www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question about the translation of ahnets/amnos in the Prothesis

The 2006 Chrysostom Liturgicon has, for the Prothesis, p 22:



This is substantially the same as the 1965 Liturgicon:



Call these texts:

1. the lamb text - slaughter
2. the sheep text - shearer

Both the 2006 and 1965 liturgicons give the same biblical reference for 1 and 2; they happen to be in the same verse from Isaiah, namely:

1. Isaiah 53:7
2. Isaiah 53:7

The same text in the Recension has:

1. [Linked Image]


2. [Linked Image]


The Rome 1950 Greek has:


1.[Linked Image]


2. [Linked Image]

All 4 liturgicons agree the liturgical LAMB is the ahnets/amnos/LAMB:

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgikon%20E&S/Chrysostom/English/40-41e.htm

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Sluzebnik/images/265.jpg

p 86 in http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/Chrysostom/C-DL_2006.pdf

http://www.patronagechurch.com/DL-Chrysostom-Rome_1950/htm/59.htm


But the 2006 & 1965 Prothesis texts (1 and 2 above) give instead the association ahnets/amnos/SHEEP.

Furthermore amnos/lamb-shearer, probaton/sheep-slaughter agrees with the given reference:

LXX Isaiah 53:7 is
[Linked Image]

Again this is opposite the use in the 2006 & 1965 Prothesis text. (The MT doesn�t help since it has for amnos, rachel = ewe, fem.!)

So, shouldn�t the 2006 & 1965 prothesis texts, to be consistent with LXX Isaiah 53:7, and the Slavonic, and the Greek, and the designation - even their own designation - for the liturgical lamb be instead:

Like a sheep led to the slaughter.

Then into the left side (the priest�s right):

And like a lamb without blemish, that is silent before the shearer, he opened not his mouth.


Dn. Anthony

From the 1988 UGCC Liturgikon:

This is an old thread but I've become aware of some more information on this issue. The explanation is that the text here for the preparation of the bread follows Isaiah 53:7, and in quotations from Scriptural texts, the New American Bible was followed for the RDL. "Without blemish," however, was added, as found in the liturgical text, but not in the LXX or NAB.

If that is the rationale then it does explain the resultant translation but that still to me doesn't make good sense: that the procedure for the RDL was based on just following, quoting, the NAB. There is no problem for me about the "Without blemish" since it is in the liturgical text and in fact points to the text as not being just an isolated quote from scripture. I do question the adherence to the NAB especially in this case because the NAB translation inverts the meaning of the words (as shown in the first post) that are found in the liturgical text and also in the LXX that the liturgical text quotes here in part in the Greek and that the Slavonic also follows. Simply, the NAB here is not a translation of the liturgical text but one of scripture; and such a translation as the NAB, though based on an evaluation of legitimate sources (e.g. the Hebrew text) should not then impose that reading on the given liturgical text. I would question the blanket application of such a policy in this case just as a matter of sound methodology. Also, such a rigid quoting of the NAB contradicts the procedure stated in the Liturgicon's Foreword (cf. "guided by", "fresh translations both to capture the distinctive readings of the Septuagint"):