www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Elizabethan English in the Divine Liturgy

We are slowly visiting the different Byzantine/Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches in greater Cleveland. St. Josaphat's is nice and friendly but they use a lot of Ukrainian and not Slavonic. Saint Serguis Cathedral and Saint Theodius Cathedral are both really nice. They use English but it's Elizabethan English ("Thou hast").

What's the story behind this? We were surprised at first but I think I could grow to like it. It seems more respectful how. Although they they say things like "good tidings" I feel like I'm in the middle of Charles Dickens Christmas Carol.

You mean: The Lourde Remain with Thou?

What's the story behind this?

Early 20th century English translations of the Divine Liturgy were done in this style (following the then current language of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer for most American Protestants). Places that still use this language likely just haven't updated.

Hieratic language ought to stay. It has grandeur, it has majesty, it's numinous, and it's traditional. You think the original Greek or Latin of the liturgy was colloquial? You think even the koine of the New Testament is just "man on the street" Greek? You have another thing coming. The Apostles and the Fathers alike understood that language for the holy also had to be something set apart, hence their adoption of a deliberately formal, poetic and even antiquarian style and vocabulary.

But if you're going to do it, please do it right.

Have you visited St. Sava's Serbian Cathedral? I think it split into two not too long ago, I visited the one on Broadview and Ridgewood during their festival not too long ago, but not the one on Wallings, which is the other one. I forget why they split now.

Although on topic, I did notice a lot of the Orthodox DL books, I have a Russian one from Amazon.com, and it does have a completely different form of English translation from the Ruthenian Byzantine DL to be sure. I'm guessing it might be the same DL book that St. Sergius uses, not sure. Although I haven't given the DL book at St. Sava that much of a look. I should have.

It was for those reasons--about 125 years ago--that the Lutheran Common Service drew extensively from the Book of Common Prayer when it first appeared in English rather than German.

The Russians use a different recension of the Slavonic Divine Liturgy, incorporating text and rubric changes initiated in the 1650s by Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in order to bring Slavonic use into closer accord with Greek use. The Ruthenians (Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn) use an older, pre-Nikonian recension, as do the Russian Old Ritualists. The irony is, the Greek usage that Nikon wanted to emulate had changed more from the ancient Constantinopolitan use than had the old Russian use, because of prolonged contact between the Greeks and the Latin Church in Italy, whence most of their books were printed.

The Greek scholars imported to Moscow by Patriarch Nikon told him this, but a "resoursement" was not the principal purpose of the Nikonian Reforms, which were actually about establishing a uniform Orthodox use so that Russia could better assert its right to leadership of the Orthodox world.

The greatest problem with colloquial vernacular is that it changes quickly and if liturgy is to stay colloquial, it needs constant updating. From, I suppose, Hail Mary, to Hey Mary, to Yo Mary, to 'Sup Mary?

It boggles.

Liturgical language can be elevated without being Elizabethan. Adding some "thees and thous" to mimic Shakespeare or the KJV is worse than using today's slang.

Besides, back then, it was the vernacular.

Some ten years ago SOUROZH published a review of the Pentecostarion translated by Holy Transfiguration monastery (Brookline, MA). The genial translator Archimandrite Ephrem (Lash) wrote the detailed and scholarly review. Please search it out and read a cogent refutation of the 'holy English' snare by which many of you seem to have gotten entrapped.

I'm not entrapped by anything. I happen to believe that the tone of language matters--it's a psychological/aesthetic, not a theological issue. The tendency to translate scripture and liturgy into prose worthy of USA Today removes one more barrier between the sacred and the profane, in the same manner as writing hymns that sound like badly written pop music. They do not inspire or edify, or even prompt people to realize that they are leaving the mundane world. One way in which we "set aside all earthly cares" is by setting aside the sights, sounds and smells of the earthly world.

I have no problem with hieratic English; I have a problem with translations that do it badly, resulting not in Shakespearing or Jacobean language but in what I call Olde Englishe.

By the way, at the time the translators of the Authorized Version put out the King James Bible, "thee" and "thou", "thy" and "thine" had already fallen out of common use. Obviously, they saw some virtue in maintaining a slightly antiquarian, hieratic form of English, and considering their great success, am not prone to quibble with them.

Actually, it wasn't. By the second decade of the 17th century, the second person singular had fallen into disuse. The translators retained it because (a) they thought it important to continue making that distinction; and (b) they understood the importance of hieratic forms in worship.

People think Shakespearian English is difficult because they grow up having to read it (and in high school, worse yet!), but in truth, it's not meant to be read so much as heard. And if you have someone read the King James (or even the original Douay Rheims) Bible aloud, you will find that it is both easily comprehended and also much more beautiful and memorable than any of the more "up to date" translations cluttering the market. Never think you can improve on works of genius--it's like doing a remake of Casablanca starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie: both unnecessary and unedifying.

Now if you suggested Daniel Craig or Liam Neeson as Rick...maybe....kind of sadthough that I referenced non-US actors for such an iconic role...And icons should be venerated - not cheaply copied....So, in the end - no need for a remake of a classic!

Ahh, okay. I see...good. Thanks for that clarification. This was the book in question, btw: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449971660/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00