www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Does "Blazhen Muzh" mean "Blessed is the One"?

The initial exchange is from another RDL thread.



A different deacon, but if I may take a crack at it. I think this is a very important illustration.

Logically, One can apply to Jesus; He is certainly One. And the verb in the singular means just some one, not many. Still, it is very broad and inclusive as intended: One ~ anyone male or female. Being broad and inclusive, however, why would it then be "understood messianically" which is very narrow and specific?

So there is nothing wrong with the logic in applying to Jesus, but I don't see how it also points us to a messianic interpretation; it could be anything; it takes us nowhere in that regard (without prior knowledge based on a different meaning).

Also, one has to translate in context. One can't just go to a dictionary and pick out some meaning of a word and plop it into a sentence. I propose that the Uniontown Basilian translators having it as One, have done just that: True, I presume, to their intended purpose in pursuit of gender-neutrality, they have substituted for the word(s) for man=a male an appropriately castrated version. This is the intent, a reading into the text (see below) what is the desired rather than actual meaning, and this done not simply by interpretation (bad enough) but by altering the text, �cooking the books� so to speak.

Few if any words have a single "pure" meaning. The words in the original and traditional languages rendered One above are Heb: ha'ish, Gk: an&#275;r, Sl: mu�. The overwhelming usage of the word in each of the languages is man=a male. If anything, the traditional English rendering, Blessed is the man -- allowing that man in that usage is more inclusive than are the cited words in the source languages -- may convey more inclusivity than intended. That is, if English had retained man = wermen (male) & wifmen (female), a proper exegesis could well indicate Blessed is the werman as the correct, intended meaning. Here, as I have said before, the translator can't slap the hand of God who writing one thing has it "corrected" and translated into another. And if the wording had been <ha'ishah, gun&#275;, �ena>, then I would have it Blessed is the woman, and then guys, if you have a problem, grow up, accept it, even try pondering the mystery.



A reliable hermeneutic is properly based on a sound exegesis (leading out) of the text, rather than an eisegesis (leading into) where one reads into the text what one wants it to say. For translating, the NRSV preface gives good advice (which it has unfortunately not followed) and quotes the maxim: �As literal as possible, as free as necessary.� Presumably one should honestly strive for the literal. My favorite one-liner for a solid hermeneutic is from Hugh of St. Victor, �De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris,� PL 175, c13, �litteram legimus sed non secundum litteram,� we read the letter, but not according to the letter.

But one must have �the letter� to read.


A Messianic meaning let alone a "Messianic emphasis" from the translation One, is conjuring, OR, predicated on what is really in the text but intentionally suppressed by using One. The sister�s translation doesn�t give us more of the context, i.e. the next verse, but the �problem� continues, the next verse being:

RSV Psalm 1:2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

We don�t know how the sister�s translation using One would treat this, but standard gender-neutralizing translations use the device of switching to a plural form, thus:

NRSV Psalm 1:1 Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; 2 but their delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law they meditate day and night.

In the NAB even the he for God, retained by the NRSV, is neutralized:

NAB Psalm 1:1 Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked, Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers. 2 Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy; God's law they study day and night.

Of course, now with the they language in place, how could one reach a messianic interpretation? If a messianic meaning is to be understood, One or they language is not going to do it.

Read the NRSV and NAB above; look at what they've done to the word of God,



and weep.



Dn. Anthony

Well spoken, Deacon Anthony.

Dn. Robert

This is precisely what has been done in the Uniontown Basilian translation. This is from the text of The Office of Vespers-1987 edition-from the First Kathisma:

Blessed is the one-Alleluia-
who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
For the Lord knows the way of the just,
but the way of the wicked shall be lost.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Serve the Lord with fear,
exalt in Him with trembling,
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Blessed are those who trust in Him!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Arise, O Lord, save me, my God!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Salvation is of the Lord!
Upon your people your blessing!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
Glory be to the Father...............

Sorry not in this case they didn't. Psalm 2:12 in the RSV:CE reads: "Blessed are all who take refuge in him."

It should also be noted that while the Byzantine Church has considered Psalm 1 Messianic others do not. Some taught that only Psalms 2 and 109(110) were Messianic, and again the RSV:CE seems to support this in its notes.

Deacon Anthony provides a cogent explanation and argument. The Lord�s words do not be corrected. And we see where changing �man� to �one� causes problems �downstream� because the fix is to make the term �man� in to a plural, which simply causes additional problems. It is less evident when there are selections from the psalms (see the NRSV for 1:1 posted above) and most evident when psalms are prayed in full. In the case of Psalm 1 it is the individual man who is blessed when he does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, not man in the collective sense. It is not a matter of one man being blessed because someone else in his group (or most of the group) is not walking with the ungodly. �For the Lord guards the way of the just� (v. 6) promises that the Lord is with this specific individual when he walks with the Lord. Changing �man� to �one� in the first verse obliterates this meaning because it forces the rest of the psalm to apply to the collective rather than the individual. How sad to think that anyone praying this psalm could miss knowing that! It is further interesting that in the psalm each and every man is called to be righteous and that each individual man will be blessed when he keeps away from the wicked, sinners, and scorners. Note that those who are ungodly are in the plural and yet the Lord protects each individual who does not counsel with them. Such an idea might not (I freely admit) not have been in the mind of the psalmist but the psalm is open to the possibility of the blessing from the Lord being so great he will protect the righteous man (individual) from all who are in any way ungodly. When it is all pluralized the promise of protection passes to the collective and the righteous man (individual) is lost. I suppose someone could argue that one could teach what it actually means, but why go there when a literally faithful translation already does that so clearly.

Oops. You got me on that one-you are right about Psalm 2-I even checked the Douay-Rheims translation. It was late, and I was guilty of being lazy, and assumed that's what was done without checking. However, the fact that the Byzantine Church considers Psalm 1 to be Messianic speaks volumes regarding what was done by the translator in this case. "Blessed is the Man" is very defendable, given that Our Lord Jesus Christ took on a male human nature.

Dn. Robert

Deacon Lance makes a valid point, something we should keep in mind. My initial post addresses only a more limited topic based on the two questions, 'Does "Blazhen Muzh" mean "Blessed is the One"?', and 'why the pronoun "One" cannot apply to Jesus and be understood messianically'? That is, in that post a presumed messianic character is considered in relation to the translation One even though, as pointed out here, the Psalm's messianic character is itself a question.

Dn. Anthony

Muzh in Slavic languages has always connotated man; I can't think of any reason to change the translation other than to quite specifically gender neutralize. I think the messainic content may be there, but the Psalm clearly has a more immediate and proximate purpose with regard to lived virture.

If you look at the four generally recognized liturgical "themes" (according to Fr. Schmemann as well as earlier writers) Creation, Fall, Redemption and Parousia, Blazhen Muzh falls within the Creation theme and would thus be more of a reminder of what the blameless life entails, what it means to live in a paradisical relationship with God rather than directly pointing towards the Savior.

Yikes! This discussion scares me because it relies upon linguistic correlations, and it is clear that that some of the posters have less than no clue about the linguistic reality. It has nothing to do with Slavonic, or with Greek, or even with Hebrew. It has to do with ENGLISH.

First: any time that the verb "be" is used in English, it posits an equation. X = Y. Blessed Is (=) the Man.

Second: when the equation is X = Y, and the "Y" element contains a subordinate clause (subject and verb combination), there needs to be a connector: Blessed is the man (blessed = man) WHO (and then a subject-verb sentence) to describe "man". the content of the 'clause' reflects back upon the noun that it describes, in this case "man".

In the case of "Blessed is the Man" versus "Blessed is the One", the "Y" element of the phrase can be omitted, and the subject/verb combination of the clause can be inserted WITHOUT reference to the connector "who", "one", "man", etc. The rendering is just:

"Blessed is (he/him/them/those) who walks in the way of the godly..."

or, in better English style (metathisizing X and Y):

"Whoever walks in the way of the godly is blessed."

Good English grammar, good English style.

This is not the linguistic equivalent of rocket science. Any second year linguistics student should be able to accomplish this rendering over a lunch break. The problem lies in the fact that LINGUISTICS folks aren't invited to participate in the renderings. Only "liturgists" or "theologians" are deemed competent to render 'sacred texts'. This is just hubris. As a diploma'd linguist and diploma'd theologian, I see the problem and the solution. But my ilk aren't privy to the discussions about the renderings, nor are the "ordinary" people in the pews. Scary.

Dr John

Sadly, accreditation boards, style manuals, and many liturgists are stirring the prescriptive pot and trying to create gender uniformity, or worse preserve the feminine forms while banishing the masculine forms as somehow inferior.

Yes, we need more linguists who possess common sense.

In the verse, �Blessed is the Man," Man refers to Christ.

Using the old king's English -- "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Elizabeth-Maria
Candidate for the Master in Linguistics

I'm not clear on the form of the indicated rendering: what rendering of what text? The intended focus is Psalm 1, especially the opening verse and its immediate context.

Dn. Anthony

Just thought of the ramifications beyond Orthodoxy, putting the shoe on the other foot. So when the Druids celebrate the Vernal (spring) Equinox on the Gregorian (new style) Leap Year day of March 20, 2008 at 5:57 Catholic (universal) Time, that is 12:57 Eastern Standard Time (EST) they should not say �blessed be SHE�?

I can agree with Dr. John that the text "Whoever walks in the way of the godly is blessed" which he offers is �Good English grammar, good English style.� The problem is that it is not a literally accurate translation but a paraphrase. It gives us not an exacting translation of the original text but what the translator thinks it means. This is an example of the �dynamic translation� (translating the thought rather then the words). Translations need to be literally accurate, and carry with them all the possible nuances of the original texts.

In this example we can look at the RSV and the NKJV, which are literal translations:

At face value, saying that 'a man who does not walk in the council of the ungodly' is not the same thing as saying that 'a man who walks in the way of the godly is blessed'. It is changing a negative (does not walk) into a positive (walks). That is not a literal translation.

Further, the pronoun used in Hebrew �'ish� in this context refers to a man that is also male. So an accurate translation must include this reference to a man who is also male.

I can understand the good intentions of those who seek to re-work the Scriptures (and liturgical texts) because they feel that they need to be gender neutralized so as not to be offensive. But that idea is totally incorrect. Translations of Scripture and liturgical texts need to be literally accurate (while also being elegant). Otherwise it is not a translation but a paraphrase. When you paraphrase you loose exact meaning. It would be the job of the homilist or teacher to take the texts and explain them.

In the other thread: "What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?" we can see how the experts treat this, and we can remember the Vatican directives given in "Liturgiam Authenticam" [vatican.va] and elsewhere are similar:
The translation offered by Dr. John does not have the issue of pluralizing the pronoun, but it does change the pronoun from �man� to �whoever�. That is not an accurate rendering of the original text.

Another issue is that raised by Elizabeth Maria. The Church Fathers have allowed a messianic reference to the �man� in Psalm 1 as Christ (but the Church does not insist upon it). That reference is lost in the translation that does not use �man� in the translation.

Let me offer another example here. If a mother of teenagers (two boys and two girls) tells them a story that ends with �and look at the trouble he made for himself when he did something wrong� and then looked at her children and said �so don�t do what he did� no one would think that her command only applied to the teen age boys present. The teen age girls would also understand that the command applied to them, too. The story is representative, and the mother�s use of an example of a teen age boy does not take away the application to the teen age girls, too. No one is (or should be) offended that she used an example involving a teen age boy. Now another mother might tell the story differently, and use the example of a teen age girl. But that is not what this mother did. And her words deserve to be translated accurately. Scripture, too, must be translated accurately. If the Greek or Hebrew text uses the equivalent of �man� (in its inclusive sense of both men or women or specifically to refer to a man who is male) that needs to be captured in translation.

Especially in this case since the Psalms are poetry. Even apart from translating, who would want to change "To be or not to be, that is the question" to "Should I kill myself or not?" etc.?

'ish is a noun, so there is already an alteration and weakening in the imagery if even the masculine pronoun is used instead, let alone the more general "whoever." The Hebrew has the definite article too (though it can function differently in various languages), i.e. ha'ish, allowing for not just a man but specifically the man.

Dn. Anthony

Galatians 5:9 (KJV) � �A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.�

Paraphrase of Galatians 5:9 � �A little dab will do ya.�

I suppose a good homilist or teacher could use the paraphrase to make the point. But the original needs to be translated accurately. It is possible to be literally faithful and yet produce elegant translations that keep the poetry of the original. This is especially important with the psalms.

Thank you for the correction and clarification. I should have been clearer in stating that the change was from a noun to a pronoun.

See how important accuracy is?