|
3 members (theophan, San Nicolas, 1 invisible),
389
guests, and
85
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,533
Posts417,705
Members6,185
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425 |
Dear Forumites,
What can one do to let the Bishops and the Synod of our church know that the new Ukrainian translation is wrong? Can we start some kind of petition? Has anyone tried this already?
(I know you may love Metropolitan Ohienko, but he was wrong about "viky vichni.")
Daniil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member Member
|
|
Member Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784 |
Daniil,
Which translation? The blue book 1988 one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Daniil, An interesting question. As Ohienko's work is the standard translation for the Ukrainian Orthodox and Protestant Churches (his Bible), I wouldn't go around saying what you did, especially not at a bazarre . . . "Viky Vichni" or "Viky Vikiv," - come on, talk about nit-picking! The reason why parishes don't accept the new liturgical translations is because of a deeply ingrained "Church Slavonic" mentality that doesn't like the living Ukrainian language and also because some parishes (I can tell you which) feel that this is the beginning of an "Orthodoxization" of the Ukrainian CAtholic Church. I was looking at prayerbooks at our Church bazarre yesterday and someone pointed out one version and recommended it because it had church Slavonic as well. Give me a break! When are we going to get over that Slavonic business! What is truly wrong is our disdain for modern, living Ukrainian and our crypto-Russification that has always affected our translations at Rome. Apart from that, have a blessed Pascha!  Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425 |
What? I am all for the living Ukrainian language, including its poetic and more eloquent forms. "Podyakyimo Hospodevi" -- very casual. In Ukraine, people use "blahodarim" when they want to be poetic and everyone understands it. Also, how can someone's sins be "dobrovilni" (good-willing/"good voluntary")?
There is a serious theological problem with "viky vichni." It implies that there are many eternal ages. There is only ONE!!! Nit-picking?! Should we just throw all of theology out the window? Let's be really Ukrainian about it and claim that it isn't a real discipline.
It is true that some people hold on to the Old Translation for the wrong reasons, but to say that the Old one is not living Ukrainian means that you think Ukraine means Bloor West Village and the rest of the diaspora. For people in Ukraine, the language used in the New Translation is the equivalent of "101 Bible Stories"-style language for us.
And if this is not the language that is alive over here, then there are two options -- learn Ukrainian better, or use English.
Daniil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member Member
|
|
Member Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784 |
Daniil,
I think Toronto uses it's own translation, published by your eparchy. We have these Synodal published translations with blue covers. It has Blahodarim but viky vichni.
I have heard talk about how the right way to say "Let us pray to the Lord" We use 'Hosdodevi pomolimsya' but I think older translations used 'Hosopdu.'
Ukrainian Orthodox use for "In peace let us pray to the Lord" "U spokoyi Hospodevi pomolimos" . I guess it all depends on regional dilalect. I can see your point on how a slight ending can change a theological view but there should be ONE official translation from L'viv that all Ukrainian Catholics use.
As far as translation being perfect, there are other problems that we need to fix i.e. more people in church, and the re-Easternizing of the Church but your parish is quite there.
-ukrainiancatholic
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 425 |
Dear ukrainiancatholic,
The Toronto Eparchy (in general) uses the old translation approved by Patriarch Josef some time before 1988 (probably in the 70s or maybe even 60s). Yes, I think the blue covered ones are the new translation.
The old translation isn't perfect and there never will be a perfect translation. However, the old translation was more accurate in many cases than the new one. At the same time, some changes made in the new translation are better or the same as the old one.
I am not saying that we need to re-analyze every word and start from scratch. I am saying that when there are such blatant errors in the new translation that are obvious even to elementary school children, something must be done about it.
I agree that the points you mentioned need to be worked on too, but all of this can be done simultaneously. That is why we have different commissions in the Synod that look after particular aspects of the matters of the Church.
Daniil
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Daniil, Sorry, but when you mentioned Ohienko, you got me going, as the Beatles' song sings . . . I do believe, as the Ukrainian Orthodox do, that there are anachronistic words that simply must be kept in the liturgy, such as "Nasuchny" "Suschu Bohoroditsiu" etc. I also agree that the current translation is poor Ukrainian and shows that the translators understand neither Church Slavonic nor modern Ukrainian very well at all. A serious and continuing case in point is the use of the word for the Resurrection, "Voskresennya" with the accent on the third portion from the left. That is a Church Slavonic word but in Ukrainian there are two versions that MUST be used distinctively. The first is "VoskreSEENnya" meaning the resurrection of others e.g. "Voskressinya mertvyich." The second is "VosKRESsenya" as in to resurrect BY ONESELF. And the only person who did that was Christ and so it is properly applied to Him alone. God bless and Happy Pascha to you and your entire family, Alex
|
|
|
|
|
