www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Diaconal admonition and its response at the Anaphora

This thread is intended as a study of the translation of the diaconal admonition and its response that takes place at the Anaphora.

Fr. David, explaining the work of the IELC has commented:

From Liturgical Reform in the Byzantine Church, Presentation to Catechists, Saturday, August 12, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, link [davidpetras.com] on his website link [davidpetras.com]:

And from an earlier post on this forum link:


I think we would all agree (?) that the translation in the1965 liturgicon needed to be reexamined. The 1965 liturgicon (aka Red book) has


The 2007 liturgicon (RDL) has for the admonition and response:


There is quite some controversy over the use and understanding of “Anaphora” in this admonition in the RDL, and I refer postings dealing with that topic here. For the purpose of this thread, the word anaphora in the admonition can be considered to be translated as before by oblation (or perhaps something else?). With this understanding, a comparison of the two translations shows a difference only in the first part of the people's response (except for a vs. the in the second part), i.e

1965: The offering of peace, (the)
2007: Mercy, peace, (a)

Both of these translations are to some extent the result of trying to clarify the enigmatic phrase that is in the received text in both the Recension Slavonic and the Greek versions used as the primary texts for both translations:

1. Slavonic [patronagechurch.com]

2. Greek [patronagechurch.com]

A straightforward, literal translation of the Slavonic and Greek, both of which have peace in the genitive is just Mercy of peace.

Neither the 1965 nor the 2007 translation gives this literal rendering. In attempting to clarify this literal rendering, the two translations take differing paths, each with pluses and minuses. The 1965 retains the genitive of the received texts but reads into mercy the meaning offering, which certainly fits the context but is clearly a different word. The 2007 here goes to a different reading than the received texts, as noted above by Fr. David, that being the Barberini Codex and corroboration by the referenced article by Fr. Taft:

3. Taft - Diaconal Admonition [patronagechurch.com]

There is also this, link:

These, then, are some relevant documents and background.

Initial questions and comments:

1. The last quote says “This is explained in more detail in: The response The offering of peace..” What is “The response” that is mentioned?

2. Taft’s work is from 1983. Is there anything more recent? Any follow-ups, errata etc. by Fr. Taft?

3. It is not clear to me why the Commission chose the Barberini reading; Taft is referenced but he gives no such explicit endorsement (I may be missing it.). If anything, he favors the accusative. That difference has no direct bearing on an (uninflected-English) translation, but it can influence interpretation. At any rate, why the “deliberate” choice of Barberini?

4. On the methodology of the IELC: link

Also, from the Foreword of the RDL liturgicon:

2007 Liturgicon Foreword

Yet, as sources 1 & 2 above – i.e. those mentioned in the foreword: “the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), ...[and] the Church Slavonic of the Služebnik (Rome, 1942)” -- indicate, “peace” is in the genitive not the nominative of Barberini or the accusative preferred (it seems to me) by Taft. [Taft dismisses the genitive, but I find him unconvincing (meaning, for me, "Taft said it" is not a sufficient answer here).] Regardless, this is at the level of textual criticism, and well beyond, even contravening “preferring the more literal meaning” of the received texts. Did the mandate of the IELC intentionally extend this far? Intentional textual modification of the received text(s) does not appear in the elements given in the foreword.

5. Taft presents data and conclusions and opinions. The data is sound and well organized. But I have misgivings about the validity of his conclusion and opinion about the form of the people's response from his study of the transmitted texts, thus my concern about how it may have influenced the RDL translation. Before saying more, however, perhaps there is a straightforward explanation or other comments on my summary or objections to my appraisal.

In the late 'sixties Father Vladimir Vanchik, of holy memory, called the problem of the people's response here to my attention. He preferred the reading "Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise".

The Old-Ritualists keep the reading "Mercy, peace, sacrifice and song", which is an interesting reading, although so far I've not found it in Greek.

Fr. Serge

Wouldn't "Milost' mira, zhertvu chavlenija" be translated as

"a merciful peace, a sacrifice of praise"?

Ung

That's a good translation Ung, but you have to use the Greek. ;-)

What is the Slavonic that they are translating this way?

My Slavonic language resources -- meaning reference books and ability -- aren't the greatest. The English "merciful peace" is an interesting proposal. In the Greek, peace is definitely in the genitive in the received text. For mir/mira mira seems to have the expected inflection for the genitive. To be strictly translated "merciful" I would have expected not milost' but something of the form milostiv.

Milost', mir, zhertva i pieniie.

Two more items for background:

link

As I said before, the RDL translation being based on Taft's article and also the choice of the Barberini Codex are ambiguous if not conflicting statements.

Also from Bishop Kallistos:

link [incommunion.org]

Fully aware of the bishop's magisterial stature, and respecting it, I think two of his points should be reexamined in light of Taft's study.

1. The warrant for his statement: "... in the correct text, “Mercy. Peace...If we consult the older Greek manuscripts we find, “Mercy. Peace. A sacrifice of praise."

2. He also states: "In fact in most churches they say, “a mercy of peace,” but that does not make very good sense."

Taft also in his article makes the same statement about the enigmatic phrase "mercy of peace" not making sense (in fact he makes a point of saying it twice in his article). It is also the common opinion of most if not all posts on this topic on this forum. In fact, it is said so often that surely it is true by now on that basis alone. And for that reason, in light of Taft's article, that OPINION should be critically reconsidered.

I found the following interesting:

"Now what is the meaning of this opening dialogue? Here is the explanation given by St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “As we begin the actual celebration of the dread mysteries, the priest prays for the people and the people pray for the priest, for the words ‘and with thy spirit’ mean precisely this: Everything in the Eucharistic thanksgiving is shared in common. For the priest does not offer thanksgiving alone, but the whole people give thanks with him. For after he has replied to their greeting, they then give their consent by answering: ‘It is meet and right.’ Only then does he begin the Eucharistic thanksgiving.” So on the understanding of St. John Chrysostom, this opening dialogue exactly expresses our togetherness as we embark upon the central part of the Eucharist. The priest alone says the prayer of the Anaphora, but the people are directly and actively involved in everything that he does. And so, in this dialogue, the unity of priest and people in the shared action of the Liturgy is clearly underlined. The priest greets the people; they respond to his greeting:”The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” — “And with thy spirit.” This is mutual prayer, as St. John Chrysostom explains it. The priest then invites the people to raise their hearts on high; and the people respond by saying, “That is exactly what we’re doing!” And then the priest says, “Let us give thanks to the Lord,” and that could also be translated: “Let us offer the Eucharist to the Lord.” And the people say: “That is an excellent idea.” Only when they have responded in that way does the celebrant continue. The celebrant is, as it were, asking permission from the people to continue with the Eucharistic celebration. He needs their endorsement. He cannot act on his own. The prayer is theirs as well as his. Their active consent is indispensable. So the Eucharistic Anaphora begins with a dialogue because the Eucharist is, par excellance, the human action. We are eucharistic animals as human beings; and also, the human animal is essentially a dialogic animal — an animal that engages in dialogue. So what that dialogue before the Anaphora is expressing is just what I said a few minutes ago: I need you in order to be myself."

Fr. Deacon,

What do you feel is the correct translation?

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is a bit off topic, but why the added emphasis here?

That's the part I thought interesting. Many people were upset with oblation being changed to Anaphora and here Bishop Kallistos is commenting "Let us give thanks to the Lord" can be translated as "Let us offer the Eucharist to the Lord".

Fr. Deacon Lance,

The straightforward answer for me, without going into the textual criticism aspects for now, is to simply translate what is found in both the Slavonic and Greek of the received texts, those being also the stated two primary (if you will) sources for both the 1965 & 2007 translations (though in different order, but that doesn't affect this issue). As I alluded in the initial post:

I feel that is the correct translation.

Yes, thanks. That's what I was thinking but didn't want to presume. I'd like to come back to this point, but in the thread referenced above on that topic or perhaps a new one.

Since this is turning into a discussion of linguistic minutiae, might I suggest De minimis non curat praetor?

Fr. Serge