www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Language and Spirituality

I would like to suggest a broader and deeper context for discussing translations by posing the question: �What is the role of language in spirituality?�

There are many dimensions to this issue: rather than impose my own views too early, I will spend some time pondering the last section of the first chapter of John Meyendorff�s Byzantine Theology, from which I will hopefully post some insights later.

In the interim, I hope others will address this topic from the perspectives of their own learning or experience.

[I realize some have already raised important points that are relevant here: one by "Incognitus" comes to mind at the moment. I would ask these folks to re-post or re-work them to take our conversation forward.]

I will attempt to "stir the pot" by proposing two seemingly contradictory statements:

1. We NEED language for spirituality, because "symbols" are the only way we can make sense of our experience;

2. Human symbols [including words] are utterly incapable of expressing the reality of God.

This "simultaneous affirmation of mutually exclusive alternatives" is a paradox, and paradox is very characteristic of the Byzantine Christian understanding of reality.

Fr. John Meyendorff unpacked this in the first chapter of his book Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and doctrinal themes; that chapter is entitled "The Character and Sources of Theology in Byzantium" and it concludes with a section devoted to "4. Theology, Positive and Negative."

"Theology, therefore, may and should be based upon Scripture, on the doctrinal decisions of the Church's magisterium, or on the witness of the saints. But to be a true theology, it must be able to reach beyond the letter of Scripture, beyond the formulae used in descriptions, beyond the language used by saints to communicate their experience. For only then will it be able to discern the unity of Revelation, a unity which is not simply an intellectual coherence and conosistency, but a living reality experienced in the continuity of the one Church throughout the ages: the Holy Spirit is the only guarantor and guardian of this continuity; no external criterion which would be required for man's created perception or intellection would be sufficient." [p. 13]

On the next page we read:
"Commenting upon Ecclesiastes 3:7 - `a time to keep silence and a time to speak' Gregory of Nyssa suggests to the theologian that

`In speaking of God, when there is a question of His essence, then is the time to keep silence. When however it is a question of His operation, a knowledge of which can come down even to us, that is the time to speak of His omnipotence by telling of His works and explaining His deeds, and to use words to this extent. In matters which go beyond this, however, the creature must not exceed the bounds of its nature, but must be content to know itself. For indeed, in my view, if the creature never comes to know itself, never understands the essence of the soul or the nature of the body, the cause of being ...if the creature does not know itself, how can it explain things which are beyond it? Of such things it is time to keep silence; here silence is surely better. There is, however, a time to speak of those things by which we can in our lives make progress in virtue.'" [Gregory of Nyssa's Commentary on Ecclesiastes Sermon 7, quoted in the translation of H. Musurillo in From Glory to Glory... p. 129.]

I am suggesting that an appreciation of both the necessity and of the limits of human symbols is an important context for any discussion of translation.

I am reluctant to continue this "dialogue with myself," but having noticed several other posts that seem to have interest in this direction, I will pursue it a bit further.

"To translate or not to translate" is one dimension of this issue. There are aspects of this discussion that reflect arguments against translation, but it is striking that no one is seriously suggesting that we should predominantly celebrate in Old Slavonic [or "Ecclesiastical Greek"]; one does hear arguments for Modern Greek rather than English [and in my limited experience English is still the exception rather than the rule in many Greek Orthodox Parishes]. Still the arguments for using Greek or Ukrainian or Arabic in Church rather than English still acknowledge the need for translation.

Islam and Judaism are classical examples of religions that have canonized particular linguistic expressions of revelation. To learn the Koran one needs to learn Arabic; to this day assuming adult responsibilities as a Jew is celebrated by reading the Torah in Hebrew at the Sabbath assembly.

It is significant that Christianity has always taken translations for granted, and the concept of a "canonical text" as it emerged out of the Reformation remains problematic for Orthodox Christianity.

The Christian tradition has generally been assumed to imply that particular verbal symbols were not as important as the meaning those words conveyed, and thus it was not only legitimate but necessary to translate. This results in a theory of language which suggests that the function of language in spirituality is to correctly identify particular ideas; the "truth" of words is identified with their "meaning" rather than their sounds or their emotional or cultural associations.

I believe all of the discussion of the translation proposed by the InterEparchial Liturgical Commission shares the assumption that the measure of a translation is its "accuracy" - how well does it convey the meaning behind the "original text." I believe this focus is appropriate, and a lot of fruitful discussion should take place concerning what is the "best" translation of particular terms.

But I would like to add three nuances to the discussion.

One is the apophatic awareness of Byzantine theology, the recognition of the limitations of human language in speaking of divine realities. One of the reasons for the calamitous decline in attendance of our parishes is that the "pillars of faith" of previous generations were not able to express that faith in the cultural idiom meaningful to their heirs. Both Fr. Petras and Fr. Loya have recognized that this is more of a weakness of our culture than of "the Babas," and for those that have eyes to see, their witness of faith is a powerful one indeed. Still, no one experiences the frustration of the death of our parishes more intensely than those who DO experience its richness and cannot understand why so many in our society today, why so many among our own family and friends, seem so blind to its treasures.

Secondly [perhaps related to the first!] non-verbal symbols have always been a most important means of expressing and forming religious experience. More specifically there is a "liturgical context" which will shape the meaning particular terms will have for particular communities. There are significant theological problems with the meaning of the petition, "Most-holy Theotokos save us," yet it IS found in our texts, and in some traditions is given even greater prominence in popular practice.

Finally, I would note that communication of meaning is not the only function of language. There are contexts, and liturgy is almost surely one of them, where other functions of language are at least as important.

I humbly ask for consideration of these ideas as a helpful context for considering specific translation options.

Phil,

In addition, what the obligation not only to make the Liturgy intelligible, but also to consecrate our native language, English.

"Mark",

Perhaps you could say more about the "consecration of English" theme?

I have given some thought to a broader form of this question, always ending in a muddle. I would be interested in someone else's take on it.

Since this is a conversation explicitly about language, do you suppose we might get through it without "packing" and "unpacking" things.

That language entered the academy after I had already made my exit, so I have not had an opportunity to write a hermenutic dissertation on how much I hate that imagery.

As they say in the valley: Ick!

Eli

It is not entirely accurate that "Christianity has always taken translations for granted" - for several centuries, to offer one example, it was forbidden to translate the Roman Missal into modern languages, even for private reading.

To this day, the Moscow Patriarchate is most unhappy with the notion of Russian translations of the services - apparently it's OK to have translations into almost anything else, but not in Russian.

In Greece, the Church of Greece resists translations into modern Greek. Liturgical Greek is a serious difficulty for people of ordinary education (particularly since the government banned the teaching of classical Greek in the school system)

And so on. On the positive side, there have always been people stressing the importance of intelligibility - the argument for silence during the Anaphora, for instance, is not based on the premise that people should not be allowed to know what the Priest is saying!

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Archimandrite Serge,

For what my opinion is worth, I agree with you about the need to understand the language of church services and although I would not say that it is the sole reason behind the lack of Church observance and participation in young people, I do know, as a fact, that it is a factor.

In Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Alice