Liturgical English: Developing an Orthodox Language Study Group

[5Loaves]

"Liturgical English: Developing an Orthodox Language Study Group" being offered by the Sts. Cyril & Athanasius Institute for Orthodox Studies in San Francisco.

There are two Enrollment Types" a "Working Group" for those who are qualified which will meet in SF, and there are "Associate Participants [who will] interact chiefly on-line and may be located anywhere in the world":

The "Study Group" consists of the Working Group and the Associates. There is no tuition for this. ($25.00 for supplies for the Working Group and $10 service fee for Associate Participants)

Schedule of Upcoming Meetings.

From that website:

The Liturgical English: Developing an Orthodox Language Study Group aims to engage in discussions surrounding the interest in developing a shared "Orthodox Liturgical English" that is suitable for divine worship and prayer, based in Orthodox customs and practices of translation and liturgical life. Physical meetings of the working group are held in San Francisco, while wider participation is enabled through a host of on-line resources dedicated to the Group's work.

Topics addressed by this Study Group include:

The nature of Orthodox liturgical language. What is it? How is it distinct and different from other forms of a language.
Principles of liturgical translation and text.
The relationship of textual accuracy, poetry and liturgical usage.
Recent ventures in Orthodox English liturgical publications -- most notably David James's A Psalter for Prayer -- and how such projects might fit into larger work on English-language Orthodox texts.
And other related items.

The conclusion of "A Welcome Message from Archimandrite Irenei":

The purpose of this Study Group is to provide an avenue to explore what it might mean for an Orthodox liturgical English to be crafted. What might be its contours? What are the principles that it must maintain? How might such a project be approached? What pitfalls must it avoid? What would be the criteria of success?

The Institute's Study Group will make no pretensions of giving a definitive answer to these questions, nor to being the avenue by which this want might be overcome; but we hope that it might be a venue to engage in some of these questions, to explore the nature of language in our life and prayer, and perhaps to engage a broader group of people in discussions that may further the cause

[Phillip Rolfes]

Sounds like it'll be interesting. Too bad I'm all the way on the other side of the country.

My only concern is that they seem to advocate "Elizabethan English." Not really my cup of tea. Plus among the different national Churches there are different standards for translation. The Greek edition of the liturgy as used by the Greek Orthodox isn't understandable to the modern Greek speaker. Among the Arabs they use a formal version of Arabic that is still understandable to those who speak modern Arabic. The Romanians actually use Romanian as commonly spoken, and they even have a commission to update translations in order to keep them "modern" but still accurate and poetic. I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the Ukrainians also use spoken Ukrainian in their liturgies as well.

I'm all for using a dignified and poetic translation of the Liturgy in modern English. Unfortunately such a translation has yet to surface. The closest I've seen has been Archbishop Raya's translation in the BDW, and the Fordham translation used by the Russian Catholics. As far as the rest of the Liturgical texts are concerned, the Melkites still seem to have the best modern English version. The main drawback is that their texts are not metered to fit the automela (model hymns).

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

As far as the rest of the Liturgical texts are concerned, the Melkites still seem to have the best modern English version. The main drawback is that their texts are not metered to fit the automela (model hymns).

Having read the 2009 draft ad experimentum version a few times, I would agree - a very good translation, in modern English, yet still fairly poetic.

As for matching up English texts with melodic chant patterns first set again ancient root language, the Melkites are not alone in their challenge.

Even despite the closer similarities of modern Slavic languages to Old Church Slavonic, much has been written and noted about the challenges of adapting chant to the native modern vernacular languages used even in the "Old Country".

[ByzCathCantor]

Critique of Final Draft of Melkite English Translation of the Divine Liturgy

Although written about the Melkite draft translation, this critique offered by a Melkite priest does make several points of general applicability to any effort to translate the DL into English vernacular language. Thus, it is shared given its relevance to the effort to be undertaken as reported in the OP.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

My only concern is that they seem to advocate "Elizabethan English." Not really my cup of tea.

Maybe not, but IMO it's a sight better than dynamic equivalence pseudo-translations replete with ICEL-style inclusive language and such. I can deal with the stuffiness of the former but not loosey-goosey of the latter.

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

The Greek edition of the liturgy as used by the Greek Orthodox isn't understandable to the modern Greek speaker.

Well yes, Koine is at a bit of distance from Modern Greek, but while it may sound stilted to the modern ear, it's still not totally alien.

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Among the Arabs they use a formal version of Arabic that is still understandable to those who speak modern Arabic.

It's quite different from the spoken language -- depending on the country, at least as much as Koine vs Modern Greek -- but is understandable because what's used in those texts is "Modern Standard Arabic" which is what newspapers are written in and what is used in public addresses. No one (except, perhaps, for some effete snobs whose lives hinge on showing off) speaks it in common parlance.

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

As far as the rest of the Liturgical texts are concerned, the Melkites still seem to have the best modern English version. The main drawback is that their texts are not metered to fit the automela (model hymns).

IMHO, that's not all it's cracked-up to be. For example, the neo-Maronite "translations" (of the 2005 Missal) are so metered and they are absolutely horrendous. In being slavish to the meter, the texts have become less a translation more a paraphrase re-write. Worse is that what was used as the basis for this (in fact as the basis for the whole thing, not only the metered parts) was not the Syriac text, but rather of the Arabic text which itself is a paraphrase of the original. Double the displeasure, double the "fun" I guess.

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that the Ukrainians also use spoken Ukrainian in their liturgies as well.

Speaking of Ukrainians, they were showing the physical fighting going on among the Ukrainian politicians when the discussion of expanding the use of Russian in their courtrooms came about. I doubt if they would be open to any kind of English in courtrooms or anywhere else, unless it's somewhere other than the Ukraine.

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Sounds like it'll be interesting. Too bad I'm all the way on the other side of the country.

Associate Participants [who will] interact chiefly on-line and may be located anywhere in the world":

The "Study Group" consists of the Working Group and the Associates. There is no tuition for this. ($25.00 for supplies for the Working Group and $10 service fee for Associate Participants)

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

My only concern is that they seem to advocate "Elizabethan English." Not really my cup of tea.

I didn't hear that being advocated in the "Audio Lecture 1: An Introduction to the Principles of Liturgical Language" that is available on line to registrants, nor elsewhere.

I'm all for using a dignified and poetic translation of the Liturgy in modern English. Unfortunately such a translation has yet to surface.

I would gather this is the reason why they have decided to provide this Study Group. I'm personally mainly interested as a professional interpreter. Also, as an ordinary orthodox Christian anytime one tries to unpack the language we use in our worship one gains a deeper awareness of what we are praying.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Having read the 2009 draft ad experimentum version a few times, I would agree - a very good translation, in modern English, yet still fairly poetic.

As for matching up English texts with melodic chant patterns first set again ancient root language, the Melkites are not alone in their challenge.

Even despite the closer similarities of modern Slavic languages to Old Church Slavonic, much has been written and noted about the challenges of adapting chant to the native modern vernacular languages used even in the "Old Country".

Actually, when comparing the 2009 draft "ad experimentum" and Archbishop Raya's translation, I prefer Raya's translation (as do a number of other Melkites). But the 2009 draft is essentially the Raya translation with revisions - some of the revisions were rather unfortunate.

There have been attempts to translate the Greek texts into English while maintaining the Byzantine automela. Some of those attempts have been rather successful, others not so much. The texts translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery are all metered to match the automela, but they are in Elizabethan English (not necessarily bad) and from what I understand some of the translations are slightly problematic. Fr. Seraphim Dedes of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery has also done some translations into modern English from the original Greek while attempting to maintain the original Byzantine automela. His translations are kind of "iffy." Some are rather poetic and very beautiful. Others just sound flat out wrong when read, spoken, or sung.

St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox Monastery has been working on their "Divine Liturgies Music Project" which has attempted to write all new Byzantine music in English, but following all the proper rules of Byzantine music and notation. Their work is quite good, but again mostly in Elizabethan English. They simply use the translations provided by Holy Transfiguration Monastery (which is a non-canonical Orthodox monastery).

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Critique of Final Draft of Melkite English Translation of the Divine Liturgy

Although written about the Melkite draft translation, this critique offered by a Melkite priest does make several points of general applicability to any effort to translate the DL into English vernacular language. Thus, it is shared given its relevance to the effort to be undertaken as reported in the OP.

Thanks for posting this link. I've read through Father's thoughts several times in the past and couldn't agree with him more. You've inspired me to read through it again for some fresh insights.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by malphono

Maybe not, but IMO it's a sight better than dynamic equivalence pseudo-translations replete with ICEL-style inclusive language and such. I can deal with the stuffiness of the former but not loosey-goosey of the latter.



Well yes, Koine is at a bit of distance from Modern Greek, but while it may sound stilted to the modern ear, it's still not totally alien.



It's quite different from the spoken language -- depending on the country, at least as much as Koine vs Modern Greek -- but is understandable because what's used in those texts is "Modern Standard Arabic" which is what newspapers are written in and what is used in public addresses. No one (except, perhaps, for some effete snobs whose lives hinge on showing off) speaks it in common parlance.



IMHO, that's not all it's cracked-up to be. For example, the neo-Maronite "translations" (of the 2005 Missal) are so metered and they are absolutely horrendous. In being slavish to the meter, the texts have become less a translation more a paraphrase re-write. Worse is that what was used as the basis for this (in fact as the basis for the whole thing, not only the metered parts) was not the Syriac text, but rather of the Arabic text which itself is a paraphrase of the original. Double the displeasure, double the "fun" I guess.

I agree about Elizabethan English being better than any pseudo-translation, so long as it is itself a good translation as well. It is possible for a translation to be in Elizabethan English and still be a bad translation. Personally I think dynamic-equivalence does play a role in translations, simply because translating everything literally doesn't always work. But when dynamic equivalence becomes little more than paraphrasing, that's when problems start to set in.

As far as metered hymns are concerned, I completely agree that problems do arise when one strives to follow the meter exactly. The biggest problems I've seen in the Byzantine tradition of chant have been awkward translations that are sometimes either slavishly literal to the point of not accurately conveying the message of the original text, or bad paraphrases that fall into the same problem of literal word-for-word translations (i.e. not accurately conveying the intent of the original).

The current Melkite English translation is actually a translation of the Arabic instead of the Greek. I believe reference may have been made back to the Greek text so that the English translation would conform to that text where the Arabic may deviate from it, but overall the translation was done from the Arabic. So it's really a translation of a translation. That's just for the Divine Liturgy. For the Sacraments book known as the "Euchologion" the translation was from the original standard Greek text in the archives in Rome. As to the other texts, I've not heard for sure what source they relied on for their translations. I've heard rumors that they were translated from the French, which again would make them a translation of a translation. But I suspect that may not be true for two reasons. First, they make extensive use of the translations done by Archbishop Raya and Baron Jose de Vinck. Those translations were done from the original Greek. Secondly the Greek Orthodox themselves hold the Melkite translations in very high esteem, and I've heard that a number of both Greek and Antiochian Orthodox parishes use the Melkite books in their services.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by 5Loaves

I didn't hear that being advocated in the "Audio Lecture 1: An Introduction to the Principles of Liturgical Language" that is available on line to registrants, nor elsewhere.



I would gather this is the reason why they have decided to provide this Study Group. I'm personally mainly interested as a professional interpreter. Also, as an ordinary orthodox Christian anytime one tries to unpack the language we use in our worship one gains a deeper awareness of what we are praying.

As far as advocating Elizabethan English, I'm basing that judgment off of their recommended Psalter. I listened once to a program on Ancient Faith Radio where the gentleman was very adamant about Elizabethan English as being the only form of English proper for the Divine Liturgy. He recommended the same Psalter. Perhaps I am projecting my reaction to him onto this Study Group though.

I didn't know you were an interpreter! That's cool.

You are right though, the more translations we look at the deeper becomes our awareness of what it is we are praying. My parish actually uses a number of different translations, some Elizabethan others modern. A gentleman in the parish likes this because it opens up to us many senses of the texts that may not be conveyed by just a single translation.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Actually, when comparing the 2009 draft "ad experimentum" and Archbishop Raya's translation, I prefer Raya's translation (as do a number of other Melkites).

As do I, and will never part with my BDW and Byzantine Book of Prayer

And of course, to be honest, my basis of comparison is inherently to the translation employed by my own particular Church, and we need not go into that here once again ...

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

As do I, and will never part with my BDW and Byzantine Book of Prayer

And of course, to be honest, my basis of comparison is inherently to the translation employed by my own particular Church, and we need not go into that here once again ...

I just reread the post from Byzantine Ramblings. Quite excellent. It's kind of sad to think that the various corrections/revisions he suggested could've been made simply by revising the Raya-de Vinck translation slightly. But in all honesty, I wonder how much impact the new translation has really had on the Melkites throughout the U.S. and other English speaking countries. My own parish still uses the Raya-de Vinck translation, substituting "for ever and ever" with "unto ages of ages" and sometimes throwing in a few "thees" and "thous." Otherwise we've been completely unaffected by the new translation.

What bothers me most is that no one has really seemed to put the effort into making a truly excellent translation into modern English. The Melkite translations are good, but could certainly be improved upon. Most folks seem caught up in the hype to produce an excellent translation in Elizabethan English. I suspect this has to do primarily with the influence of Protestant converts to Orthodoxy along with the general Protestant roots of the U.S. and the desire to maintain some connection between our liturgical worship and the "feel" of the King James Bible.

[5Loaves]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

As far as advocating Elizabethan English, I'm basing that judgment off of their recommended Psalter. I listened once to a program on Ancient Faith Radio where the gentleman was very adamant about Elizabethan English as being the only form of English proper for the Divine Liturgy. He recommended the same Psalter. Perhaps I am projecting my reaction to him onto this Study Group though.

Ah, now I comprehend.
Within the sections that are available to those who are registered is a section "Older English editions of the Scriptures"

Numerous English versions of the Scriptures exist, including numerous versions translated or edited by Orthodox soures. These prove invaluable tools in comparison and in observing different translation methods and approaches.

[Bolding there is mine.] This includes links to three Psalters and three full Bibles-- the KJV, Douey-Rheims Version, and "The Holy Orthodox Bible, as translated by Peter Papoutsis - an example of translation that goes awry." , plus a link to a discussion and critique of that project on Monachos.net . In the "Comments" someone also added links to Holy Transfiguration Monastery's The Psalter According to the Seventy, and to translations of William Tyndale and John Wycliffe.

It's true the links aren't to any published contemporary translations of scripture.

I didn't know you were an interpreter! That's cool.

I keep saying that I'm getting too old to do simultaneous work-- my brain just doesn't move that fast anymore... tho somehow I do still manage to do jobs here and there. Being a fly on the wall in every kind of situation is definitely interesting and has exposed me to so many things I would never have been part of otherwise.

You are right though, the more translations we look at the deeper becomes our awareness of what it is we are praying. My parish actually uses a number of different translations, some Elizabethan others modern. A gentleman in the parish likes this because it opens up to us many senses of the texts that may not be conveyed by just a single translation.

I hope they manage to pull this Study Group off because I am very interested in it. I'm less than fully confident because I emailed them twice in the past month and neither email received any sort of reply, tho my paid enrollment got a quick response. I emailed again last night, not wanting to be pushy, but I very much need a reply to the couple of questions I have about the proposed schedule.

[jamesdm49]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

What bothers me most is that no one has really seemed to put the effort into making a truly excellent translation into modern English. The Melkite translations are good, but could certainly be improved upon. Most folks seem caught up in the hype to produce an excellent translation in Elizabethan English. I suspect this has to do primarily with the influence of Protestant converts to Orthodoxy along with the general Protestant roots of the U.S. and the desire to maintain some connection between our liturgical worship and the "feel" of the King James Bible.

Phillip,

I don't know where this idea that a preference for Elizabethan English is due to a Protestant influence comes from, nor is this the first time I have heard such an opinion expressed by advocates for the use of contemporary English in liturgical worship. But such folk among Catholics must be too young to have memories of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, where all the Mass missals for the laity had English translations in "Elizabethan" English (or 'Early Modern English', as I prefer to think of it) facing the Latin text. Not to mention the prayers I learned for my First Communion: "Our Father, who ART in heaven...", "Hail, Mary, the Lord is with THEE..." or the Act of Contrition: "O my God, I am HEARTILY sorry for having offended THEE..." And while the King James Bible is certainly superior as a translation, the Douay-Rheims Bible that I grew up on is also certainly in "Elizabethan" English (though I imagine the original translators are probably rolling over in their graves to have their English thus characterized).

Be that as it may, there are a few reasons why a number of (mostly Orthodox) translators have chosen to work in Early Modern, rather than in contemporary English, other than nostalgia, aesthetic preference, or simply the practical goal of not having one's work clash with the body of liturgical literature already in use in one's particular (Orthodox) jurisdiction or (Catholic) rite, which I will attempt to enumerate in no particular order:

• Early Modern English is more static than contemporary English, which is constantly evolving. A text that is in good, even elegant, modern English will eventually become dated or "stuffy" in its turn. If one has as a principle that worship must be in the contemporary vernacular, then one will be obliged to update the texts periodically. Such changes are always disconcerting for many - witness the Old Believer schism in Russia, or just ask my octogenarian parents what they think of the latest changes in the English translation of the Roman Mass!
• The presence of distinct personal pronouns and verb forms for the singular and plural make it easier to make accurate translations of many texts
• All of the original texts one might use for reference as a translator are in an archaic language (Septuagint or Byzantine Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic, Coptic, Ge'ez, Syriac - you name it). One might argue, therefore, that it is more faithful to the 'register' of the language one is translating from to use a similar register for the language one is translating into.
• (this is more subjective - but powerful for me and, perhaps, others) There is a certain, je ne sais quoi - comfort, perhaps - in knowing that the Greek of the Akathistos Hymn or the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete is the same language that has been heard since the 7th century or 8th century, respectively, or that the Latin of St. Jerome's psalms are the same words that were cherished by innumerable saints, etc., etc.
• There is also what I would call the 'iconic' factor (this relates, perhaps to the second point). In liturgical music and, especially, in iconography, we don't use modern forms, but, rather, adhere to strict rules that are designed to express the transfigured nature of the redeemed world. Should not the same be true with liturgical language? By using an archaic form of a language for the liturgy, isn't a translator only using an analagous technique to that of an iconographer?
• Some argue that modern language should be used for evangelical or didactic reasons. However, in the early Church, converts were not allowed to even to attend the Divine Liturgy until after they had been made catechumens, and still had to leave before the Canon started. So, today, catechesis is the problem, not unintelligible translations. A practicing Christian should know the structure and content of the services. When one hears the Scriptures read in Church, the reading should already be familiar enough that it mainly serves to evoke the memory of a text with which one is already well-acquainted. It's disingenuous for a Christian native speaker of English to be blaming the King James translation of the Bible for having no idea of what is being said, when it is one of the glories of the language, because, after all, one can read any translation of the Bible one prefers at home. The liturgy has many roles, but Sunday School is not one of them.

Well, those are my thoughts, and I'll be interested to see the responses.

David James