www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A comparison

Ray, with all due respect to your relative, the response is troubling.

cineast post

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 13:10:46 EDT
From: "Anthony J. Kotlar"
Subject: Re: translation

In the latest issue of the magazine *Touchstone*, a faculty member of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology writes a letter defending their translation of the Divine Liturgy, and the translators, from the criticisms voiced in a previous article. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to look up the article (although I was in a library), but if I remember correctly, it was by one of the magazine's editors, Fr. Reardon. Also, I had myself been mulling over the Holy Cross translation, especially since the posts by Daniel Joseph and Stephen (above).

What is the consequence of "dropping" or "altering" a word in translation? Is it good if it is done to be "gender neutral" or "politically correct"? Does it correct a gender bias in our language, or does it "correct" an invented bias that was never there to begin with? Does it, only too often, produce poor theology in bad prose?

Generally, I don't like to see words just go away. The Greek of the Creed could have said *for us*, but it says, literally, *on account of us (the) men=human beings*; that is, *di' humas tous anthropous*. *anthropous*, masculine accusative plural, has gender like *men*, but the Greek has the sense of *human beings* who are either just male or male and female collectively. This was also the customary understanding of the English *for us men*, meaning, *for us human beings*.

The reason I don't like to see words dropped is that, for me, they break links to other references, spawned by these words, in scripture and the liturgy. One of my occasional pastimes is following a word "link". I don't claim this is done in any rigorous way either linguistically, theologically, or exegetically; it's done more in the sense of casual browsing and meditating. A very common and general word, like *anthropos*=man, would, for example, have a great many profound and also mundane "links".

In the case of the creed itself, it seems that a certain closure is lost when the word *men* is dropped and a link is broken. That is, the phrase reads: "Who for us MEN (anthropous) and for our salvation came down out of the heavens and was enfleshed out of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and BECAME MAN (enanthropesanta). Thus we profess in the creed that Jesus, who consistently referred to Himself as the *Son of MAN*, "for us MEN...BECAME MAN."

Of course, the "link" is still there in the original Greek even if not explicitly in the English translation. But, even prior to Daniel Joseph's post, I had been disappointed by another rendering in the Holy Cross translation (which, by the way, in other aspects I think is very good). It involves a word/phrase that I consider one of the most beautiful in the liturgy (in the Ruthenian translation) and which seems to have been virtually obliterated, or so absorbed into other words in the Holy Cross translation, that it is almost unrecognizable. For me, it is a one word prayer and, coincidentally, it is "linked" to the missing *anthropous* of the creed. That word, which is often present in prayers addressed to Jesus in the liturgy, is *philanthropos* -- Christ our God, the one true and great "philanthropist," so beautifully proclaimed (but not in the Holy Cross translation) as the *lover of MANKIND*.

That said, I am hoping Recluse can explain his issues with the translation of this particular prayer.

I do hope it is more than just a matter of "feeling"

I am absolutely certian that I do not stand alone in this memory of our late Archbishop Judson, and I will not stand by and watch others foul his memory by crediting him with the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

In another thread, Father Deacon Anthony provides us with a beautiful explanation of the use of MAN and MANKIND in our liturgical prayer that focuses on our penetration into the Christological mystery of the Incarnation and our direct participation in that mystery, rather than on some secular economy of word or sound, however expert and common to the day.

That you may rest but not sleep through it,

Originally Posted By: Elijahmaria

I am absolutely certian that I do not stand alone in this memory of our late Archbishop Judson, and I will not stand by and watch others foul his memory by crediting him with the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your heartfelt insights regarding the late Archbishop Judson. May his memory be eternal!

R

Master who love us all: This is particularly disturbing--a neutralized, modernized and generic term.

I appreciate the difficulties surrounding the translation of "anthropos" in the creed.

Firs t, I note that the Anglican Church still says "for us men and our salvation"

The issue here is the intent of the word "anthropoi". Is it used the distinguish men from women. Apparently not. The NT uses a different word (aner; plural andres)) when that is the intention.
Cf. the feeding miracles in the Gospels. Is it used to distinguish humans from animals or angels. We have no idea.

Actually the phrase is redundant : "for us men and our salvation" might more economically rendered "for our salvation".It maybe that something vital is sacrificed this way, but it is hard to know what it is.

Thank you for your response. I certainly understand your point; I just wonder whether the emotions (and senses) are doing a little more work here than the intellect, and whether this is, in fact, a good thing.

One wants a translation to be accurate, faithful to the original text, AND readable/understandable by those for whom the translation is being made, AND able to communicate the authentic meaning of the text.

Perhaps if we kept in mind the difficulty of the undertaking, we might be less inclined to use words such as "despair," "travesty," et al. to describe it.

The prayer in question, however, hardly seems to fall into that category.

Ask yourself an honest question: How many people would actually understand "unto" as denoting purpose or result?

I'm not sure which part of this phrase you are addressing.

Saying that Archbishop Judson's memory is "fouled" if we "place the blame" on his shoulders makes an assumption that the RDL ("Restored Divine Liturgy") is "objectively bad" and that since Archbishop Judson was "good," he could not have supported it! This is circular reasoning, because some think that the 2007 Liturgy translation is a good thing for our Church. Certainly, from personal experience, I know that Archbishop Judson was happy with the Liturgy, and had received the "approval" from Rome and spoke with me in his office about it at some length in the first week of April 2001. Those are the facts and I think they do honor to his memory, to the memory of a fine man who provided leadership for our Church. I think this is necessary for the record.

Here is the response I got back from my family member who is a well respect expert in ancient Greek.