www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Tangential translation inquiries: Father Serge, et al.

I am exceptionally interested in these topics from a theological and poetic standpoint, even more than from a strict linguistic viewpoint, but that as well.

I don't buy the book because I live, both for the necessities and for luxuries, on charity. Even my ability to communicate at all here is by the grace of friends and sponsors. So these are lean times for all of us and I must wait for all good things. It seems strange to me that you would push that issue when I had already said that I could not afford it. No one seemed to push Father Serge when he said that there were things he could not afford. Has life gotten to be that easy in your domain that you forget not all are equally blessed, perhaps? I would love to read Father's book. I would love to be free to buy it. I cannot at this time.

My apologies for not grasping your position from the very beginning. It seems to me that there are then mitigating circumstances to the standard of literal translation in your own mind, as well as in the industry, since you note that there needs be an even more strict translation of the rubrics. Do I have that correctly? There are issues that mitigate literal translation?

Also with respect to literal translation of Theotokos: Are you saying that the Greek "tokos" literally translates as "birthgiver" in English?

Eli

Dear Eli,

I understand partially where you are coming from. I was blessed to finally start a new job two weeks ago. I have been without work for quite a while and it really affected the finances, for the worst.

If the printing company for Father Serge's book took credit cards, I would get both of us a copy, but since they are cash only, I am not able to make that offer yet. I am sorry. I too wish to read both books very very much.

BTW, I like the use of Theotokos. It makes me feel that we are closer to our Eastern brethren and it seems to fit into the music okay. The question is how do we pronounce it? Theotokos and Mother of God are both 4 syllables. Where is the accent and stressed syllables?

In Christ,

Michael

My your tribe increase!!

Thank you. The thought is very filling!

Eli

I don't know the Greek, but Father Serge apparently does and so he prefers "mighty" to "strong". I would agree that there is a notable difference between the titular "Mighty" and any proposed title "Strong" that is not theologically inconsequential in this case.

In the first place "Strong" has some sort of physical prowess as its first meanings, and certainly is that colloquially. Do we mean to be making note of God's physical prowess here?

Also there is a clear sense of physical and or mental aggressiveness in the meaning of the word "strong" that gives the word an inherent sense of compulsion and force. Theologically we shy from those things which might lead one to think of God as a Creator who compels his creation.

I realize that the Old Testament imagery of God is of One who is forceful with his people and that is right and good in that revealed context of the story of the patriarchs and prophets. But, do we want to praise God as one who compels in this liturgical context of the Thrice Holy Hymn?

"Mighty" as a title or a descriptor is not inherently aggressive in its meaning and it also immediately, in its first meaing, more broadly comprises power and strength, size and quantity, extent and degree. Mighty is greater than strength alone. Mighty is immense in capacity, as in His capacity for caritas, mercy, justice, long-suffering. Mighty is ineffable in its immensity.

Men are strong but God is Mighty.

I think that even the minds of those who do not spend much time thinking about such things in detail will grasp that Mighty is far greater in magnitude than Strong and without the undertones of the ability to compel another, against one's will.

If Father Serge thinks that strong is erroneous here in this context, then Eli agrees!!

Eli

"Also with respect to literal translation of Theotokos: Are you saying that the Greek "tokos" literally translates as "birthgiver" in English?"

Yes, that is what I am saying. Tokos is derived from the Greek word to give birth.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

It seems to me that the "literal" translation that you offer here has a bit of something added to it, unless of course the Melkites don't know what they are talking about.

Again I will post a portion of a Melkite-produced text on the history, meaning and use of Theotokos.

And just to highlight the Theology that is in question here with the use of the artificial transliteration of "Birthgiver" would you say that historically the greater feast in the eastern Church has been the Annunciation or the Nativity?

Has not the Conception of the Son of God traditionally had the greater place in the liturgical cycle than His birth?

Of course it has.

There is a reason that Orthodoxy, in the main, has rejected the contrived title of "Birthgiver" for the Mother of God.

The Virgin bore God, she did not bear Jesus. That is the true significance of Theotokos.

Eli

"It seems to me that the "literal" translation that you offer here has a bit of something added to it, unless of course the Melkites don't know what they are talking about."

Nothing added, simply correct translation.
The Melkites that produced that text either didn't know what they were talking about or deliberately dumbed down the explanantion. Bearer in Greek is phoros, as in our vewnerable and God-bearing (Theophoros) fathers . Those who carry God within. This title is not unique to the Virgin. Theotokos was chosen primarily because it defended the Incarnation. It said Mary gave birth to God the Son, that God the Son became man through the Virgin Mary. The Byzantine Liturgy uses both the title Mater Theos and Theotokos. To translate Theotokos as Mother of God does injustice to the fact that the fathers were stressing the Incarnation in giving her this title. I don't care if it is translated or left Theotokos, but it should not be replaced any more than the title Christ should be repalced with Redeemer (a valid title but not a correct translation) when Christ means anointed.

"Has not the Conception of the Son of God traditionally had the greater place in the liturgical cycle than His birth?"

It has not. Obviously you are not familair with the Byzantine Church if you think so. The Nativity is preceded with a 40 day fast, has a 4 day pre-feast, Royal Hours, Great Compline, a Vesperal Liturgy, a regular Liturgy, and a 6 day post-feast. The Annunciation, which often falls in the Great Fast has a 1 day pre-feast muted by the Great Fast, a Vesperal Liturgy if it occurs during the week so it does not interrupt the Fast and a 1-day post-feast that during Lent is limited to Vespers the day of the Feast.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Historically the Nativity did not have the same emphasis that it has today. Anyone who wants a more complete history of the feast may take a look at the Newadvent.org site to find the rest of the article that I post from here:

Even in the celebration of our saints we celebrate the day of their exit from this world and not the date of their entry. When the Nativity finally did beging to be clelbrated with any regularity, it was strongly linked to the feasts of the Transfiguratin and Pascha. The Three "Birth" Masses of the Son of God was a tradition first found in the west. Nativity did not stand alone initially in the liturgical cycle, nor was it conceived of as a discreet event theologically.

So initially the feast of the Annunciation was the greater feast and it was the focus of the attention during the council that defined the Theotokos as the Mother of God.

When one translate Theotokos [born in the womb] to Birthgiver in 20th century, and poorly contrived English, one might be inspired to think of many things including surrogate mothers and artificial insemination.

Historically the title Theotokos was NEVER intended to emphasize the giving birth to the Savior but to the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin Mother. Not the man, Jesus, but the Incarnate One, True God and True Man.

Theotokos was not chosen to indicate that her body expelled Him out of the birth canal, but that she gave him flesh.

Perhaps you need to take a close look at the history and traditions on your own, Father Deacon, before you instruct others who already have.

Eli

Eli,

If only you had read the rest of the article and the article on ther Annunciation your ignorance would have been dispelled.

"Antioch. In Antioch, on the feast of St. Philogonius, Chrysostom preached an important sermon. The year was almost certainly 386, though Clinton gives 387, and Usener, by a long rearrangement of the saint's sermons, 388 (Religionsgeschichtl. Untersuch., pp. 227-240). But between February, 386, when Flavian ordained Chrysostom priest, and December is ample time for the preaching of all the sermons under discussion. (See Kellner, Heortologie, Freiburg, 1906, p. 97, n. 3). In view of a reaction to certain Jewish rites and feasts, Chrysostom tries to unite Antioch in celebrating Christ's birth on 25 December, part of the community having already kept it on that day for at least ten years. In the West, he says, the feast was thus kept, anothen; its introduction into Antioch he had always sought, conservatives always resisted. This time he was successful; in a crowded church he defended the new custom. It was no novelty; from Thrace to Cadiz this feast was observed -- rightly, since its miraculously rapid diffusion proved its genuineness. Besides, Zachary, who, as high-priest, entered the Temple on the Day of Atonement, received therefore announcement of John's conception in September; six months later Christ was conceived, i.e. in March, and born accordingly in December.

Finally, though never at Rome, on authority he knows that the census papers of the Holy Family are still there. [This appeal to Roman archives is as old as Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 34, 35) and Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, 7, 19). Julius, in the Cyriline forgeries, is said to have calculated the date from Josephus, on the same unwarranted assumptions about Zachary as did Chrysostom.] Rome, therefore, has observed 25 December long enough to allow of Chrysostom speaking at least in 388 as above (P.G., XLVIII, 752, XLIX, 351).

Constantinople. In 379 or 380 Gregory Nazianzen made himself exarchos of the new feast, i.e. its initiator, in Constantinople, where, since the death of Valens, orthodoxy was reviving. His three Homilies (see Hom. xxxviii in P.G., XXXVI) were preached on successive days (Usener, op. cit., p. 253) in the private chapel called Anastasia. On his exile in 381, the feast disappeared.

According, however, to John of Nikiu, Honorius, when he was present on a visit, arranged with Arcadius for the observation of the feast on the Roman date. Kellner puts this visit in 395; Baumstark (Oriens Chr., 1902, 441-446), between 398 and 402. The latter relies on a letter of Jacob of Edessa quoted by George of Beelt�n, asserting that Christmas was brought to Constantinople by Arcadius and Chrysostom from Italy, where, "according to the histories", it had been kept from Apostolic times. Chrysostom's episcopate lasted from 398 to 402; the feast would therefore have been introduced between these dates by Chrysostom bishop, as at Antioch by Chrysostom priest. But L�beck (Hist. Jahrbuch., XXVIII, I, 1907, pp. 109-118) proves Baumstark's evidence invalid. More important, but scarcely better accredited, is Erbes' contention (Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., XXVI, 1905, 20-31) that the feast was brought in by Constantine as early as 330-35.

The Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (25 March), also called in old calendars: FESTUM INCARNATIONIS, INITIUM REDEMPTIONIS CONCEPTIO CHRISTI, ANNUNTIATIO CHRISTI, ANNUNTIATIO DOMINICA. In the Orient, where the part which Mary took in the Redemption is celebrated by a special feast, 26 December, the Annunciation is a feast of Christ; in the Latin Church, it is a feast of Mary. It probably originated shortly before or after the council of Ephesus (c. 431). At the time of the Synod of Laodicea (372) it was not known; St. Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople (d. 446), however, seems to mention it in one of his homilies. He says, that the feast of the coming of Our Lord and Saviour, when He vested Himself with the nature of man (quo hominum genus indutus), was celebrated during the entire fifth century. This homily, however, may not be genuine, or the words may be understood of the feast of Christmas."

So the very Encyclopedia you cite to defend your false claims explains the Nativity was celebrated in the East (somewhere from 379 to 398) before the Annunciation (somehwere around the time of Ephesus in 431).

"Perhaps you need to take a close look at the history and traditions on your own, Father Deacon, before you instruct others who already have."

I know the history of my Church quite well. Obviously you do not. And you add a disrespectful tone to erroneous claims. I think you need to take a close look at the way you post before you presume to berate others.


"Historically the title Theotokos was NEVER intended to emphasize the giving birth to the Savior but to the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin Mother. Not the man, Jesus, but the Incarnate One, True God and True Man. Theotokos was not chosen to indicate that her body expelled Him out of the birth canal, but that she gave him flesh."

Then I recommend the book: Christmas by Archbishop Joseph Raya of blessed memory.
http://www.madonnahouse.org/publications/raya/christmas.htm

The feast celebrates both his conseption and birth as components of his Incarntion. The fact remains Theotokos translates Godbirthgiver. That you don't like that fact or interpret it as disrespectful to the Theotokos, I don't understand. It is what it is, I did not invent Koine Greek.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Eli and Michael,

Thanks for your posts. Eli, I understand that financial resources for things like books are not always plentiful. I don�t see where such a situation would give someone a pass to ignore forum rules. I can�t afford (and will probably never be able to afford) to join the local country club. I would never expect them to extend to me the amenities they offer to their club members. Expecting someone to actually read a book before discussing it in a forum for people who have read the book is not uncharitable, especially when there are other forums that are purposely designed for such discussions.

I would be very happy to gift a copy of Father Serge�s book (and, when it is published, Father David�s book) to each of you if you send me your mailing information via PM). Unfortunately, I cannot afford to make this offer to all posters!

--

Eli,

I�m not sure you understand what I meant. I probably could have been clearer.

I support the �essentially literal� style for all translations. Translations into English should be literally faithful to the original while at the same time being elegant (no easy task!). I see a slight difference between text being translated for liturgical prayer and proclamation and text being translated for rubrics to be followed. The goal of translation for both is the same (literal faithfulness while being elegant). But since rubrics are not prayed or proclaimed in translations where one can�t be both literally faithful and elegant one should be literally faithful first). This more nuance than anything else and you might best understand this as my seeking both literal faithfulness and elegance in all cases.

If one examines the 1964/1965 Liturgicon one can see a different style of translation in the rubrics than in the liturgical texts. I have always wondered if this was purposeful or if it was the result of different individuals taking the lead effort in translating liturgical texts and rubrics.

Father Deacon Lance has posted very good responses on this.

I will only note again that I don�t see the term �Mother of God� as inaccurate and that since it is so well known (even by non-Christians) that we ought to leave it alone.

Admin

Let me try it another way for you.

'Tokos' does not mean whatever that tortured translation "birthgiver" means.

'Tokos' refers to the actual laboring itself, to the parturition, to the time in the womb and the traveling through the womb to this place here on earth. There are connotations of labor, travel, movement from one place to another that are totally lost in some modern coinage called "birthgiver."

'Tokos' rendered as "parturition" is accurate.

'Tokos' rendered as "birthgiver" is not.

Birthgiver is not a true literal translation at all, my apologies to St. John Maximovich who managed to popularize that awful English rendering of Theotokos.

Even to call the Mother of God, by the title of "God's Birth Mother" would be rejected because of potential confusion, yet you would heartily defend some other permutation that leads to as much if not more confusion.

Eli

Thank you so much, but one who knows that my choices are not between the country club and a book has already made the same most generous offer and it has been accepted.

Eli

Eli,

Do you really need to be this sarcastic towards someone who has offered to do something nice for you?

Admin

Eli,

"'Tokos' does not mean whatever that tortured translation "birthgiver" means."

According to you. But then you are not a liturgist or an expert in Koine Greek.

Birthgiver has all the connotations you refer to to any intelligent speaker of English. St. John found it acceptable as do other Orthodox.

I notice you have no response to being proven false about you assertations regarding the Annunciation and Nativity. I await your retraction.

Fr. Deacon Lance