www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy News Regarding the New Translation of the Divine Liturgy

hmm - the pot holder has to be totally neutral - someone not involved in this at all

Good luck finding him

There are already so many good translations of the Divine Liturgy in English, this whole episode is so sad. A cooperative effort with ACROD and the OCA or the Melkites would have been very sensible, and highly symbolic.

Anyway, if the BCC is truly interested in evangelization (and considering the changing demographics in North America) the time invested would have been better spent working on an approved translation in Spanish, perhaps basing it on the OCA's version used in Mexico.

+T+
Michael

A good suggestion, we must co-operate with others wherever possible.

Maybe even now, this is an idea whose time has come?

Elias

I hope you're right, but when ego is on the line, all bets are off. Just ask anyone who has had to deal with a certain bishop who's involved! Sad, but true.

What do you think Incognitus?

That's a new one. Please elaborate.

hardly new...

....but, for those who have not been following the discussion about the errors and mistakes identified in the proposed mis-translation, these are a good start.


https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003685
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003692

question 1
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003152#000000
question 2
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003155#000000
question 3
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003159#000000
question 4
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003182#000000

Nick

Nick: your post referred to mistakes and errors "not to mention ... 'inclusive language' ". Now three of your links are on that topic. And the other links raise questions about which reasonable people can, did, and do differ. I thought that you had actually found objective mistakes and errors.

Does anyone know if the proposed new translation of the divine liturgy has been posted on the internet yet?

I have been to a couple liturgies that were -- at least I was told that they were -- using the new translation. I have a booklet from one of those liturgies (the booklet contains the peoples parts of the liturgy, and a few of the deacons and priests prayers), but I have never taken the time to compare it with the present translation.

The only change that I remember -- off the top of my head -- came at the end of the liturgy, when the priest said, "May Christ our God have mercy on us and save us, for Christ is good and loves us all." Now, this sounds a bit jarring if you are used to the present prayer, and it also is somewhat imprecise, because who is being referenced when the priest says "Christ is good and loves us all." Does the "all" refer to the particular congregation celebrating that particular liturgy, or does it refer to the whole Church in a more general sense, or does it refer to all, that is, in the sense of all mankind?

I know there were other changes besides this one, but I would have to look at the booklet and compare it with my "Byzantine Book of Prayer," and I do not have time to do that at the moment, because I have been busy grading my students mid-term assignments and exams.

Oh I see, you do not recognize exclusive "inclusive" language as an error, even though it was condemned and forbidden by Rome? How objective is that, I wonder?

It sounds that way, because it is wrong, a mistake, an error.

But some liberals and progressives mistake 'error' for 'improvement'. They just don't get it, or recognize the obligations for translators of Liturgical texts.

Nick

I remembered something else that may have been from the newer translation (and if my memory serves me it occurred during the annunciation liturgy last year - 2005; I remember because we were using special newly printed booklets for that service): there was a prayer near the end of the liturgy that referred to Christ as a "human being," but this type of reference is problematic because it involves a latent form of Nestorianism. Christ is not a "human being"; instead, He is a divine being, and a divine person, who has assumed human nature and become man. In other words, Christ has no human act of being (i.e., existence) and so it is theologically improper to refer to Him as a "human being."

Now, that's all I can remember at the present moment, but if I have time I will try and compare the booklet to the present translation. I wish of course that the booklet contained the anaphora and the other diaconal and priestly prayers (it has a few of the litanies), but sadly it does not.

P.S. - At the annunciation liturgy -- like the other liturgy which I was told was using the newer translation -- Mary was referred to as "Theotokos." Thus, I think that both liturgies were using the newer translation.

Rome recongizes the dangers of allowing these errors and mistakes into the Liturgy in the name of false "inclusiveness". It is objective error.

But Nestorius had supporters in his day, who thought that the language problem was "no big deal" and "a matter of opinion".

That is why I call the error of "inclusive" language, exclusive. It excludes me, for one.

Nick

:rolleyes: I did not "recognize" it as a part of what you meant by "mistakes and errors" because you specifically excluded it as a separate case in your post. I was asking about your suggestion of mistakes-and-errors-apart-from-inclusive-language.

Oh, I see, but do you admit it is a mistake and error?

Nicholas,

Once again you state:

"Oh I see, you do not recognize exclusive "inclusive" language as an error, even though it was condemned and forbidden by Rome? How objective is that, I wonder?"

This is a half truth and I tire of it being told. Rome did not condemn or forbid all inclusive language. Go to a local Latin Church and you will see it still in use. Whether one like or dislikes inclusive language in any form or objects to it on translation principles one cannot call something condemned which has been allowed.

Once again a present an excerpt from an article that ran in the National Catholic Reporter:

"In addition, since allowable instances of inclusivity are restricted to "horizontal" language, all "vertical" references--those to God and Christ--must be maintained in unambiguously male form. On the other hand, it was agreed that the Greek words anthropos and adelphos as well as the Hebrew word h'adam may be translated in an inclusive sense.

Anthropos and adelphos are quite common words in the New Testament. Sr. Dianne Bergant, a professor of Biblical studies at Chicago Theological Union, explained that anthropos literally means human being and has no specifically male connotation, while adelphos literally means "brother," though often used by Paul in contexts that include both sexes.

Bergant said the two appear (in singular or plural form) some 80 times in the gospels and have hitherto been generally translated as man or men. The two words are found some 50 times in the Acts of the Apostles, she noted, and are also common in St. Paul's epistles when referring to all human beings.

The Hebrew h'adam, which may now be translated inclusively, appears more than 600 times in the Old Testament, she said, and was commonly rendered as man.

Under the principles, where the NAB translates the Book of Wisdom 2:23 as "For God formed man [anthropos] to be imperishable," it will apparently be permissible to substitute a more generic phrase, such as "For God formed humans ..."

Similarly, where the NAB Gospel of Mark, 8:36, quotes Jesus saying, "For what does it profit a man [anthropos] to gain the whole world ...?", the new lectionary may use a term such as human being or person.

The word aner, which literally means a male person, must be translated as man, according to the agreement with the Vatican, but it appears rarely--only about nine times in the gospels--according to Bergant."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n27_v33/ai_19415715