www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology New Melkite Translation on line

This is so, but I'd say more details are need to get a valid comparison. Greek seems a more native or secondary liturgical language for the Melkites than Ruthenians. How does the Arabic handle Theotokos? Slav recensions do not transliterate it but rather translate it, producing a new (Slavonic) word. It should also be noted that the other instance of using a transliterated Greek word in the RDL, "Anaphora" (capitalized no less), found in the diaconal admonition, is an issue that has come under some questioning; it is translated here as "oblation" as it was prior to the RDL innovation. Also, as a side note but going to consistency, all the ancient languages in the liturgy, Greek, Latin, Slavonic, retain the Hebraic Sabaoth. Does the Arabic? Here it is consistently retained in the English, "Lord of Sabaoth."

At present, at least some Melkite parishes use both "Mother of God" and Theotokos, depending on which expression best matches the tone they are singing. I expect this situation to continue even under the new translation.

One cannot offer the Holy Anaphora--the notion makes no sense, since the term anaphora means "before the gifts". The Slavonic term means offering or oblation, and there was no reason to change it, other than to say, "See, we're sophisticated".

The Arabic version of Holy, Holy, Holy does retain the untranslated Sabaoth.

In answer to ajk: in Arabic, we say "waalidatul-illaah" which means "God-bearer". It is a direct translation of 'Theotokos'. The term "God-bearer" was felt to be too heavy and too uncommon to be used in English, thus we retained "Theotokos" where it was used in the Greek, and "Mother of God" where "Mother of God" was found in Greek (and the equivalent "umm ullaah" in Arabic).

As to the music: we are almost finished on a new set of music for the Divine Liturgy--following the new translation--but written and sung in proper Byzantine tones (and tuning). We shall be recording it and sending out the CDs with the music for those--especially those in the West--who do not know or understand Byzantine tuning (i.e., quarter tones, etc.).

I have not had a chance to do a good comparison but at first look there are a number of differences from the draft circulated in 2007 (for which the Melkites sought comment from anyone interested). And I can't find my copy of the older normative translation at the moment. It is my understanding that this edition is not final, only a stopping point on the way to a final. The Melkites are still seeking input.

-The 2007 draft edition used "ages of ages". This 2009 edition changes that back to "forever and ever" as in the previous normative editions. [After two years of "ages of ages" going back to "forever and ever" or the Ruthenian equivalent would be interesting!]

-The 2007 draft edition did not contain the Litany of the Catechumens. Not sure why (it seems to me that that edition was very much an early draft). It might be because 20 years ago none of the litanies between the Gospel and the Cherubic Hymn were generally taken (except in a few parishes) and often were not even in the different liturgicons. This one does but with allowances to skip it or abbreviate it. The 2009 edition does contain this litany.

-In the 2009 edition some litanies are background highlighted in gray to set them off as optional but are not prohibited. This is a sign of restoration since in some of the private liturgicons they were not included at all. Not sure why if they were adding them back they did not add all the petitions (including the "Grant this, O Lord" petitions). I'll ask.

More as time permits. I would be very happy to summarize any real issues we come across and send them along to the Melkites. On some things (like mandating the Anaphora aloud) they are obviously incorrect and should read Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) who said the experiment didn't work for the Roman Catholics. They may have made the mistake of looking at the RDL books. That's only a sure path to self-destruction. The only way forward on that issue is through liberty, which allows the Spirit to lead organic development over time.

"-The 2007 draft edition used "ages of ages". This 2009 edition changes that back to "forever and ever" as in the previous normative editions."

I have linguistic and cosmological problems with forever and ever. As the majority of Melkite priests seem to be using "ages of ages", I don't see this change making the final cut.

"The 2007 draft edition did not contain the Litany of the Catechumens. Not sure why (it seems to me that that edition was very much an early draft). "

As the Melkites actually seem to have a significant number of adult catechumens, it was probably necessary to restore it.

As a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic, my curiosity was piqued with the Troparia. We sing the Resurrection tones on Sundays for both the Tropar and Kontak; The Melkites sing the Tropar only (?), plus the Tropar of the Patron...then the festal Kontak as prescribed? There is no Resurrection Kontakion?
Do I understand this correctly? Also the troparia are alternately sung by the celebrant and choir?

I think the schedule for the festal troparia is interesting; the faithful spend a longer period of time to contemplate each seasonal feast... I like that. I see the Theotokion is always sung.

The two versions of the Resurrection Troparia is interesting, but how do you keep on the same page? Is congregational singing common?

Fr Deacon Paul

Fr Deacon Paul

There are many many problems with this new Liturgy. The biggest problem is incorrect translations of the original Greek.

First is the use of "forever" for both aeonios and aidios.

The Greek word "aidios" literally means forever or eternal. However, "aeonios" means "ages". The literal translation is Now and always and from ages to ages" which is linguisticly and theologically correct. To mistranslate this as "Now and always and forever and ever" is both incorrect and heretical.

God in his essence is outside of time (kairos) but has injected himself into temporal time (chronos). The term "forever" is a term that is strictly Chronos while "ages until ages" show the timelessness of God. We say "now and always" (chronos) and "unto the ages of ages" (kairos) to show the eschatological nature of the liturgy i.e. moving from time to timelessness. The new mis-translation destroys that distinction.

Thats a bit strong Jon.

Yes, it is a bit strong but so is the liturgical expression of the timelessness of God. The opening proclamation: "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit now and always and unto ages of ages" is the eschatalogical foundation of the liturgy. We dare not abandon it!

It's not heretical, but it is incorrect, and because it is incorrect, it can lead to misperceptions, which in turn can lead to conclusions that are in fact heretical. That's why it is important to translate accurately.

Deacon Paul,
the normal parish usage for troparia and kontakia is somewhat abbreviated from the fuller prescription.
On a Sunday (where the concomitant feast is not of the first class), the appropriate Resurrectinal troparion is chanted, then the troparion/troparia of the appropriate feasts, then the troparion (earlier it was the kontakion) of the patron saint, and then finally the appropriate theotokion.
Of course, this order describes what happens outside the Triodion and Pentecostarion periods.

The congregation may join in when they know the troparia well; they nearly always join in for the theotokia. Otherwise they are alternated.

StuartK and JonG,

if "every major modern translation of these words in Scripture
—including the King James Version, the Jerusalem Bible, the
New Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible, as
well as the Orthodox Study Bible—employs 'forever and ever'", doesn't it make sense that the translation of the liturgy would follow?

Just curious as to your thinking.

catholicsacristan,

those practices have been common in Arabic for some time. Most are already practised in English.

"doesn't it make sense that the translation of the liturgy would follow?"

I think here the cosmological and theological implications are significant enough (see JonG, above) that, if I had my druthers, I would not translate "aeon" at all, but leave it as such. The translator has an obligation to let the text speak for itself, and if a particular technical term (and aeon qualifies) has no acceptable counterpart in another language, then leave it as is. We do that with Amen, Alleluia, Sabaoth, and Theotokos, among other words, why not here?

As to why every modern English translation uses "forever and ever", I think the answer goes back to the translators of King James, whose monumental work still has influence over translators to this day.

"doesn't it make sense that the translation of the liturgy would follow?"
-----

Actually, every translation uses "forever" where the Greek word is "aidios" but uses "age" where the "aeonios" is in the original.

"...and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20 - Orthodox Study Bible).

Here the word is aeonios so it is correctly rendered "age". This is in contrast to "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 7:17) where the word is aidios. Like the translation of scripture, the translation of the Liturgy should also be correct.