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

Vladyka Vsevolod's celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the 1629 Liturgicon of St. Peter Moghila was impressive enough.

Once beneath a tree there sat
a very pious Jew.
He had the firm conviction that
he was Bartholomew.

But then, the Higher Critics came
with "L" and "M" and "Q"
and if you ask him now his name
he hasn't got a clue!

So out upon these men of clay
this weak, lick-spittle crew!
May others treat them, just as they
treated Bartholomew!

E. L. Mascall

That is the question. The first quote is merely pointing out that there is a Hebrew original, that the Psalms were not composed in LXX Greek.

Here is the context in the original post on the issue which speaks of "the original, Hebrew" and not "the original Hebrew":



The fuller context quote is trying to make two points:

1. Original language does not automatically mean better primitive reading of the text; a text can become corrupt in the original language while remaining stable in a translation.

2. Even a pristine text in the original language is not necessarily what becomes for the church the traditional text, the one that is handed on to us and that we receive. This is especially so when there is more than one pristine text. The reading in the Barberini Codex, on which the RDL is based, in not the reading handed on to us in the Ruthenian Recension Slavonic -- our recension -- and is not in Rome's 1950 edition of the Greek liturgicon either. Yet it seems the RDL's de facto scope, though never stated explicitly, included this intricate textual criticism issue. It rejects the reading of the Slavonic of the Recension and the 1950 Greek edition and purports to be based on Barberini.

The 1942 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy remains normative. It should be the standard for any and all translations, and those translations should be full and complete. To pick and choose from various Greek texts is wrong, for many reasons but in the context of this discussion for scholarly reasons. One would need the exact copy of the Greek originally used to prepared the Slavonic from in order to know exactly what was going on. And a translator who re-works the Liturgy based upon his personal tastes and ideas in Liturgy has done an incredible disservice to the Church, let alone not produced an authentic translation.

If there are to be changes in the base text used then such changes should be the result of serious scholarship together with common consent among all members of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox). The Pittsburgh Metropolia has done damage to the unity of the Church, as well as great harm to her own people.

But, to keep on topic, it seems to me that the most literal translation is the best. And to recap what what has already been posted we have:

My preference is without the articles, giving it more the form of an acclamation: Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise.

There is no definite article in the Slavonic, so on that basis it can go either way. Greek has a very strong definite article that does not exactly conform with the English one, but the Greek of the received text does not have the definite article either.

There should be no doubt of the genitive rendering base on the Recension Slavonic, and the 1950 ed. and the Textus Receptus Greek. Inserting the definite article (or with the indefinite as some render it) in the English is a judgment call by the translator, a call that would be easier if it were present in the Greek text.

Mercy of Peace, sacrifice of praise may or may not be an acclamation, but syntactically it makes less sense than "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise!", which, in fact, is also an acclamation, and one that even makes sense in English (with the indefinite article, the waters are just muddied: "A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise"--what the heck does that mean?).

What's the preference based on syntax? Without the article it is neutral, and the article is not in the Greek.

Well, for what reason would we be saying, "Mercy of Peace! Sacrifice of Praise! Rah, Rah! Rah!"?

On the other hand, "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise!" states explicitly that which we desire and that which we offer.

Yes, I can appreciate that point. My tendency is lean towards commonality, and use a perfectly good translation that is already in use. Most of the translations from the Slavonic have either "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise" or "A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." I have no strong preference, although using the "the" keeps the change from the 1964 to a minimum and seems to be more specific than using "a". For me at least, using "a" is fine but presupposes a mental addition of "This is" before the "a". I could also live with "Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise" though the style (without articles) is rather different than that used elsewhere throughout the translation. All three translations would be accurate whereas the RDL revision of "Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise" is simply not an accurate translation of the Slavonic. Even if the Codex Barberini 336 referenced in earlier posts eventually finds support in the Church it is wrong for one local Church to act alone. Presentation of the scholarly evidence and a united effort to change the Slavonic original would have been the proper method to preserve unity.

Then your embellishment, which is worthy of the RDL approach, is equally applicable with the article, as you pointed out:

[emphasis added]

It explicitly states a desire, but is that the intent of the text. A translation can over-interpret and give a very clear, unambiguous, but incorrect meaning.

True, indeed. But at times it is necessary to choose, when moving from one language to another, because the degree of ambiguity would be so extreme as to completely obscure the meaning. In this particular case, there seems to be no other reasonable interpretation to give the text, given the context (that is, its place in the Liturgy, and the direction of the Liturgy up to that point).

??? An excellent translation has been available for many years by Fr. Pimen Simon et. al. from the Old Ritualist Church of the Nativity in Erie. There are several others floating around in manuscript form as English translations of Patriarch Joseph of Moscow's editions.

What would be more useful than another rendition of Patriarch Joseph of Moscow's editions would be an English translation of the "Old Kyivan"/Mohylian service books, but perhaps this is what is being considered.

Referring way back to Post 305390 on 11/25/08

At the time I wrote this comment I was simply noting the use of "mercy of peace" and the favorable impression Governor Cross's words made on me, words noble in their simplicity. I have since become aware that Cross was not just a politician who could turn a good phrase, but a man of letters: link [en.wikipedia.org]

Also, though not commenting on the "mercy of peace" phrase directly, William Zinsser in his book On Writing Well (considered a classic by some although he of course has his critics) refers to Cross's Proclamation:


Zinnser then gives the complete text of the Proclamation. Further on he comments:


Beyond the text and translation of this one phrase in the liturgy, mercy of peace, there is (for me) the nagging lack in the RDL, at crucial points, of “nobility of language as a means of” liturgical expression.

Zinsser writes further:


I would hope that, after all and at the least, the legitimacy of the phrase mercy of peace -- even though questioned by the authority of an RDL, a Petras, a Taft and an Mateos, – is properly acknowledged.

And, with Thanksgiving Day 2010 approaching, it seems appropriate to reproduce Cross’s Proclamation here, my emphasis added for mercy of peace, and noting also an accepted and unquestioned use of standard inclusive language:

link [cslib.org]

A note on translation. The text comes from a current divine liturgy text that Fr. Daniel Swires has been arranging for the Midwest diocese. I have departed from that translation at one point. Instead of a "A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise," it reads, "Mercy and peace, a sacrifice of praise." What is a mercy of peace? The current Greek text reads, elion eirinis, thysian ainiseos. In older manuscripts, like the Barbarini 336 codex, we find, "Mercy. Peace. A sacrifice of praise." It is the offering that we make. The priest instructs the congregation to focus their attention "that we may offer the holy oblation in peace." What we are saying in response is that we offer mercy, peace, and a sacrifice of praise. A hypothesis on the change goes as follows.
The older Greek text read, elion, eirinin, thysian aeniseos. There is one letter difference, that is, a sigma (s) on the end of eirini (peace). By adding the sigma (s), "peace" becomes genitive, that is, "of peace." Scribal change then adds grammatical balance to each of the two sets of four word: x OF y. So it then reads, "a mercy OF peace, a sacrifice OF praise." When the liturgy was translated into Slavonic, the Greek text was already changed. Therefore, the Slavonic has always read, "a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise" (milost' mira).
http://www.unmercenary.com/choirpractice/20030921/index.html

Well, according to a Divine Liturgy book from the 2007 translation, I find it listed as "Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise." This was what was sung at the last DL I was at as well, so I'm not entirely sure where you are really getting at here.

Although, also looking at a DL book circa 1993, I find it as "The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise."