no more.

Father David writes that �Fr. Keleher has sent his book to most of the priests in the [Ruthenian] Metropolia.� I appreciate the kudos but, alas, I cannot accept the credit � since I did not and do not have the money to make such a munificent gift, I was not able to do it, nor did I ask anyone to do it in my place. Someone else deserves the credit for this kindness, but since the benefactor remains anonymous, we trust that God will provide the reward.

In the present portion of Father David�s review (and I am looking forward to the complete work), Father discusses the materials in my ninth and tenth chapters. Chapter Nine is devoted to what I find to be inaccurate translations, and Chapter Ten is devoted to translations which require or invite further discussion. Since Father David has kindly followed my numbering I shall do the same in response.

I did indeed write, as Father David quotes, that �a perfect translation of such material is an unattainable goal.� I repeat substantially the same thought in the first sentence of Chapter Ten: �There is, of course, no perfect translation.� [p. 197.] But in the same opening paragraph of Chapter Nine, I also wrote that this awareness �requires the translators to be opening to considering the insights of other in the field, to be willing to learn, and be tolerant of various translations.� Asking the IELC�s indulgence, I fear that they have not entirely fulfilled this requirement, especially in the area of considering the insights of others in the field.

The opening sentence of the second paragraph of Chapter Nine reads that �At the same time, the obligation to strive for accuracy is a serious one.� I maintain that position; a translation is not intended to be a re-write.

No. 1 � on the issue of Despota � Father David writes that �. It is certainly true that Despota means, literally, �Master.� Perhaps in the introduction to the Lord�s Prayer, this was missed, as Fr. Keleher points out�� My thanks to Father David; it is nice to know that my opening point is worth-while in his eyes. But I am, then, all the more puzzled that he would write that �The change of title for human beings serving in a particular role was deliberately changed, since �Master,� in English, is no longer the ordinary greeting for bishops or priests.� In English, �master� is much more often used of men and women than it is used of God (a master-mind, a past master, a chess master, a school-master, a master chef, etc. etc. are all readily understood by most people). When Colin Davey wrote a few years ago that John Paul II was �a master of understatement�, no one assumed that this Anglican theologian had suddenly come to believe that the Pope was God. So there is no particular reason to assume that the retention of �Master� in its accustomed place in liturgical texts would cause people any serious confusion.

As to the Altar, first of all, Father David is correct in his implied criticism of the numbering � this was a proof-reading error and I apologize for it. Next, though, there is no reason to be upset over our normal terminology (even though the Byzantines themselves were casual about the whole business of technical nomenclature). It is simple enough to explain to anyone that we normally use the term �Altar� to mean the Holy Place of the Sacrifice � or what the Latins term the �sanctuary�, while the actual piece of furniture upon which we offer the Sacrifice is known to us as �the Holy Table�. That has the benefit of avoiding the confusion that arises in American English, since the Protestants tend to use the term �sanctuary� for the entire area of the edifice used for worship � thus including what we would term the nave. But I should not complain, since Father David concedes that �Fr. Keleher may be right in calling for more consistency here�. Again, my thanks.

No. 2 � if a village is better called a �community�, then there is no reason not to use the same term for a city and for a monastery. �Village� is not an unknown word and there are thousands of them around the world, including a fair number in the USA, Canada, Australia and England (the countries where the Divine Liturgy is often available in English). Villages are frequently very nice places, and with the development of modern communications (including the Internet) it�s becoming fashionable to live in villages, so the word is neither pejorative or offensive, surely. Most of us are aware of �Antiochian Village�, and I�m told there is a project to establish a �Byzantine Village�. Chicago has a substantial �Ukrainian Village�. So the word is certainly in use.

No. 3 � Father David writes, in full, that �The question of the use of �Orthodox� continues to be vexing for some people. I certainly don�t think we should fear the word �orthodox.� I see a problem in us claiming to be �Orthodox,� when we are not in communion with the world-wide �Orthodox Church,� but my take here seems to be idiosyncratic.�. Unless I misunderstand him completely, he has just conceded my point, in which case he has my thanks. As for the capital letter, which I obviously prefer, I can get along with the lower-case letter in the interests of peace, if need be, because there is no way to indicate upper case or lower case when one is chanting or singing. What Father David may not fully realize is that the absence of the use of �Orthodox� is very vexing for people who value honesty and accuracy, just as using some euphemism instead of �Catholic� would be an embarrassment. There are a good number of Churches �not in communion with the world-wide �Orthodox Church,�� unfortunately, but that does not inhibit the use of the word �Orthodox�. In any case, Father David does concede my point, so he has my thanks.

No. 4 � �The question of �ages of ages,� is also sensitive.� � Only for those who translate ideologically instead of accurately. �Forever� does not mean the same thing. Nor does �forever� have the same effect � listen to a good deacon intone �and unto ages of ages� before the Trisagion, and then listen to a deacon trying for the same effect with �and forever�!
Or consider this pleasant passage from an academic address by Father Andriy Chirovsky: �Lose sight of origins? Is that even possible in a Church which likes to exclaim again and again about the ages of ages?� [ Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies , Vol. 36, Nos. 1-4 (1995), p. 226]. Changing �ages of ages� to �forever� would turn the entire quote into gibberish; as it is the quote is intelligible and memorable.
Throughout the book, I repeatedly cited documents from Vatican II through the Instruction on the Implementation of the CCEO which reiterate the importance of avoiding any use of the liturgy to widen the gap between ourselves and other Orthodox � and that is exactly the point of dodging the phrase �unto ages of ages�. �World without end� is sheer nonsense, as Father Bouyer (Memory Eternal) correctly taught; in saecula saeculorum means no such thing. What euphemisms the Latins come up with is not the point; liturgically we live and move and have our being in the Orthodox world. I wonder � is this very concept part of the problem?

No. 5 �At the risk of seeming pedantic, �concelebrating� and celebrating together are not the same thing. �Concelebrate� has become a technical, even esoteric term, most especially with regard to the Eucharist. Odd, but there it is. Father David appeals to a � or the � review from the Oriental Congregation, but so long as the full text of that document is withheld, it is impossible to discuss it intelligently.

No. 6 � Well, if Father David thinks that in the Trisagion �mighty� is �less preferable� than �strong�, why not use that which is �more preferable�? Most languages used for the Byzantine Liturgy use �strong� in the Trisagion; why should English not do so? Nobody will claim that �strong� is an archaism, or an unclear term!

No. 7 � Father David likes the suggestion of the term �alms�, so he has my thanks. As for the suggestion that modern congregations are not so likely to receive alms, has the passing of the collection basket been abolished among the Ruthenians?

No. 8 � We do, let�s face it, use phraseology in the liturgy that we do not use in other forms of discourse. The same is true of any number of settings with which people are familiar, so that issue is a red herring. �Send down Your compassions upon us� is not actually unclear, but it is sufficiently different from other forms of discourse to require a bit of thought from the worshippers � and that is no bad thing.

No. 9 � granted that �verdure� is an obscure term these days, (and �green pasture� is a possible alternative), �refreshment� is neither obscure nor archaic; people quite naturally speak about � �freshening up�, something being �refreshing� and so on. The word is not at all past its sell-by date!

No. 10. � Help! No one is perfectly consistent (least of all myself) but Father David writes, in one paragraph, that �The Greek here does mean acts committed in ignorance�but we felt that something more than acts done simply out of ignorance was meant.� Is he really saying that the Greek means what it means (in which he is correct) but �we� feel that it means something more than that? It�s possible, but it certainly requires demonstration, particularly since liturgical Greek is a remarkably rich language, capable of expressing the most subtle shades of meaning � which is why translators have their work cut out for them. Had the original redactors wished to mean something more, they would probably have said something more.

No. 11 � The translation of the draft here is forced � the book gives seven examples of other translation, and there are plenty more which could be cited. It would be another matter if Father David could demonstrate that in this specific instance the ongoing liturgical tradition supported that forced translation.

No. 12 � Father David accepts my point, and he apologises for having overlooked Father Taft on this one. Apology accepted with thanks. And at the end of his discussion, Father David writes that he is moved to make this change.

No. 13 � Father David appears to accept my point, but reluctantly. To say that something is �set forth� does not require the meaning of �set forth before us� � Furniture shops sometimes display a table set for dinner, but they are not inviting all the customers to come and eat. It may be that Father David and I are disagreeing on a criterion of translation � that translation is often better done by leaving possibilities reasonably open instead of forcing one possible interpretation over another.

No. 14 � Father David concedes my point, albeit with bad grace. My thanks for his agreement. That Bishop Kallistos is undecided (which is information I provided to all the readers) clearly does not mean that he considers another option to be preferable! Since Father David concedes my point that the draft in this case does not offer good English, and �rational Sacrifice� is correct, I fail to grasp why he suggests that I have this point in the wrong chapter.

No. 15 � Father David ignores this point. Is this a tacit agreement?

No. 16 � the book offers quite a selection of possible translations of the phrase; I did not insist on either �rightly dividing� or �rightly teaching�.

No. 17 � A so-called �alternate translation� which changes the order of the Liturgy is more of an �alteration� than an �alternate�. And we have indeed been using the normal text in vernacular languages, including English, Hungarian, Romanian, Arabic and many others without anyone feeling the need to conflate these two petitions.

No. 18 � if Father David does not like �let us beseech� (and �beseech� is an old-fashioned word, although still widely understood), why not change it to �let us ask�?

No. 19 � this point Father David also ignores.

No. 20 � Father David writes that: �The Liturgy Commission did not translate the Lord�s Prayer, but simply left it in the form most people use. Therefore, there is no �error of translation,� here.�
That is a colossal non sequitur. A �form that most people use� is perfectly capable of containing error (for a potentially hilarious example, look up �fulsome apology� in the dictionary of your choice; there are plenty of other examples around). I have reported the situation of �debts and debtors� in the Lord�s Prayer � and that phrase is also used by a great many people.

No. 21 � This �legalistic� point, as Father David calls it, caused a major problem at the Philadelphia Eucharist Congress, when Archbishop Stephen (Kocisko) in his sermon stressed this out-of-place prayer as though all Byzantines used it and would know it. Most Byzantines do not use it and would not know it. If Pittsburgh insists on retaining it � presumably to stress how the Pittsburgh Metropolia is something more than autocephalous � the least they can do is use a text box or brackets, with a footnote explaining that this prayer does not have the same status as the rest of the prayers before Communion.

No. 22 � if the Pittsburgh IELC is seriously interested in restoring the Old Kyivan tradition, I shall be seriously and favourably interested and happy to cooperate. But one swallow does not make a summer, and one word does not make an entire liturgical tradition.

No. 23 � Father David has missed my major point, which is that the incipit of �Memory Eternal� is written in such a way as to cue the chanters to sing �Memory Eternal�. It works in English, it works in Church-Slavonic, it works in Greek, it works in Hungarian . . . so why should this be a problem for the IELC?

So in Chapter Nine, Father David seems to have accept eight of my twenty-three points. I still have hopes for the rest. I used the expression �matters of taste� with reference to the points I assigned to Chapter Ten, not the points of Chapter Nine. He again quotes the mysterious document from the Oriental Congregation � and I again repeat that it is impossible to discuss this document intelligently until all the interested parties have access to it. Besides No. 12, he also accepts the need for correction in the translation of the incipit of the Lord�s Prayer, and expresses interest in further discussion about Nos. 7, 10 and 14 � I and others are surely available for such discussion.

As regards Chapter Ten, it is of course true that translations which I have described as questionable but not necessarily inaccurate are therefore defensible, as the book affirms several times but as Father David appears to think means that there is nothing to discuss. There is plenty to discuss!

No. 1 � Glory to God! Evidently the commission has paid attention, finally, to a great number of complaints and accepted, once again, the adjective �God-loving� as applicable to the Bishop. My thanks to the IELC, and others will join me. Is it possible that we would have other causes to be grateful if the commission would kindly make the complete text � of over a year ago � available for comment?

No. 2 � Father David makes no comment � I shall inform the late Archbishop Alexis at the first opportunity!

No. 3 � Father David for some reason informs us all that �Modern warfare is not the same as the Tzar and his armies.� Did anyone claim that they were the same? For that matter, has anyone suggested that the Tsar and his armies were somehow more worthy and laudable than any other? What does this pointless verbiage have to do with anything at all?

No. 4 � Well, if Father David himself favours �righteous,� as I do, for pity�s sake use it.

No. 5 � There is no particular evidence that I am aware of that would insist that the main celebrant gives all the blessings, unless the main celebrant is a bishop and the others are all presbyters. If Father David has any evidence to demonstrate his alleged point, let him produce it.

No. 6 � I did not state a preference because the Greek gives �house� and the Slavonic gives �temple�. Actually I can get along happily with either one. Father David writes that he would prefer �house�. Father Taft has suggested �for this house of God�, which is certainly good English. So why does the IELC want us to use �church�?

No. 7 � Father David asks �Is Fr. Keleher here advocating a return to archaic English?� Not here � here (in No. 7) I am merely pointing out that the preferential option against the second person singular makes the translation of a common construction in Hebrew, Greek and Church-Slavonic seriously difficult in English, because of the aversion to the sound of �yoo-hoo�. Don�t blame me for that problem, please, I did not cause it. I am not disputing that the prayer during the Cherubicon is a private prayer of the bishop or priest � indeed, I am grateful that Father David recognizes the legitimacy of such private prayers. But is Father David implying that anyone who prefers traditional English is thereby disqualified from a discussion of accuracy and the background of words and phrases? Talk about ideological translations.

No. 8 � Father David writes that �the Commission does know that �shall� is still in the English language, but felt �will� to be more appropriate here.� That may tell us the emotional state of the commission on the issue, but it tells us nothing about the reasons for this �feeling�.

No. 9 � �But certainly the place where God dwells is always �holy of holies.� � I�m by no means convinced of that. Since the Reviewer gives no source, I have no obligation to give a source either. However, I might suggest the prayer �O Heavenly King�.

No. 10. � �The Commission follows the opinion that �orthoi� is equivalent to a call for attentiveness. It is found also in the 1965 translation.� That is obviously true, and so what? The 1965 translation is not an Inspired Text.

No. 11 � Merci . . . but Father David has not answered my question, not here and not elsewhere.

No 12 � Father David skips this point. I remain, therefore, convinced that to be illustrious and to be all-praised are rather different,

No. 13 � Father David takes exception to my question as to whether those responsible for the draft know the difference between a sermon and a homily � but he does not answer that question, not even with a simple assertion. He then claims that the paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding the �homily� applies to us. Well, I may respond with a memory of a woman who telephoned me and asked me to serve a funeral in a neighbouring parish � and then observed of her own pastor that �I�ve never liked his hominies�! It�s undeniably corny, but it�s instructive.

No. 14 � there�s no reason to be afraid of the word �service� either. I don�t mind conceding that I am disturbed by the general tendency toward Protestantization � and I am not alone.

No. 15 � Father David writes, somewhat confusingly, that �Fr. Keleher�s counter-proposal is certainly correct. However, that does not make the draft text incorrect.� Thanks, even though I�m reminded of the apocryphal story of the man with two heads who debated himself on the issue of free silver. If Father David knows someone who wants to ban the word �love� from the Liturgy, then Father David has my condolences � and my request that he refrain from introducing me to this gentleman.

No. 16 � Father David writes that �Words provided for �holy� have been discussed.� No doubt they have; I�m aware of several books on the subject. But I can�t really complain on this point, since all that the book does in the first place is point out that there is material to be discussed. Evidently Father David agrees, unless he is implying that the discussion of such a vocabulary is now at an end.

No. 17 � All that the book does here is indicate that the question is not closed. I did not necessarily insist that �child� is wrong, I merely indicated a preference in this context for �servant�.

No. 18 � sorry, but kata panta kai dia panta does not mean semper et ubique . Father David has evidently forgotten Father Taft�s extended comment on this phrase during the Stamford Symposium � fortunately I have it on audio tape. So does Father David, presumably, since the audio tapes were supplied to each of the presenters at that conference. Most recently Father Taft recommends Gabrielle Winkler�s exhaustive study Die Baslius-Anaphora Rome 2005..

No. 19 � Yes, the passage in question here is an �academic ping pong ball� as Father David so amiably styles it. But one should bear in mind a couple of characteristics of ping-pong balls. The first, obviously, is that they are of no value or interest until two people start using them for their intended purpose � which means that dismissing some issue as an �academic ping pong ball� would really imply that discourse on the subject is appropriate. Moreover, even a game of ping-pong can be of international significance; Father David and I are both of an age (there�s that word again!) to remember the beginning of the thaw between China and the USA � it happened over a ping-pong table.
In this instance, the book gives about three times as much space to the version used in the draft as to the version I am currently inclined to support. I made it clear in the book that the question remains open. It is not in the least clear that the Oriental Congregation had access to the Old-Ritualist text of the Divine Liturgy when they wrote their mysterious letter, nor is it clear that they would have consulted that source. Father David writes that �The publication of the Old Russian Liturgicon is, of course, certainly of great interest, but it is subsequent not only to the Commission�s work, but also the review by Rome.� Ah � excuse me? The draft my book criticizes is dated October 2004. The Old-Ritualist service book my book quotes was published in January 2003 (new style); I certainly had it well before the summer of that year. One does assume, perhaps naively, that the commission members can read Church-Slavonic and are at least as able as I am to keep up with the publication of important texts.
Finally, my book states clearly that I do not claim that the question is permanently resolved, only that the publication of the Old-Ritualist text gives important support to an argument for one of the two alternatives. How is this offensive?
Father David writes �It could be changed in the final draft� � well, well. It seems that a procession of final drafts is taking place. Various humorous comments on that occur to me, but I shall make an effort to resist the temptation.


No. 20 � Father David writes that �the Commision found �illustrious� a reasonable alternative.� No doubt they did. May we be informed as to just what those reasons are?

No. 21. Of course I said that the draft�s text is defensible � Chapter 10 is about Questionable translations, not hopelessly inaccurate translations.

No. 22 - In this case the question is, quite simply, why one of the relatively few authentic references to both the masculine and the feminine gender has been suppressed, particularly since the draft goes to considerable lengths to use �inclusive language�.

No. 23 � Again, this is questionable, not absolutely wrong. But since �lips� is at least marginally better, why not use that word?

No. 24 � it is not the present writer who has prescribed that the prayer in question should be read aloud. But I have pointed out that the translation as given in the draft is not suitable for reading aloud. Anyone is at liberty to replicate the same experiment that I tried � and doing it over the telephone, incidentally, will make the draft text seem even more incomprehensible.

I think � and this really is a matter of opinion � that Father Taft�s suggestion of �filial confidence� as an excellent translation of parresia is a suggestion which should be adopted. But I am not altogether sure how well many English-speakers will understand the word �filial�. I hope that clarifies my position on the matter.

Father David faults me for my �permutations� (I�ve been accused of many things in my life, but this is a new one). In discussing problems of questionable � and therefore uncertain � matters of translation, one tries to look at the problem in many different facets, hence the permutations.

No. 26 � Father David is puzzled by my point that one should not change one�s functional variety of English in mid-sentence, and suggests what in his view would be a better alternative: translate both the incipit of the Lord�s Prayer and the Lord�s Prayer itself into modern English. Well, to do so would at least result in smoother language (I hope); this is what Father Archimandrite Efrem did in the translation for the Archdiocese of Thyateira. Meanwhile, an excellent example of how NOT to do this crossed my attention earlier today: �Thine own of Thine own we offer You, for all and for the sake of all�. [This came from a pamphlet and I�m not sure what parish produced it.] Please, in the same sentence surely the same style should prevail unless there is a truly compelling reason to depart from that principle.

No. 27 � I tried to word my comments on questionable translations in a non-polemic fashion; I may not always have succeeded. My four points here are neither threatening nor unreasonable.

No. 28 � My first phrase here points out that problem to which I direct the reader�s attention is not a problem of the draft translation, but a problem between Greek and Church-Slavonic. No one now alive has any reason to be offended by it.

No. 29 � Surely a suggestion to readjust the word order for the sake of greater clarity need not be dismissed out of hand.

No. 30 � The draft does use the Kyivan tradition in this instance, and I have not criticized it for doing so. I merely suggest that at least the clergy should be able to respond to the question � which comes up in pastoral practice from time to time � as to why one finds one version of this one-line prayer in some editions, and a different version in others.

No. 31 � Once more � and I feel like a broken record (for those old enough to remember such things) � please keep in mind that Chapter 10 is devoted exclusively to �questionable� translations, not to translations that are out-and-out wrong. My �preference� here is to keep the options open and reserve explanations for catechesis and preaching.

No. 32 � Father David writes that he does not find my reasoning convincing on this point. Very well; I do not find his reasoning convincing. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

No. 33 � Father David laments that he cannot tell what I want on this point. That�s easy: I want an explanation, backed up by some sort of evidence, to let us know why those who prepared the draft have chosen a highly obscure variant to the usual translation of a specific Greek word, and thus changed the meaning of the relevant phrase in the Troparion of Saint John Chrysostom.

Father David assures us that all these points were discussed over a period of years by the IELC. Wonderful � now will they kindly make their discussion available? There are ways to do this without attributing specific opinions to named individuals. Otherwise, the suggestion boils down to saying that our betters know what they are doing, and the rest of us should simply take that as a given. Few people these days are apt to embrace such a view. Moreover, Father David himself acknowledges that the final, utterly final, draft is still to be developed, so there is no impediment to a broader, ongoing discussion.

Fr. Serge Keleher

CIX!

With all due respect to the Greek monk and to you, it is possible that the Greek monk's statement got slightly garbled in the expression it found in your post, as you did mention that you have not studied Greek.

πάντων could either be masculine or neuter.

πασῶν could only be feminine - no other translation is possible.

If we take πάντων as neuter, we then have 'for everything and all women', which would be a bit odd. However, there is a tradition that if a grammatical form can be translated either as masculine or neuter, the default translation is masculine, unless context explicitly requires a neuter - this tradition is also found in Latin and a number of other languages.

Hence, πάντων as masculine is the most logical - 'for (both) all men and all women'.

'for each and all' is found in some translations, I concede, but it's clearly not a translation - it's an interpretation.

Oddly, the GOARCH's infamous Green Book for the DL in English, translates this phrase as 'and all Your people', but this is minor compared to the other hideous mistranslations in that book...

I thank the Administrator for his comments on my review of Fr. Serge�s book. In many cases, I think we engaged in a dialogue, [Note to the reader - this does not mean that I necessarily accept all his points.] To discuss many of these questions would require time that is not available to me. However, I will make one general remark. In many of the cases, the Administrator is saying simply that we shouldn�t change anything. I think the strict application of his principle puts undue restrictions on the bishops to respond pastorally. I know for certain that he will disagree, but this is my estimation. Perhaps the underlying motive in all of this is simply to make the Pittsburgh Metropolia a �safe zone� for any priest(s) to do what they want.
Some of the comments, particularly on No. 6, brought up a question for me. Many of the texts we have in the Liturgy belong to the genre of �acclamations.� This type of phrase deserves more attention, perhaps in a separate posting. However, �acclamations� cannot follow the same rules of literal fidelity. They would sound quite strange to our ears, as, for example, �Up the hearts,� rather than �lift up your hearts.� Sometimes �literal fidelity� can distort meaning rather than clarify it.

Fr. Serge replied a bit more caustically to my review. He provides a temptation to me to reply with the same sarcasm - but this is a discussion of something holy.
However, please forgive me, and allow me to point out the following:
On No. 1 - (the title despota). Yes, people knows what �master� means, but that does not explain how it is a title (Master-mind, past master, chess master, school-master, master chef). I might say someone is a �jack of all trades,� but this does not mean I am giving him the title �Jack.� . Likewise, I might actually call someone �stupid,� but would not begin the Liturgy, �Hey, stupid, give the blessing.�
On No. 4, his argument for �ages of ages� is anecdotal.
On No. 5, my review is, of course, a defense of the work of our Liturgy Commission. It is meant for those who may read Fr. Serge�s book. He is, of course, entitled to a counter-defense. I suspect, though, that most of my readers will believe me when I say what is in the Oriental Congregation�s approval of the translation. Whether Fr. Serge believes me or whether or not he wants to discuss it is totally irrelevant.
On No. 6, I did not say �mighty� is less preferable. I said that Fr. Serge should say that.
On No. 14 - it is in the wrong chapter because it is questionable and open to more discussion.
On No. 15 - No, what I want to say about this is in No. 13 above.
On No. 19, I believe that whatever Fr. Serge wants to say here was discussed in No. 1 above.
On No. 20, if there is an error of translation in the Our Father, it is not the Liturgy Commission�s error. What is the point of this? Fr. Serge, if you want to say that the Liturgy Commission erred by not translating the Our Father anew, then say that.
On No. 22, in what way does this sarcastic intervention tell us that we cannot follow an Old Kyivan reading for sufficient reason?
In regard to chapter 10,
On No. 2 - please, I beg you, do not give me the temptation to respond to this point.
On No. 4 - both Fr. Serge and the Administrator seem to assume that the IELC translation is my translation. It is not mine alone, and that�s why occasionally I disagree with what the committee decided upon. Nor do I have the power to change the translation on my own. I can recommend only. And even though the Administrator will swear by heaven and earth that I am primarily responsible for the translation, the fact is that I was not the chief translator.
On No. 7 - a legitimate question, since you open by saying, �The commission which produced the 1964/65 translation was committed to �modern English,� and evidently so is the commission which produced the 12 October 2004 draft. Trouble is apt to arise as a result.�
On No. 8 - rather disedifying sarcasm.
On No. 10 - thank goodness someone finally recognized that the 1965 translation is not an �Inspired text.�
On No. 13 - am I a schoolboy that must answer to teacher? I think not, and for that reason, refuse to answer his question.
On No. 14 - as a cradle Byzantine Catholic, perhaps I have less reason for Protestant-phobia.
On No. 15 - above Fr. Serge writes of being tolerant of various translations, I guess, unless you disagree with him.
On No. 18, no, I do not have the tape. I do remember Fr. Robert discussing this, but my memory is that he did not completely dismiss Fr. Ligier�s proposal. At any rate, I disagree with Fr. Taft here. I think it is the Greek form of the ancient, ancient phrase, �semper et ubique,� and on page 256, you write that �Father Archimandrite Robert has never objected to a scholarly difference between himself and others.� I suppose, though, that this doesn�t include me if I disagree with you. I apologize for the sarcasm, but you bring it out.
On No. 19 - you are quoting the October 2004 working draft, which was an internal draft among the Commission members. At that time, the translation was considered closed, except for review of the Oriental Congregation�s approval.
On No. 23 - I didn�t say that �lips� is marginally better. Was some sort of pun intended here?
On No. 26 - then why not the whole prayer? The traditional Our Father was used, and that is what we did.
On No. 32, I did not expect Fr. Serge to accept my argument, and it is totally irrelevant whether he does so or not. What matters is my readers.
On No. 33 - the translation is not mine (cf. No. 4 above), but I will defend it. I�m sure there will be many losing sleep over this question.

In reading Fr. Serge�s latest remarks, I became of aware more clearly of his �m.o.� He takes what you say, that says what he thinks you actually said, and then refutes what he thinks you said. I believe this is called �setting up a straw man.� For example, in many cases, he says, Fr. David concedes the point,� when I have actually done no such thing. Then the only way to deal with this is by endless and tiresome clarifications, which puts me consistently on the defensive. For this reason, I am not responding to every item in the latest post, but state publicly that this does not mean that I agree or concede everything or anything that Fr. Serge is saying.

I would highly recommend reading Fr. Robert F. Taft�s article, �Translating Liturgically,� in Logos 39 (1998), 155-190.

Fr. David