The current translation is more of a modification of the previous translation(s), as was noted in the introduction to the new translation.
I need to re-read it closer .
Thanks for the clarification regarding the different translations that may be used. Coming from a Latin-rite parish I suppose I assumed that the new translation was eparchy-wide, like the new translation of the Mass for the Latin rite in English-speaking countries.
Perhaps the current bishop’s toleration of the different translations (and the toleration or perhaps encouragement of different translations in other Eastern churches) comes from an acknowledgement that different translations can diverge at points and still be faithful to the original text? One could translate a text with the goal of remaining as faithful as possible to the syntax, sentence structure, etc. of the original, while another may have the goal of conveying the meaning of the original as faithfully as possible. While you probably want to do both, it may not be possible; I remember translating poetry in college from Spanish to English where you almost had to decide on one style of translation or the other. Being a newcomer to the DL, I have to say that I like the idea of different translations (my 2 cents-worth, if it’s even worth that :D).
I would do well to think of this phrase “the flock of Christians both near and far, under conditions ordained by God’s will” often when considering our often painful separations as Churches no longer, and not yet, in Communion.
Hi 5Loaves:wave: Those certainly are interesting words by Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I. As far as the above quote, I rather like the idea that on any given Sunday, an Orthodox parish may be singing the same words as an Eastern Catholic parish down the street using the same translation.