Theories and practice of Orthodox translation

[Anthony]

Taking up the comment by Mark Harrison (below) from another thread, I would like to start a thread on Orthodox translation (not confined to Scripture, though this section seemed the natural place to put it). I don't have much experience in this area myself, though I would be interested in getting more involved. I think there are people around who have much more experience, and I would be interested to hear their views and chip in as and when I can.


If anybody wants to read a document that would make an EXCELLENT starting point for such a discussion, find the latest set of rules promulgated by the Vatican. I am absolutely serious. Pope Benedict was sick of the lousy translation theory and process long before he became pope. Now there are new rules out, and they are far more sound philosophically. I don't have time, but if someone wants to google it and post it, that would be great. Again, it's the theoretical underpinning of the translation work that I am praising.

I guess that is (referred to in) this document (http://www.adoremus.org/7-8-97VatTrans.html)?

[Andreas Moran]

The Vatican Norms look good to me. Translation into English involves deciding what kind of English for what kind of text. For any kind of liturgical text, how many would agree that we should use KJV-style English (what I call 'traditional liturgical English' - TLE) as used at Tolleshunt Knights and in the Russian Church in Britain? I personally will not use any liturgical texts or texts of prayers in modern English nor attend a church where it is used.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

I quite agree. The Vatican norms look very good to me. Of course all translation involves problems, and we are all, I suspect, aware of the various difficulties with the NKJV, but for those of us unable fully to appreciate the scriptures in the Greek it catches something of that experience for us.

Worship is a solemn and joyous act, and I have to say that as an Anglican I used to find the modern versions of the Prayer Book so bland that they distracted me from what it was I was there to do. It seemed wrong to talk so casually to my Saviour. One priest I knew used to call it the 'Oi you! Book of Commonness'.

In the British Orthodox Church we use the ancient Liturgy of St. James in a seventeenth century translation; its sonorous beauty holds me rapt, and I have never known an hour and a half pass so quickly. By the end I feel as if I have, indeed, been transported elsewhere.

As for non-inclusive language, well it is quite plain what the agenda of those who wish to use 'non-gender specific' language is. What has been good enough for the Church for two thousand years is more than good enough for me.

All that being said, I was sad when I realised the various deficiencies in the 'Orthodox Study Bible' - although I have much profited from having it.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

There are strong arguments in favour of TLE and, many think, few, if any, valid arguments in favour of modern English. But arguments aside, many think that it is enough that so great a luminary of the Church as Starets Sophrony prescribed the use of TLE, and I'd go with the opinion of a saint such as he anytime. Father Sophrony loved to hear TLE. Interestingly, those non-English I have asked about this (including Lydia) prefer TLE. Very recently, I was told by a member of the Community at Tolleshunt Knights that Rosemary Edmonds spent much time in deep prayer when translating.

[Kris]

Beauty aside, would it be correct to say that older English allows for a more accurate translation of the original text? Certainly it helps a lot when there's a clear distinction between singular and plural "you", which is not present in modern English. But with respect to things such as word order, is older English closer to the original?

[Andrew]

The Vatican Norms look good to me. Translation into English involves deciding what kind of English for what kind of text. For any kind of liturgical text, how many would agree that we should use KJV-style English (what I call 'traditional liturgical English' - TLE) as used at Tolleshunt Knights and in the Russian Church in Britain? I personally will not use any liturgical texts or texts of prayers in modern English nor attend a church where it is used.

I totally agree. In the Diocese of the South we use Archbishop Dmitri's translation of the Divine Liturgy and supplementary materials that use traditional liturgical English. I can't stand any other way (besides, well, Greek, Slavonic, etc.!). Not to poke at anyone, but I have a really hard time paying attention during the Liturgy at an American Greek Orthodox Church, or some of the Antiochian ones. The way the prayers sound seems off, and the you's grate against my ears. I know this may be petty, and I am sorry... I just can't stand it though. Our way of life is to be transfigured and stand as an icon. Our liturgical and prayer language should be iconic, I think. But anyways. Pious, solidly Orthodox men and women seem to disagree with me, and they are probably better for it. But still, there is a beautiful melody and flow to TLE as Andreas calls it; it should be a cherished treasure of us English speakers that we can hand down from generation to generation. Modern English used in a liturgical context seems dumbed down, sluggish, and lacking in beauty. It's like using electric votive lamps instead of olive oil, or cheap perfumed tourist incense instead of real pure frankincense. Or a sentimental religious painting over an icon from St. Catherine's Monastery.

[Andreas Moran]

This is beside the point really, but the use of the older style of English, with, for example, its nine pronouns for addressing people, rather than the meagre four of modern English, is quite natural for me because I come from a South Yorkshire working-class background where this language was normal when I was a boy and is still used now. Not only does this style of English differentiate singular and plural but informal and formal, both now lost but essential in many European languages. I was told as a boy, 'dunt tha [i.e. 'thou'] thee and thou them as dunt thee and thou thee'.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Beauty aside, would it be correct to say that older English allows for a more accurate translation of the original text? Certainly it helps a lot when there's a clear distinction between singular and plural "you", which is not present in modern English. But with respect to things such as word order, is older English closer to the original?

I am no expert. I don't know Greek or Slavonic well enough to trust my translations as being 'official'. But I have served in and chanted the services in Slavonic (and English) for many years now. I also have the blessing of having being given years ago a very rare set of Slavonic service books with a literal English translation in the right hand column (often there is the Greek version also provided as for example at the Cherubic Hymn). This has allowed me over the years to do a kind of immediate comparison in two to three languages at once while serving.

So from all of this I would say yes, traditional liturgical English is much closer to the original, both in style (something often too much overlooked is the beauty of the rhythm of Slavonic) & meaning. First there is little doubt when using Slavonic that it is a liturgical language & that it has a spiritual quality to it which is exactly consistent with the service. You can actually feel how the two- the language and the services developed hand in hand.

Then you can also tell that the words have a quality and meaning better conveyed in traditional English. I'm not sure that modern translations have to do this but often they give a modern meaning to words which alters the meaning of the original. One tendency most noticeable in these modern translations is substituting words with very sharp & clear meanings for the more suggestive & unclear original. Syntax is often 'cleaned up' in a similar way.

Of course this comes down to interpretation but when we smooth out too many of the rough edges of the original in order to try to explain everything we often end up depriving ourselves of ways in which the Church has of allowing us to find meaning. As with the Fathers themselves, a lot is suggested rather than stated, and when you do the services a lot you become aware that the style and themes of the Fathers have had a profound effect on the services, especially the movable hymnography.

In any case this still leaves us with trying to come up with 'traditional English' something with no unanimous answer at present. Many point to KJV but in fact many of our traditional translations are closer in style to the RSV at least in feel.

I myself use the NKJV when I read the Gospel at the services but revise it to use Thee and Thou etc. Most of my people are Russians and would find the KJV incomprehensible & unwieldy as I do too much of the time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

I didn't really intend to start quite this conversation, but for the record, I can't really agree with the majority opinion so far - that the only legitimate option for Orthodox translation is Cranmerian English. Let me agree, first of all, that this is very beautiful and reverent (especially in the hands of Cranmer, who, whatever else he may have been, was a master of language). But it is not the language of any of us, and the idea of writing it reminds me of those "prose compositions" in the style of Cicero or of Demosthenes that some of us had to do as students.

I also don't agree that modern English is intrinsically inelegant or unfit to offer to God. There are many fine twentieth century writers who strive after elegance. And if we don't all have the gifts of a Cranmer, that will show through whichever style we adopt.

In practice, of course, what usually happens is that modern English is used with certain standard substitutions, notably for the second person singular pronoun and verb inflections, which is what seems to cause most of the agitation. But this itself is not without its problems. Fr Ephrem Lash makes the valid point (I think) that God should be addressed by the same pronoun we use to address our father. For most of us, that is "you" and not "thou". I certainly don't feel disrespectful saying "you" to my father, or for that matter to a priest or bishop. It is certainly a far cry from "Oi you" language, to use the caricature from John's acquaintance.

The language question for English-speaking Orthodoxy is very different from that faced by the Greeks and Russians, who have a traditional language in which all the treasures of a thousand or two thousand years of Orthodoxy have been expressed, and which they quite rightly are not willing to abandon. Cranmerian English is a Protestant tradition, and the treasures it contains are Protestant treasures. If people want to use it that's fine, but I don't see how the language of sixteenth century Protestants can be a criterion of Orthodoxy - of "right worship".

I hope I am not talking out of place on a subject which seems to arouse strong feelings. I am not attacking anybody, just making a plea for a bit of tolerance. Personally I am grateful to all those who translate Orthodox texts for us, whichever style they adhere to. And if I ever visit a church where English is used (unlikely in my neck of the woods), I will accept whatever is put before me - as I was taught, "don't bring your typikon into another man's monastery".

[Anthony]

Fr Raphael, bless.

I had not seen your post when I wrote the above. If what I have called Cranmerian English really does convey the sense of the original texts better, then that is a genuine reason for using it. I wonder, though, if you could give us an example?

Anthony

[Anthony]

Just a footnote - there used to be (maybe still is) a North-South divide in English Orthodoxy on this matter of translation. In the north, where I became Orthodox, modern English was usual, and has been the basis for translation work at the Monastery of the Assumption near Whitby and the Monastery of St. Andrew in Manchester.

[John Charmley]

Dear Anthony,

Many thanks for the excellent points you make, and you are right, one should not, perhaps, be too fussy at times. I guess, for me, it hits the raw nerve of having been at the receiving end of too much Anglican 'inclusive language' service books.

Peter Farrington (of this virtual parish) has just produced a version of the Coptic Book of Hours for use in the British Orthodox Church, and it manages to strike a beautiful balance. Its language, whilst not that of Cranmer, is nonetheless that of the NKJV, which has a sonorous beauty about it.

As an historian I always find it interesting that it was only in the later twentieth century, fifty years of so after the introduction of universal primary education in the UK, that the complaint began to be heard that people could not understand the KJV; I occasionally wonder whether to put that down as another 'benefit. of progress?

I would quite agree that Cranmerian English is not the only version in which English-speaking converts (monoglot as many of us are) can have access to the Liturgy; but one only has to see what the Romans produced by way of the vernacular mass in English to see what one ought not to do.

Of course, my Anglican roots show here, and I do apologise for that!

In Christ,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,



Many thanks for the excellent points you make, and you are right, one should not, perhaps, be too fussy at times. I guess, for me, it hits the raw nerve of having been at the receiving end of too much Anglican 'inclusive language' service books.

Thank you for your reply. As an ex-Anglican myself, I know exactly what you mean, and share your concerns. To go back to the Vatican guidelines, I am in full agreement with their opposition to politically correct tampering with sacred texts. We are on the same side here, I think.

Anthony

[Kris]

Peter Farrington (of this virtual parish) has just produced a version of the Coptic Book of Hours for use in the British Orthodox Church, and it manages to strike a beautiful balance. Its language, whilst not that of Cranmer, is nonetheless that of the NKJV, which has a sonorous beauty about it.


Hi,

Is this version translated from the original Coptic? The one I have seems to have been translated from the Arabic - or atleast by an Arabic speaker - and the English is appalling.

Also, have the Psalms been taken from the LXX as opposed to the Masoretic text (NKJV), which unfortunately seems to be used for the OT in every Coptic publication other than those of the Los Angeles church?

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Dear Kris,

I hope that Peter might answer this himself.

I know the translation you are talking about and quite agree. One of the many things Peter does is to help make available better English translations of some of the Coptic material. I find great inspiration in the works of HH Poe Shenouda III, but it often means getting past some fairly odd English to do so; it is always worth the effort - but can be one all the same.

Dear Anthony,

Yes, I think we are on the same hymn sheet here. I am reminded of an old Anglican clergyman friend who, having listened to some of us 'going on' about the shortcomings of the new prayer books, asked two questions of us quietly: 'now you've got that out of your system, can we get back to Christian forgiveness?'; 'Don't you think the translators were doing their best for God? What did you do for Him today?' I think we had the grace to look a little shamefaced.

In Christ,

John

[Olga]

I didn't really intend to start quite this conversation, but for the record, I can't really agree with the majority opinion so far - that the only legitimate option for Orthodox translation is Cranmerian English. Let me agree, first of all, that this is very beautiful and reverent (especially in the hands of Cranmer, who, whatever else he may have been, was a master of language). But it is not the language of any of us, and the idea of writing it reminds me of those "prose compositions" in the style of Cicero or of Demosthenes that some of us had to do as students.

I also don't agree that modern English is intrinsically inelegant or unfit to offer to God. There are many fine twentieth century writers who strive after elegance. And if we don't all have the gifts of a Cranmer, that will show through whichever style we adopt.

In practice, of course, what usually happens is that modern English is used with certain standard substitutions, notably for the second person singular pronoun and verb inflections, which is what seems to cause most of the agitation. But this itself is not without its problems. Fr Ephrem Lash makes the valid point (I think) that God should be addressed by the same pronoun we use to address our father. For most of us, that is "you" and not "thou". I certainly don't feel disrespectful saying "you" to my father, or for that matter to a priest or bishop. It is certainly a far cry from "Oi you" language, to use the caricature from John's acquaintance.

The language question for English-speaking Orthodoxy is very different from that faced by the Greeks and Russians, who have a traditional language in which all the treasures of a thousand or two thousand years of Orthodoxy have been expressed, and which they quite rightly are not willing to abandon. Cranmerian English is a Protestant tradition, and the treasures it contains are Protestant treasures. If people want to use it that's fine, but I don't see how the language of sixteenth century Protestants can be a criterion of Orthodoxy - of "right worship".

I hope I am not talking out of place on a subject which seems to arouse strong feelings. I am not attacking anybody, just making a plea for a bit of tolerance. Personally I am grateful to all those who translate Orthodox texts for us, whichever style they adhere to. And if I ever visit a church where English is used (unlikely in my neck of the woods), I will accept whatever is put before me - as I was taught, "don't bring your typikon into another man's monastery".

Very good post, Anthony. Might I also add that Greek, while it to this day maintains a "polite" plural form of address (as does German, French, and any number of other languages), this "plural" form is not present in biblical or liturgical use, even in reference to God or the Persons of the Holy Trinity. This detail cannot be accidental.

Even the personal pronouns for the Divine are rendered in lower case, in the older Greek and Slavonic service books. Capitalisation began to appear in the late 19th or early 20thC.

I agree that Greek and Slavonic should never be turfed out as liturgical languages, however consideration should be given to those of us who were not brought up with the KJV. English may be my first language, but it is quite distracting at times following an English-language service in the more clunky, archaic forms. Fr Ephraim's translations are not perfect, but generally flow quite well, and are entirely comprehensible. Aesthetics are all very well and good, but what is read and sung must also be comprehensible for it to do some good.

[Andreas Moran]

What I call TLE is not entirely based on Protestant tradition - there was a Catholic tradition of devotional writing (Julian of Norwich, Richard Rolle) in English and there are pre-Reformation 'prymers'. But of course the production of the Bible in English was not least a political statement of the English Reformation. It is also true that the translators sought a clear version of the Bible for the common man (though I don't know what the common man of the 17th cent. made of it) as the now-not-included 'Translators to the Reader' part of the Preface says.

In the first place, I do not advocate using just 'Thee' and 'Thou' for God. This was done in the RSV, and leads, in Exodus 33 vv 1 and 12 to God addressing Moses in the formal and Moses addressing God in the informal!

The problem of pronouns does matter. Take, for example, Luke 22:31-32. The original Greek makes clear when Christ says, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat', that He is talking to all the disciples (He uses the word 'umas'). Christ then addresses Peter, in verse 32: 'But I have prayed for thee . . . ' (using 'sou'). Some versions, such as the RSV and NIV, try to deal with this problem. The NKJV does not, uses 'you' throughout these two verses, and so it not clear that Christ speaks first to the disciples and then to Peter: it gives the impression that both verses are addressed to Peter, and the footnote in the Orthodox Study Bible is accordingly misleading.

The use of 'you', only, impoverishes the way we address the Holy Trinity. In many places we refer to the Trinity as three Persons but then affirm our belief in one God by saying 'Thee' (as in 'for Thine is the Kingdom'; 'unto Thee belong all glory').

The matter of style should not be confused with issues of accuracy and theology. Take the 'Prayer behind the Ambo'. In a modern version (that of Fr Ephraim), it reads, 'O Lord, you bless those who bless you, and sanctify those . . . ' Take the 'Essex' version: 'O Lord who dost bless them that bless thee, and hallowest them . . . ' The direct manner of the first describes an action of God (and seems to tell Him what He already knows!). The second is a gentler indirect affirmation reminding us of a quality of God. The Liturgy acquires a more contemplative pace when chanted and said in such language. I prefer the second.

Language is part of Tradition, just as are icons and church architecture. The Divine Liturgy is sometimes called a verbal icon. There are clear traditions governing the painting of icons. So there can be for the composition of liturgical texts. If we modernise language, what else shall we modernise? The urge to modern forms probably started in the C of E with Robinson's book 'Honest to God' in 1962 - we know what happened since. Our language should be the best we have to offer to God. As to clear meaning, modern idioms will not necessarily illuminate meaning: exegesis is needed for that. The real meaning of 'Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem' (KJV) is not any more or less clear to me for being rendered, 'In your good pleasure make Zion prosper; build up the walls of Jerusalem'(NIV).

Modernisms of any sort are a western, liberal, Protestant tendency. I recall a priest in a village in Cyprus saying, 'the western churches (he meant Anglican and Protestant) bring heaven down to earth; but the Orthodox Church makes earth ascend to heaven'. As the envoys of St Vladimir famously said when reporting their experience of the Divine Liturgy in Aghia Sofia, 'we knew not whether we were on earth or in heaven for surely there is no such beauty on earth. Only this we know: God dwells there among men'.

[Anthony]

Thank you, Olga and Andreas, for some very good points, and I apologize for having partly misunderstood one of Andreas' previous posts. I have to go soon, but perhaps I can just make a couple of brief comments.

The fact that modern English does not distinguish between 2nd sg and 2nd pl does create (slightly) more scope for ambiguity, and Andreas has pointed out a couple of good examples where the extra pronoun would come in useful. But then, Hebrew would distinguish further between 2nd sg masculine and feminine (as would Russian in the past tense), and from that point of view all forms of English and even Classical Greek seem to open the door to ambiguities. Ambiguity is a fact of life in languages and a problem for all translators; different languages offer different resources and make different distinctions in trying to limit it. But I don't think it is sustainable to take the line that the more inflections a language has, the more suitable it is for Orthodox worship. If that was the case the Finns and Lithuanians would already be half way to heaven, while it would be surprising that the Chinese could string two sentences together, never mind build a culture.

As regards particular translations using modern English, I generally like Fr Ephraim's translations (for what my opinion is worth), but for those who don't, I will just observe that there is usually more than one way of rendering a text in modern English. A lot more factors come into play than the choice between "thou" and "you". Issues such as the balance between literalness and naturalness, and the preservation of connotations which are important to Orthodox exegesis, are perhaps more important, and I suspect more profitable to discuss; in fact this is where I had hoped to pick the brains of those who have experience of Orthodox translation.

I find it slightly amusing that Orthodox who want to abandon Cranmer's English should be accused of being Protestantizers. Tradition and living the life of the Church is the most important prerequisite to translation, and there I don't think there is any disagreement. But where do we look to for tradition in this case? English Orthodoxy as such hasn't been around long enough to have its own "tradition", and Orthodox tradition in general has little to say about English. But I know some of the translators who use modern English, and they are very much concerned with such matters as studying the practice of the various schools of Slavonic translators, and have spent a lifetime immersing themselves in the Fathers so as not to miss allusions and cross-references - just as is true of the many excellent translators who choose to use "thou". These are the more important things, I think.

[John Charmley]

Dear Anthony,

I very much agree with the general line you take on translations - and since you have such experience, one might think twice before not doing so!

But before anyone else points this out, can I say that when you write
English Orthodoxy as such hasn't been around long enough to have its own "tradition", and Orthodox tradition in general has little to say about English that is true only in the contemporary world.

From the earliest times through to the eleventh century England was an Orthodox country, and there is plenty in the Orthodox tradition from those times which can help us today. Indeed, if one takes the view that the relationship between the English and Rome was always a problematic one (for which the evidence is pretty strong), it may be doubted how 'unorthodox' England was before the Protestant Reformation - but let us not go there.

For those interested in this aspect of things, there is a marvellous site, http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.htm run by Fr. Andrew Phillips, whose journal, Orthodox England is a wonderful source of information and spiritual guidance. In his own inspiring words:

'Orthodox England' refers to the Western Christianity of the First Millennium, especially in England. We believe that an understanding of the spiritual and cultural roots of the First Millennium Orthodox Church and Faith in the West is essential to both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox. We believe that an appreciation of that Faith before its political and theological transformation in the eleventh century, before Western Christianity became institutionalised by Papacy and State alike, is indispensable to us if we are to find our bearings in the modern world.

Those who do not know it will, I think, be edified by it - as many of us have been for some time; he does a great work.

In Christ,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,

Of course you are right about Orthodox England. That tradition is of great importance to me, and thank you for the link. I was indeed talking only about the modern context.

You are wrong only on one thing - I have no experience of Orthodox translation whatsoever, I am merely trying to learn from those who have.

Anthony

[Andreas Moran]

Anthony wrote: But where do we look to for tradition in this case? English Orthodoxy as such hasn't been around long enough to have its own "tradition", and Orthodox tradition in general has little to say about English.

I think this is why we have to look to the tradition we have, though it was formed in the C of E, of course. Even so, TLE is the language English-speaking people have used to worship God for several centuries and so it has acquired a patina of meaning beyond dictionary definitions. KJV and BCP language in particular has had such a deep influence on the English language and culture generally (yet we are not even aware of it) and on literature especially. It seems to me to make sense to use this tradition rather than using contemporary language (however dignified - a leader in 'The Times' is also dignified) as the basis for starting from scratch. I say none of this out of any nostalgia - I was never a practising Christian before I became Orthodox. I am still much taken by Father Sophrony's enthusiasm for TLE which, as I've said, is persuasive enough for me. He thought that we should offer to God the best we have, and language modelled on English when it was at its finest and noblest is, I think many would say, the best we have.

The problem with music is even more acute, and we have to use another tradition entirely, usually that of the Russian Church, because there is no home-grown tradition we could use or adapt.

[Anthony]

Reading this last post, I am not sure that there is a big difference between us. When I talk of "modern English" I mean of course modern English with all the linguistic heritage that has made it what it is (or can be).

[Andreas Moran]

A further point occurs to me regarding translating the words of the services. I don't think that comprehensibility must be the first criterion because accuracy, style and function would then be sacrificed. Liturgical language cannot be reduced to the lowest denominator of understanding. The words must be the poetic vehicle for the spiritual meaning of the Liturgy. As I've suggested before, having a certain understanding of the words is not the same as understanding their meaning. Tradition has it that we need guidance and instruction, like the Ethiopian in Acts; Philip offered to explain what the Ethiopian was reading, not re-write it. Christ explained the meaning of the scriptures to Luke and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus. Bishop Eirenaios, when in Birmingham, would often pause at various places in the Liturgy to explain what he was saying and what was happening.

TLE is far closer to modern English than the Greek and Slavonic texts are to modern Greek and Russian. It has been said that there is a pastoral argument which runs that young Cypriots would not understand TLE. That cannot be right for they go to school and have lessons in English literature like all other young people. The texts of Shakespeare's plays are harder than the Liturgy in TLE, and these poetic forms were used right up to the time of Tennyson, Longfellow and Kipling.

Words and phrases have resonances and layers of meaning acquired over long usage. How often would the text be changed to fit the understanding of any given generation? How could a changing text ever become part of Tradition like the Greek and Slavonic texts? At a totally different level, when we hear, 'Once upon a time . . . ' we are taken to the realm of tales, and our minds immediately adopt a certain mode of receptivity. At the level of the Liturgy, does not something similar happen if we hear certain forms of words? In the same way, when I see an icon, I recognise it as an icon, even if I do not know what saint is depicted until I look at it more closely.

For me, language should facilitate the 'being taken up to heaven' the Cypriot priest spoke of, and modern-style English doesn't do it for me.

Sorry to ramble on!

[Herman Blaydoe]

1 Corinthians 14:14-19 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Once upon a time, when I was visiting a parish that worshipped in Slavonic, I was in a discussion with a particular individual on the importance of keeping a "holy language". His explanation was something to this effect: "Modern Russian and English are the languages that we lie and curse in, so we need a different language for Church to worship God".

I have often heard in Orthodox circles of unfortunate tendencies in "western" outlooks that built a gnostic false dichotomy between the "spiritual" and the "material" and that Orthodoxy makes no such distinction.

I wonder. Particularly when I run across so many people, baptized Orthodox as infants, who attend their churches regularly, and yet are amazed when they learn what the Orthodox Church actually teaches, because they have no idea what they have been praying all their lives. And I am talking about native Greeks and Russians who have very little comprehension of the Koine or Slavonic. And we want to do something similar with our English translations?

Language is a tool. You and I express ourselves every day in modern English. Our Lord spoke in the languages of the people. There is nothing wrong with worshipping Him in the language of the people, especially if we are to take the Apostle Paul above seriously. I do not think we need to "dumb down" anything, this is a red herring. The danger is that we create an artificial separation between the Church and the world, in that we leave "Church" in the building and forget to take it with us as we leave the Liturgy. We can now go and lie and cheat and curse because we are now outside the Church and back in the world, spiritual schizophrenia.

We are to pray with understanding, says the Apostle Paul. How many people out there actually know what "vouchsafe" means? I know of many who do not. What good are sonorous words if people simply like the sounds but do not get the meaning?

Sorry, but this bear of little brain has little use for "holy" languages.

[Andreas Moran]

I take 'vouchsafe' to mean 'to warrant, to guarantee'.

Herman raises a very important point I think. Do we/should we separate church from the world? Do we go to be taken up to heaven, or - what? I don't think there is a parallel between English and Russians/Greeks for the reason I mentioned. If we want everyday simplicity, why have Epistles and Gospels chanted in a monotone? Why have priests wearing funny outfits based on what a well-dressed Roman gentleman would have worn? Why do bishops - especially non-Greek bishops - wear crowns when they were only used after the Ottoman occupation of Greece to symbolise their replacing the emperor? Why have weird architecture that couldn't be built shown in icons?

I once mentioned that quote from St Paul, about using few easily-understood words, to Bishop Eirenaios, who replied, 'well, St Paul could have set an example in his own letters!'

Of course, I disagree with Herman on this but we'll keep calm: I don't want to get Matthew stuck with another 84 PMs!

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

Of course, I disagree with Herman on this but we'll keep calm: I don't want to get Matthew stuck with another 84 PMs!

I am sure that Matthew will be relieved!

Keeping calm, I must say that I tend to agree with you, whilst sympathising with the thrust of Herman's point about comprehensibility; but this last, in our society in the west, is easily conflated with instant accessibility. The fact is there are some things we have to work at (like humility and repentance) and which require us to get out of our workaday mindset.

I remember when I was a small boy wondering why, on Sunday, my mother worse clothes she never wore on any other day; the boy being the child of the man, I of course asked her why she did this. Her response was 'because Church is a special place and I am dressing up for God to show how much I love His house; it's like when we go to see your grandma.' That is how I feel about liturgical language.

Much though I agree with Herman about comprehensibility, I get leery with where this argument has led in the Anglican communion. At Truro Cathedral they did an 'Elvis Evensong' because they thought that it might be 'more relevant'. I felt both offended at the idea, and offended by my own Pharisaical reaction.

May be, like dress in Church, we just need to remember to be respectful to one another, and to God. For me, the language we use in the Liturgy of St. James does exactly what Andreas says about lifting me up; but if it were a stumbling block to others - how do I react then?

In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

We can use "modern" English without resorting to clown masses. We can be relevant without condescending to Rap. We can dress nicely and respectfully in modern clothing and do not need to deport ourselves in "olde world" garb. I have seen some rather nice looking vestments that had a rather modern feel to them while retaining the traditional forms.

Then again, I am the accidental member of a diocese that is looked down upon in some circles. We are not a thee/thou diocese and our prayers and liturgical materials tend to be more everyday than Elizabethan. I personally have no problem with that, although I think some of the translations could have been done much better. Psalm 104:26 translated as: "There go the ships and the great beast You made to play with" doesn't quite capture it for me, I must admit.

But in the final analysis, consistant guidelines, whatever they may be, would be a welcome thing regardless. I have lost count of how many different ways I have learned to say Psalm 50/51, depending on which translation was used for the particular service in question.

[Andreas Moran]

I was just telling Lydia about all this over our bowls of borsh. I asked her how she learned Church Slavonic. 'Very western!', she said (as she often does!). She said, she didn't 'learn' it; neither did her brother or parents. 'It's a sacred language. Mystical. We went to church, listened and read the prayers. This language expresses theology in ways modern Russian is incapable of doing. You absorb the language in a spritual way, and gain more of it as you get closer to God. My mother understood nothing at first. Now she follows it.'

It's ironic that there is no movement in Russia for the use of modern Russian, even though Church Slavonic is so different. I think it's the same in Greece and Cyprus. Our problem is that even TLE is not a sacred language like Church Greek and Church Slavonic. Is Latin? Presumably, services in England before the Schism were in Latin.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andreas,

Yes, services in England before, and after 1054 were in Latin.

We are simply extremely fortunate in England in having a translation of the Bible made at a time when Shakespeare was writing and when the language was at its most flexible and dynamic; the Church of England chose to throw that away as part of its search for relevance - and by their fruits shall ye know them.

Of course Herman is right, you don't have to go all the way to the rap mass - it is just that that is where it has a tendency to end up, which is why some of us dislike taking the first steps. Maybe it is different in the US and Canada and Australia, but for those of us who have seen what has happened to the Anglican Church in the last half century, buttons get pressed by this sort of thing; please forgive any asperity in tone - it is memories of old battles lost.

I can remember at College being told by my chaplain that it was necessary to be where 'you young people are at'; I was 'at' another Church the next Sunday. Of course, in principle, there is nothing wrong with using 'modern' language, but who defines modern? Where is the stopping point before you get to 'inclusive' language? That is what I like about the Vatican document - it provides an answer to that question - and one which we can all learn from.

In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

No doubt things have been going downhill ever since they had the audacity to translate Holy Scripture into Slavonic. After all, so the reasoning went, the only FIT languages were the languages of the Cross: Latin, Greek and Hebrew. But He is God of the living, not the dead languages.

[Andreas Moran]

Except that Church Slavonic became a sacred language and a part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church because it was unchanging. In my experience (as one who doesn't know much more than Gospodi pamilui) of going to church in Russia, God, His flock of Svetaya Rus and their language of worship are alive and well.

I remember asking my late first wife if she wouldn't like to learn the Liturgy in Greek. She said, no. At the monastery, when parts of services were in Greek, or Slavonic, she said she absorbed the spirit of the service; the sounds of the language, the icons, the frescoes, the movement of the clergy, the censings, all these were parts of a total experience of worshipping in spirit. But, in her deep simplicity, she was far, far ahead of me. Her experience of God went beyond words.

Addendum
I'm not very quick-thinking but I wonder, Herman, if you can really mean it when you say, 'He is the God of the living, not the dead languages'? Many millions of Orthodox worship using Church Greek and Church Slavonic. (In her private prayers my wife uses Church Slavonic.) So these are not dead languages but very much alive, and God is most definitely in them. I'm sure you can't have meant that the languages of the two great Orthodox traditions are dead and that God is not in them. (There is nothing dead, either, about the Divine Liturgy at the monastery here in Essex, using the English which Father Sophrony loved.) All aspects of Orthodox Tradition are sacred which is why we shouldn't muck about with them.

[Herman Blaydoe]

God is everywhere, even in modern English.

[Nina]

I love languages. I am a linguaphile and can not consider any languages as dead. I grew up thinking of English as an extremely cool and sophisticated one. Just listening to a broadcast the voice of a man from USA speaking in English I dreamed learning the language since I was a kid, because I was very attracted to the sound of it. When finally I started learning it, I found it even more relaxed and so easy to learn with its uncomplicated grammar and rules. Oh, it made me feel like English facilitated it even more to fall in love again with it!

On the other side when I learned some Hebrew (I remember not so much now), I marveled at the richness and the history behind all the words. Semantics in Old Testament Hebrew are mini-encyclopedias. One word can have a book written about it! So fertile linguistically! Love it and can never accept that it is a dead language! It is not only alive but without it there can not be an OT.

Latin is another love of mine and although I have more affinity to Italian, we all know that Latin is the root of all Romance languages (which are very much alive from Italian and Spanish down to Romanian). It all boils down to tradition (even in linguistics!).

And here we come to Greek. I will not advocate about Greek (and definitely will not start an apology, or praise starting with the word etymology itself, or with the New Testament) because it is in my blood; because it is a language that my grandparents spoke and a language that (along with English and other western languages) was forbidden to be conveyed to us because of some sick, xenophobic, tyrannic mindset. We grew up deprived from our language and from our religion/tradition. However since it is in blood and because God willed it, I speak it (and I kind of am alive) and anything that even resembles that dark period of regress and dictatorship makes me appreciate my freedom today and protect it even more. I do not take for granted my present freedom for learning languages and appreciating them all. Not that I notice such a thing here, but I wished to share my experience for those blessed and fortunate enough to be born, and raised, and lived all their life in freedom.

Let's remember that a condition for prayers to reach the ear of God is not the language. That is just a tool. Our hearts and deeds are what make our prayer acceptable, or not before Him. I never ever read an Orthodox Father who said: "If you pray to God in Zulu, He will not hear your prayer!" But of course our Fathers are Saints and their mind and heart are open and wide to encompass all diversity. That is why their love, that gave them their status: Saints and God-like.

Strangely enough there are similar attitudes in other areas of life also.

I was reading an interview the other day "Language in the Culture of Opera" from Will Berger. He is the author of the book "Puccini Without Excuses" and has worked for the Met. Opera of NYC. Not only his thoughts are fascinating and so interesting but I marveled at the openness of mind he exhibits. I would love to provide a link to the interview on line, however it is available only for subscribers from visualthesaurus.com.

However here is a bit of quotation from Will Berger:

"Just like baseball or NASCAR, opera has a language that you need to know to get anywhere with it. It happens to be a very complex language because it has so many different roots. But most of the lexicon of opera that you need, whether you're a carpenter in an opera house or someone attending a performance, comes from Italian. Actually, there's a lot of Italian in all music. You can talk to a punk musician and eventually you're going to come across some Italian words. There are grammatical reasons for that, it's not just a coincidence."

This interview made me think about tradition, languages etc. in Orthodoxy. It is wondrous to witness people that exhibit such an openness in their profession and do I dare say that we in the Orthodox milieu maybe should learn from this openness and apply it in our way of life (Orthodoxy), if we are unable to/can not learn from the openness and love of our Saints.

[Andreas Moran]

God is everywhere, even in modern English.

Of course. I posted as I did because of the implication that He was not the God of the 'dead languages' of Church Greek and Slavonic.

[John Charmley]

I believe that the view that God's word is confined to any particular language or culture was called pyhletism at a synod in Constantinople in 1872.

God speaks to us through the Orthodox Church in whatever language is most appropriate - as the Apostles decided at the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15.

No language in which God speaks to us is dead.

In Christ,

John

[Nina]

I believe that the view that God's word is confined to any particular language or culture was called pyhletism at a synod in Constantinople in 1872.

In Christ,

John

Yes John, and I agree with this post of yours, and I would like to add that phyletism is not only extremely narrow and parochial, but most importantly it is anti-Orthodox. Orthodoxy is universal with diverse realities and races coexisting in it; same as in Heaven where all people regardless of race, culture and language (these notions are so fleeting that will not exist but only serve to us now as points of reference, or conventional signs) will participate in the glory of God.

We humbly must accept what God chose and willed for each nation (for instance OT written in Hebrew). After all it is His will to do what He pleases with His creation and we do not have to discuss it (um, who do we think we are?). Additionally, we can not disparage, or demean the grace God chose to give to his nations. All was and is done for His glory. We are nothing without Him. God can choose anything to proclaim His glory. He chose a donkey (in OT) to speak in defense of his chosen people (Hebrews) to the sorcerer trying to curse them.

When I hear some belittling some others in Orthodoxy, it reminds me of certain females that as soon as they see another female, whom they envy, they start badmouthing (lightly, or more severely) her. One can not elevate one's self, or background by belittling others; even in society's terms that is considered appalling. In Orthodoxy we should belittle ourselves and remember that only God elevates. There is no need to feel envious, or proud of anything, since all and everything is of God and according to His will and grace life follows a certain course. No person, or nation has achieved anything because all glory belongs to God and everything happens through His grace. We are nothing!

In the meantime -because of the obvious reason of being humans and because of our fallen nature- if we ever feel some inferiority of any kind, why not work to achieve spiritual heights unreached before for the glory of God and set an unprecedented spiritual example for the rest of the world to follow.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear John,

It would be interesting to know more about this Synod of 1872. Yet it remains the case, of course, that in Russia and the other Slav countries and in the Greek Orthodox Churches, it is forbidden to use modern Russian and Greek respectively. So far as English is concerned, as we know, there is no uniformity of usage. It goes without saying that no one form of English makes the Divine Liturgy any more 'effective' than another. The Liturgy is always the Liturgy. The debate is about which form of English best serves the purposes of the Liturgy.

There is a view that because modern English has become the international language of business and technology, it will be the language of the Antichrist, and for that reason it should not be used in church. I don't say I go along with this - I merely mention it.

[Peter Farrington]

There is a view that because modern English has become the international language of business and technology, it will be the language of the Antichrist, and for that reason it should not be used in church. I don't say I go along with this - I merely mention it.

I find that a rather fearful approach to the world, and was it not the case the Koine Greek was the language of commerce and could easily have been understood as the possible language of the anti-Christ. It would be the sort of position which some members of my old Plymouth Brethren assembly might take, as they also tended to want to retreat FROM the world, rather than bear witness TO it.

On the issue of TLE I agree with you Andreas. My only concern is with mission, but I have taken the view that there is no need for evangelistic and educational materials not to be in good modern English, and therefore for non-Orthodox to come to some understanding of what Orthodoxy is about through such materials. (Of course that is an rational and external appreciation only).

And there are a great many spiritual works which are also in good modern English and therefore comprehensible to all - as far as the words themselves go I mean.

When it comes to liturgical prayer, both in public and private, my own British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate has very clear guidelines about the language to be used, and of course all texts are approved by our bishop before use. We consistently use TLE.

There is an issue with ethnic Coptic Orthodox who are now living in the West and in Anglophone countries. They do find it harder to adopt TLE and tend to go for a more modern liturgical language along the lines of Herman. That seems fine as far as I can see because they have no tradition of using TLE, but I do, as an Englishman, and TLE does seem to me to say something different in our own liturgy than a modern language would.

I'm not dogmatic on that and would not condemn or criticise any other approach. As I say, the Coptic Orthodox in the US for instance are standardising on a modern language English liturgy.

We have found that many of the ethnic Orthodox who worship with us, from a variety of backgrounds can still comprehend our own TLE, in fact many appreciate being able to fully comprehend the liturgy for the first time. But I am English and am doing mission in English, so I wonder if that is why I believe that TLE is more appropriate. I do find a certain poetry in TLE, which can be manifest in M(odern)LE, but is not always there, is not often there.

We all pray Psalm 50(51) and there is a great difference between, for instance...

You are kind, God! Please have pity on me. You are always merciful! Please wipe away my sins.

and

Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

But that doesn't mean that a MLE version could not be just as poetic.

Doing English elsewhere, especially as a second language may well require another approach. And this is only my preference. I guess I am fortunate that it is my bishop's preference as well. :-)

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

You are exactly right about mission. Of course, many materials should be in good plain, modern English. Lydia tells me that the writings of St Theophan the Recluse are hard to read for the average Russian because of the high-flown 19th cent. literary style he used. His works are far easier to read in English translation. Some Greeks in England read Father Sophrony's books in English because the style of Greek which Father Zacharias used in his translations is hard for some. I tend to read the New Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible (but not the Psalms). And TLE materials are not always of the best. The HTM edition of the LXX Psalter is good because it is from the LXX. But even though it draws partly on Coverdale's psalms in the BCP, it sometimes tries too hard. Thus in Psalm 5, HTM has 'Unto my words give ear, O Lord' which is better rendered in the KJV as 'Give ear to my words, O Lord'. HTM has, 'for not a God that willest iniquity art Thou' which gives an unhappy floating quality to 'art Thou' at the end. I prefer, 'for thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness' from the KJV. But I find Psalm 50 in the HTM LXX version very fine. A good test is how easily one memorises a text.

Last year, I took my then head of department (an Anglican) to the Liturgy at Tolleshunt Knights. He found it 'overwhelming'.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Andreas

I agree very much about the variable quality of TLE materials, and I think that we are agreed that it is not the adding of a few Thee's and Thou's which produces the quality of text which I think we are both commending.

I have republished quite a few 19th century theological texts, and some of them require very careful study because the translation is into rather poor TLE, rather than that the original text was itself dense. On the other hand I have some very fine 19th century translations into TLE which give me a very good sense that I am engaging with the text, and indeed with the author.

I think you are right that a good text, and I guess this is so in MLE and TLE, should be memorable, and I wonder if this is the poetic quality of a good text in any sort of English. I wonder also if this is why there is a deficiency in those texts which are produced by a committee?

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

We all know what committees produce. Our problem also is that we are not composing - only translating.

[Peter Farrington]

Yes, that is very true.

And so I suppose the same issues arise as are found with the translation of Scripture. How far should a translation be literal according to the original words and deficient in cadence etc and even comprehension in the translation, and how far should it be a translation of meaning with allowance for the difference in languages.

I mean accurate but 'difficult to read' translation v accurate enough but 'a joy to pray' translation.

Peter

[Anthony]

Dear Peter and others,

I'm glad to see somebody with experience of translation joining the discussion; I would be interested to have a look at some of your work. As you will know if you have read through earlier posts, I do not completely agree with the need to use traditional protestant English even in liturgical translations - I think there is a place for modern English.

I would like to comment on a couple of points that have been made. One is just to note that "instant accessibility" has never been part of my argument (though I don't see any merit in deliberately making things more difficult than they need be).

The other is that I really don't accept this connection between "modern English" (a neutral linguistic description of a particular phase of a language) and "modernizing" (as in politically correct language, rap music, conspiracies to destroy Orthodox tradition, and God knows what). If it is the word "modern" that is causing this chain reaction, then I am happy to replace this terminology with "standard British English" or "General American" or whatever. I like very much Herman's analogy with clothes; "modern" in this context simply means I show up in Church in shirt and trousers rather than wearing a toga or an Elizabethan ruff.

I think it may be good to switch the focus from "thou" and "you" (which I can see being about as productive as discussing the calendar issue) to questions such as literalness and naturalness (as you have touched on). I wonder if you would like to talk us through a few particular cases which you have worked on?

Just for the record, the modern English translation I use for the beginning of Psalm 50 reads:


Have mercy on me, O God, in your tender compassion, in the multitude of your mercies wipe away my offences.

Not so different really, and nothing like the caricature version (does it actually exist?).

[Anthony]

Dear Nina,

I too am a linguaphile, and agree very much with what you say in your posts. One of the most interesting times of my life was spent at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, which was a feast of cultures and languages. To paraphrase the old saying, "so many languages, so little time" (a friend of mine described it as being like a cat in a butcher's shop).

I agree, too, on the evils of phyletism, and the need to keep sight of the universality of Orthodoxy. What was that feast we had a couple of weeks ago - about languages and God willing that all men be saved?

And finally I am also conscious of the special place of Greek. You are in a privileged position, I feel, having this as your own family inheritance.

[Peter Farrington]

I am afraid that I am mis-advertised by my good friend John Charmley. :-)

I am certainly part of a group of folk, mostly clergy in the British Orthodox Church, who are engaged in producing TLE editions of the Coptic Orthodox offices and of the Greek St James.

I would not say that we were doing translation, much more 'editing'. So a variety of translations will be considered, the differences between them investigated to see whether there is a substantive difference in meaning, and then the text will be put into what is standard BOC TLE.

For myself, I am much more in favour of good, modern English editions of works, but I guess that these tend to require both translation and 'poetry' skills, while 'editing' a text that has already been the subject of several translations requires more of a 'poetic' sense and less of the 'translation' skill.

I do translations from French into English of theological works by (St) Severus of Antioch, and these are all into modern English and comprehensibility is more important to me than poetry.

I don't believe everything I am told, and I do not consider modern English to be the tool of the Devil. :-) I am quite sure that in actual fact you and I would agree on msot things in regard to this thread. I think, for instance, that the English used by Coptic Orthodox might appropriately NOT be TLE as long as it is high quality MLE. As we have said here, there is very bad TLE, adding thee and thou to a bad text does not make it good.

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

One of the most interesting times of my life was spent at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, which was a feast of cultures and languages.

Dear Anthony

I did not realise you had studied at SOAS. I did an Intensive Syriac course there earlier this year with some other online contacts. We arranged for us to have a private course over 4 months with Dr Erica Hunter. I hope that at some point I will be proficient enough to be able to translate some previously untouched manuscripts.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Peter Farrington wrote:


I do translations from French into English of theological works by (St) Severus of Antioch, and these are all into modern English and comprehensibility is more important to me than poetry.

I don't believe everything I am told, and I do not consider modern English to be the tool of the Devil. :-) I am quite sure that in actual fact you and I would agree on msot things in regard to this thread. I think, for instance, that the English used by Coptic Orthodox might appropriately NOT be TLE as long as it is high quality MLE. As we have said here, there is very bad TLE, adding thee and thou to a bad text does not make it good.

The point here seems to be balance.

There is I think an absolute need for the translator/editor to be faithful to the text. The overwhelming majority of readers in the Church will never have the skills to be able to comprehend the original texts in another language than their own. So they rely on a minority skilled in other languages and editing. A strong element of trust comes into play here.

For example I not so long ago referred to St Gregory the Theologians' theological orations. Without too much thought I relied first on the translation that came from an Orthodox source. After a few months I referred to the ccel version and noticed major differences between the two translations not just in style but in substance and meaning. I'm not sure; but there seemed to have been editing towards a more modern meaning by the more recent Orthodox text. This is not the first time I have seen this done to the original text either through translation or editing. (eg the first translations into English of both St Seraphim of Sarov and of Silouan of Mt Athos left out much of their ascetic teaching).

In other words translation not only involves translating skills; it is done out of a sense of obedience for the rest of the Church. Faithfulness to the text should obviously be part & parcel of any work of the translator. But the final arbiters of the meaning of the original text will be the Church at large.

I think the need for balance also affects editing style. The CCEL versions may be more authentic ( they seem to be 'required versions' for everyone who loves to read the Fathers. But yet I've never heard a discussion of how good these translations are) but actually the Catholic University of America & Ancient Christian Writers series read in a more clear style while seeming to be faithful to the original. (Does anyone know if the more popular Classics of Western Spirituality can be trusted? Personally I try not to rely on these versions too much.) In any case the point here is that style is also important.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

Dear Nina,
And finally I am also conscious of the special place of Greek. You are in a privileged position, I feel, having this as your own family inheritance.

Dear Anthony,

You are very kind, but I do not think Greek has a special place. It is as special as all other languages that God willed men to communicate through. For me personally, yes, it is special because of my family and because it was forbidden to us. But on the other hand I equally love all languages I know something about, and I can not separate. I do not see myself as privileged though for speaking it; for me the privileged ones are those who do not have any family relations with a language and become so fluent in it that surpass even the natives (I know that your Greek puts my knowledge of it to shame :) ).

Since I am posting, I would like to also mention that from what I remember about things told for Antichrist, he will speak and people of all the world will understand it in their own language. This will be one of his "miracles" to blind people. I do not remember where I read this and definitely I am not in a position to interpret such things, so I am just stating it how I remember it. Also, tools Antichrist will use are not of concern to us. But our selves are (if we will live at those times, God willing): how will we react? will we accept martyrdom? If we are martyred, what importance it will have if Antichrist uses Esperanto or not. Tools are here not to determine our salvation, but to help in salvation, or not because of our choices and actions. We are the only responsible ones. Also to say that "the modern English is the tool of the Devil" means that all the languages that served as a source for building it are the tools of the evil one, from Old German, Latin, Greek etc. (by the way these languages are very much alive through English - they are family).

Maybe identifying the language of Antichrist, is a human attempt to identify him and protect ourselves from him (through the information), but this is such a nebulous path (unless a Saint explicitly states something through the inspiration of God and His enlightenment) that may mislead very easily.

[Anthony]

Maybe identifying the language of Antichrist, is a human attempt to identify him and protect ourselves from him (through the information), but this is such a nebulous path (unless a Saint explicitly states something through the inspiration of God and His enlightenment) that may mislead very easily.

Dear Nina,

I think so too, and am very sceptical of any such attempts unless they come from the very best sources, and then I really will listen. The real Antichrist is, of course, no laughing matter, and I do not make light of it. (The idea that he will be understood by all in their own language is interesting; I hadn't heard that before.) But the conspiracy theories I have come across in certain Orthodox circles are difficult for me to take seriously.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father Raphael

I agree very much with the need for a certain caution in using translations, and this depends on the authority with which these translations are given to us. I mean if my bishop and my Holy Synod authorise a translation of the Bible I will be fairly trusting of it.

But if I have purchased a translation of a theological text which is not by people I know very well then I will be reading it with my eyes open. I find this especially so when reading Christological texts in which the original words are often very important, and I often need to try and find and refer to those original texts just to see which words are used.

As you say, there is a need for balance, in this as in all things. If my bishop asks me to do something I will almost certainly do it with faith, if I read something on the internet I will be much less likely to accept it with such faith, simply because I do not know the authority it should have.

Personally I am sometimes a little doubtful of the CCEL translations, but that doesn't mean I don't use them. Just as I will read a very modern paraphrase of the Bible and benefit from it. But if I were writing some serious theological or historical paper I would want to be very sure of my sources and their relative authority.

Thank God we do have Fathers over us in the Church who can make some of these decisions for our spiritual benefit.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

Since I am posting, I would like to also mention that from what I remember about things told for Antichrist, he will speak and people of all the world will understand it in their own language.

What then are we to make of the events chronicled in the second chapter of Acts? Particularly Acts 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

[Nina]

What then are we to make of the events chronicled in the second chapter of Acts? Particularly Acts 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

Dear Herman,

From the understanding of the Greek word antichrist which does not mean 'against Christ', but 'in place/ instead of Christ', we understand the explanation about the Acts 2:6. Antichrist will make many sacrilegious imitations, in order to mislead people. So performing a "miracle" like in the Acts 2:6 could be one of his sacrilegious imitations.

[Andrew]

Dear Herman,

From the understanding of the Greek word antichrist which does not mean 'against Christ', but 'in place/ instead of Christ', we understand the explanation about the Acts 2:6. Antichrist will make many sacrilegious imitations, in order to mislead people. So performing a "miracle" like in the Acts 2:6 could be one of his sacrilegious imitations.

I think with the advent of such amazing things like the internet and telecommunications, we basically have a worldly anti-Pentecost. Globalization is a form of this, I think.


Technology is a worldly miracle that, coupled with man's passionate attachment to comfort and a despairing fear of death, may be the way in which the Antichrist pulls men towards him. We all depend upon our modern conveniences; but what will we do when they are taken from us? My spiritual father says that the world will clamor for them to be given back, and the Antichrist will come and work a great technological miracle, giving everyone what they want... a basically fulfilled consumerist dystopia, whereas what we now live in is just paving the way for it. The people of the Church will have to live in a humble, lowly manner, in community, in poverty, like the Church of old.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Andrew,

This is also what I have been taught. And is one reason why Christians should practice living simply (I don't!). I recall some Holy Fathers saying that then, just to be a Christian will mean more than martyrdom in the arenas.

[Nina]

Dear Nina,
unless they come from the very best sources, and then I really will listen.

Dear Anthony,

Here (http://members.cox.net/orthodoxheritage/Concering%20the%20Antichrist.htm)are some sayings of Saints.

[Nicolaj]

As a reader of the Scriptures in most different languages I can say that we can go on discussing for a while the come to a point we all agree.
But therefor I will share my experiences here. Being a former Roman and there I was in a very pious group, I can tell that the Pope and also the Pope before him were very anxious about translating and the message being preserved and matched by them. It is like with the game of blind post, everything changes bit by bit, from translation to translation until the message is changed so much that anybody can interpret almost anything into it. And it is to say that mostly in religious textes there is an even wider horizonof possible mistakes while mostly translated by people how don't even love the books they are translating, just doing a job.

I got used during the years of living with the Holy Bible, to use very translations next to another. Not just to verify but mostly to become a wider view of the message itself. I love the New Jerusalem Translation for it's very good notes and I uses the sword of the Lord program to see many Translatiuons next to another.

I am aware that the Holy Church recommends the use of this or that Translation but I like to read in as many tongues as I can to get as much out of it for me. And it is always helpfull for my life to understand the Holy Bible better and better.
But after all these years I am no further as the brother who comes to the Abbas and the Abbas ask him about a verse in the Bible and although he has read it, prayed with it and so on he answers his Abbas: I don't know! and his Abbas says : You are right!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[David James]

Cranmerian English is a Protestant tradition, and the treasures it contains are Protestant treasures. If people want to use it that's fine, but I don't see how the language of sixteenth century Protestants can be a criterion of Orthodoxy - of "right worship".

Dear Anthony:

"Beauty is truth, and truth beauty," as Keats says. I would prefer to call 16th and early 17th century English "Early Classical" English, rather than "Cranmerian," in deference to the translators of the King James Bible and Miles Coverdale's psalter - and let's not forget William Shakespeare. The works of these folk are the patrimony of all English-speaking people, and not of Protestants only. Of course, the fact that Coverdale's psalter and the KJ Old Testament were not translated from the Septuagint presents a bit of a challenge to make them fully acceptable for Orthodox use, but not an insurmountable one. In fact, I am just putting the finishing touches on a liturgical psalter, based on the Church Slavonic Psalter published by Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville in 1959, that not only uses the Coverdale Psalter as its foundation, but contains all the kathisma prayers and other liturgical and instructional material normally found in a liturgical ("sljedovannaja" or "augmented") psalter in the Russian Church. I've upload pdf copies of the latest draft to the Occidentalis and Ustav groups at yahoo.com, and would do so here, but I don't know how. FYI, there has been almost zero reaction on either forum, so it may be embarrassingly bad, and I just don't realize it.

David James

[Ryan]

I would agree with David's opinion above. I would also add that if one says that "classical English" is a "Protestant treasure", one may as well say that Latin and Koine Greek are "Pagan treasures."

In terms of comprehension, almost all of the modern liturgical texts I have seen using "TLE" tend to avoid archaisms, except when it comes to the basic pronouns and verb conjugations, which most English-speakers already understand even if unaccustomed to using them in everyday speech. The fact is, modern English, as it is spoken and written in everyday life, is deeply bereft of poetry; it is chock full of set phrases, cliches, and an overall sense that words are just ways of conveying information without any beauty. What actually passes for poetry nowadays, which gets published in the various journals or read out at ceremonious occasions, is generally lacking in any sense of rhythm, beauty, or sublimity in general. Modern poets tend to fetishize modern modernity; classical allusions only serve occasionally as clever commentary on some utterly banal aspect of everyday life.


So, writing modern English poetically sounds pretty much just as strange as TLE. Crack open any decent modern English translation of the Psalms, Job, or Isaiah, and it will be very clear that this is not the way "normal people" talk. In such cases, the replacement of "thou," "thee", and "ye" with "you" seems like a quaint affectation.

And David, I would be keen on looking at your Psalter translation. I'm also wondering what you think of the KJV-based Michael Asser psalter.

[Father David Moser]

In fact, I am just putting the finishing touches on a liturgical psalter, based on the Church Slavonic Psalter published by Holy Trinity Monastery at Jordanville in 1959, that not only uses the Coverdale Psalter as its foundation, but contains all the kathisma prayers and other liturgical and instructional material normally found in a liturgical ("sljedovannaja" or "augmented") psalter in the Russian Church.

Are you referring to the Psalter translation done by Fr Lazarus (which is almost completely unfindable anymore!) ? If so, I would love to see it and I will definitely look at your work and see what's there. If you send your files to the listowner here (M.C. Steenberg - Fr Dcn Matthew) he would be able to upload them on the appropriate section of the website (say in the Liturgics forum?)

Fr David Moser

[David James]

Dear Fr. David, bless!

The Holy Psalter: The Psalms of David from the Septuagint, translated by Archimandrite Lazarus (Moore), The Diocesan Press, Madras, India, 1966.

No, I'm not; but rather to the Church Slavonic psalter that is standard on the cliros of ROCOR parishes around the world that worship in Church Slavonic. However, I do have a copy of Fr. Lazarus' psalter, lent to me by Prof. Constantine Desrosiers, to which I referred often during the development of this new English-language "liturgical" psalter. By "liturgical", I mean that it has the kathisma prayers, as well as the prayers before and after reading the psalter, instructions for reading the psalter for the departed (which is what the kathisma prayers are for); the Selected Psalms for the polyeleos of the various feast days, etc., etc. The term for such a psalter in Russian is "Sljedovannaja Psaltir'" or "augmented" Psalter, as opposed to a "tolkovannaja psaltir'", or a psalter with patristic commentaries.

I will lend you the copy I have, if you send me your mailing address, but I have to have it back, as I must return it to Constantine eventually. I will be somewhat shame-faced when I do, not only because it has been nearly 15 years since he lent it to me, but because he gave it to me in pristine condition, and it is in poor condition now, unfortunately. That is because the [paperback] original was printed on very high acid content paper, so that now, after more than 40 years, the paper is very brittle. The flimsy paper cover fell off the third time I opened it. Or maybe it was just my sinful hands!

David James


Are you referring to the Psalter translation done by Fr Lazarus (which is almost completely unfindable anymore!) ? If so, I would love to see it and I will definitely look at your work and see what's there. If you send your files to the listowner here (M.C. Steenberg - Fr Dcn Matthew) he would be able to upload them on the appropriate section of the website (say in the Liturgics forum?)

Fr David Moser

[David James]

Dear Ryan:

The CTOS/Michael Asser psalter is beautifully printed, though the lavish design detracts a bit from the sobriety proper to a liturgical book, IMO. For a more concrete expression of my opinion, read Psalm 74 [below] from the Asser Psalter, then read the same psalm in my rendering.

David

[ASSER]

Psalm 74
Unto the end: destroy not; an odic Psalm for Asaph.


Unto Thee, O God, will we give thanks; we will give thanks unto Thee and call upon Thy name. I will tell of all Thy wondrous works.

When I am given the appointed time, I will judge uprightly.

The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved; I have made fast the pillars thereof.

I said unto the transgressors, Transgress not; and to the sinners, Lift not up the horn.

Lift not up thy horn on high, and speak not unrighteousness against God.

For judgment cometh neither from the byways, nor from the west, nor from the desert mountains: for God is judge.

He putteth down one, and raiseth up another; for in the hand of the Lord there is a cup full of unmingled wine.

And He hath turned it from this side to that, but the dregs thereof are not wholly emptied out; all the sinners of the earth shall drink of them.

But I will rejoice for ever; I will sing praises to the God of Jacob.

All the horns also of the sinners will I break, but the horn of the righteous shall be exalted.

=============

and my version:

Psalm LXXIV. Confitebimur tibi.



Unto the end, destroy not, a Psalm or Song for Asaph.



We will give thanks unto Thee, O God; we will give thanks unto Thee, and call upon Thy Name; we will declare all Thy wondrous works.

In a time of my reckoning, I shall judge according unto right.

The earth is melting away, and all who live on it; I have shored up the pillars thereof.

I said unto the lawless, Deal not so lawlessly, and to the sinners, Lift not up the horn.

Set not up your horn on high, and speak not injustice against God;

For justice cometh neither from the coming forth of the sun, nor from the west, nor yet from the barren hills,

For God is judge; He putteth down one, and setteth up another.

For the cup in the hand of the Lord is wine undiluted, full to overflowing, and He hath swirled it to and fro, but the dregs thereof did not settle out; all the sinners of the earth shall drink them up.

But I shall rejoice for ever; I shall sing unto the God of Jacob.

And I will break all the horns of sinners, but the horn of the righteous shall be exalted.




And David, I would be keen on looking at your Psalter translation. I'm also wondering what you think of the KJV-based Michael Asser psalter.

[Andreas Moran]

I agree with the earlier comments of Ryan and David regarding the heritage of poetical and liturgical English which we share. Michael's aim was to produce a Psalter which stayed as close as possible to the KJV whilst emending the content to match the LXX. That means he has followed, for example, KJV word order even though the LXX word order is different. What I think David has done is something different from what Michael aimed to do, namely to produce a translation from the LXX in early modern English of the early 17th century. There must be many slight variations of style possible, and that may cause a problem: we will have a number of versions and the question then will be, which to choose?

Both renderings of Psalm 74 could work for me. I can't read Church Slavonic but this looks to follow the Greek very closely. I would only say that I prefer 'uprightly' to 'according unto right' since the Greek word seems better served by a single adverb.

What I do notice about such renderings generally is a decision - I assume a conscious one - not to follow KJV punctuation. I think these renderings lose something of the sense of cadence and rhythm in the KJV by their avoidance of the use of semi-colons and colons which are such a feature of the KJV.

[David James]

Hmmm. I would say that, in general, both Michael and I have tended to follow as much as possible the punctuation of our models - the KJ in Michael's case, and the Coverdale in mine, though I have also considered (but not always deferred to) the punctuation of the Slavonic edition I have at hand. That said, both renditions of Psalm 74 are more similar to each other, than they are to either of our model versions. The main differences that I note are:

1. The clause at the end of the first verse of Michael's version is in the first person singular, following the Greek, while mine is in the first person plural, following the Slavonic .

2. "according unto right" is the Coverdale wording, which is my base text, so I retained it.

3. In verse 7, Michael has "from the byways," following, evidently, the Boston psalter. The Greek is "apo exodhon," [from the going forth (my Greek text has a note here: "Possibly [I]of the sun")] the Slavonic is "ot iskhod," [from the going forth] and the Latin is "ab oriente" [from the East]. So where does "byways" come from?

4. Michael joins the beginning of verse 9 ("for in the hand of the Lord...") to the end of verse 8, and puts the remainder onto a separate line. I think this is because, while the CTOS does follow the verse numbering of the Septuagint, they also appear to follow the verse formatting of the Boston Psalter [which, in general, does not follow the Septuagint numbering]. And, of course, I believe my wording of this verse is more elegant ;-).

There you have it.

David James


I agree with the earlier comments of Ryan and David regarding the heritage of poetical and liturgical English which we share. Michael's aim was to produce a Psalter which stayed as close as possible to the KJV whilst emending the content to match the LXX. That means he has followed, for example, KJV word order even though the LXX word order is different. What I think David has done is something different from what Michael aimed to do, namely to produce a translation from the LXX in early modern English of the early 17th century. There must be many slight variations of style possible, and that may cause a problem: we will have a number of versions and the question then will be, which to choose?

Both renderings of Psalm 74 could work for me. I can't read Church Slavonic but this looks to follow the Greek very closely. I would only say that I prefer 'uprightly' to 'according unto right' since the Greek word seems better served by a single adverb.

What I do notice about such renderings generally is a decision - I assume a conscious one - not to follow KJV punctuation. I think these renderings lose something of the sense of cadence and rhythm in the KJV by their avoidance of the use of semi-colons and colons which are such a feature of the KJV.

[Andreas Moran]

Retaining a construction from a preferred text is quite understandable. I wonder if, on occasion, we might have to sacrifice preference for accuracy and simplicity. Many might say, why use three words where one not only serves but is closer to the original?

I hadn't looked at Coverdale for a while but I see that there, colons are used more in this Psalm than in the KJV: 11 to 7 (though David's rendering has none). Also, I see Psalm 74/75 begins, 'Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks:', just as in the KJV. Both have 'of it' rather than 'thereof' in line 3.

Of course, straining out linguistic gnats is not the point; the test of a translation is how prayerfully one feels one can read it and how easy it is to memorise. The first test, though, will depend partly on having as few stylistic and linguisitic distractions as possible. But then, perhaps one man's distraction is another man's preference!

[David James]

Andreas:

I quite agree with your last sentence. To address your other comments:

RE: The colons - I don't know to what edition of the Coverdale psalms you are referring. If it is from the Book of Common Prayer, those colons indicate antiphonal divisions for the choir, and are not original. Here is a link to an online copy of the non-BCP text of the Coverdale, with the original punctuation:

http://www.lutheransonline.com/lo/675/FSLO-1059011476-804675.pdf

As for the word order of the opening verse, in this case I deferred to the word order of the Greek, Latin and Slavonic.

Regarding "of it" vs "thereof" in v4 (v3 in the KJ):

The KJ is "The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it."

The Coverdale is: "The earth is weak, and all the inhabiters thereof; I bear up the pillars of it."

The Greek and Slavonic translate literally as: "The earth is melting, and all who live on it, I have firmly established the pillars of it."

I decided to change "inhabiters", going with the literal "all who live on it." I didn't want to use "on it" and "of it" in the same sentence. The Coverdale has a "thereof" vs "of it" alternation, so I just inverted the Coverdale order and went with "I have shored up the pillars thereof."

I hope these explanations have provided some useful insight into the process, which, of course, is highly subjective. My main quibble with Michael Asser's version of this psalm would be the use of "byways" in v7 for "going forth," as described my earlier message, since I don't understand how the choice of that particular word was arrived at.

David James


Retaining a construction from a preferred text is quite understandable. I wonder if, on occasion, we might have to sacrifice preference for accuracy and simplicity. Many might say, why use three words where one not only serves but is closer to the original?

I hadn't looked at Coverdale for a while but I see that there, colons are used more in this Psalm than in the KJV: 11 to 7 (though David's rendering has none). Also, I see Psalm 74/75 begins, 'Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks:', just as in the KJV. Both have 'of it' rather than 'thereof' in line 3.

Of course, straining out linguistic gnats is not the point; the test of a translation is how prayerfully one feels one can read it and how easy it is to memorise. The first test, though, will depend partly on having as few stylistic and linguisitic distractions as possible. But then, perhaps one man's distraction is another man's preference!

[Andreas Moran]

RE: The colons - I don't know to what edition of the Coverdale psalms you are referring. If it is from the Book of Common Prayer, those colons indicate antiphonal divisions for the choir, and are not original. Here is a link to an online copy of the non-BCP text of the Coverdale, with the original punctuation:

Dear David,

I'm obliged for this; I didn't know about this difference, and I was looking at the BCP. I'm no scholar in these matters but just someone who cares about language. I wish I knew English better. Colons indicating antiphonal divisions: is this true of the KJV as well?


I decided to change "inhabiters", going with the literal "all who live on it." I didn't want to use "on it" and "of it" in the same sentence. The Coverdale has a "thereof" vs "of it" alternation, so I just inverted the Coverdale order and went with "I have shored up the pillars thereof."

Thank you - I understand and respectfully agree.

An anecdote. A friend of mine is a retired English tutor. He is convinced - on no evidence but based only his instinct for style - that the KJV version of Psalm 22/23 is by Shakespeare!

[David James]

Wouldn't that be amazing? FYI, my 11th great grandfather, Arthur Golding (c1536-1606), was the tutor of Edward de Vere, who many believe was the real author of Shakespeare's plays. I am an agnostic on that particular issue, BUT consider this: "Grandsire, 'tis Ovid's Metamorphoses; mother gave it me" [Young Lucius, in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus IV:1]. Arthur Golding was also the translator of Ovid's Metamorphoses into English (published in 1565). Arthur's half-sister, Margaret Golding, was Edward de Vere's mother.

David




An anecdote. A friend of mine is a retired English tutor. He is convinced - on no evidence but based only his instinct for style - that the KJV version of Psalm 22/23 is by Shakespeare!

[Andreas Moran]

Dear David,

I wonder if you would share with us your rendering of Psalm 50?

[Andreas Moran]

Further anecdote. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was born in 1550 at Castle Hedingham which is about fifteen minutes' drive north from where I live.

271

de Vere studied law at Gray's Inn and got involved with the Honourable Society's drama productions. Gray's Inn still has a very active drama and music life; a student of mine from when I was teaching law at Cambridge five years ago is very much involved in Gray's Inn drama club. Next month, the Oxford Shakespeare Company are presenting Romeo and Juliet at Gray's Inn.

Sorry - wildy 'off topic'!

[David James]

Not at all. Here it is:



Psalm L. Miserere mei, Deus.



Unto the end, a Psalm of instruction by David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba,the wife of Uriah.


Have mercy upon me, O God, after Thy great mercy, and according to the multitude of Thy compassions blot out my transgression.

Wash me thoroughly from my wickedness, and cleanse me from my sin.

For I know my transgression, and my sin is ever before me.

Against Thee only have I sinned, and done evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art judged.

For behold, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sins did my mother bear me.

For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou revealed unto me.

Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall become whiter than snow.

Thou shalt give joy and gladness to my hearing; the bones that have been humbled will rejoice.

Turn Thy face from my sins, and blot out all my misdeeds.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.

O give me the joy of Thy salvation, and stablish me with Thy governing Spirit.

Then shall I teach Thy ways unto the wicked, and the ungodly shall be converted unto Thee.

Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation, and my tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness.

O Lord, Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise.

For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would have given it; but Thou delightest not in burnt offerings.

The sacrifice unto God is a contrite spirit; a contrite and humble heart God shall not despise.

O Lord, be favorable in Thy good will unto Zion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded up.

Then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings; then shall they offer young bullocks upon Thine altar.


Dear David,

I wonder if you would share with us your rendering of Psalm 50?

[Clare G.]

Could I resurrect this thread to seek advice on the most appropriate Greek-English lexicon to use for teasing out the meaning of the more specialized vocabulary of the Greek Menaion. The HTM Menaion, which we use at daily Matins and Vespers, seems to follow the Greek found at http://analogion.gr/glt/ quite closely but just occasionally makes a reference that is baffling unless one looks at the original Greek. Even then my Greek is sometimes not adequate to grasp the nuances.

I have the 'intermediate' edition Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon and Sophocles' Greek Lexicon of the the Roman and Byzantine Periods, but is there a Greek-English lexicon of liturgical Greek?

[Christina M.]

Could I resurrect this thread to seek advice on the most appropriate Greek-English lexicon to use for teasing out the meaning of the more specialized vocabulary of the Greek Menaion.
Dear Clare,
From Pascha until the Analypsis, we are allowed to resurrect any threads we want. LOL! :)

Seriously though, I also am curious if someone will have a good answer.

If you want, you can PM me whenever you need help finding the translation of a word or phrase, and I can probably help you most of the time. Just please don't ask about the words in the iambic canons! Alloimono those things are impossible! :) When I was younger I had a zeal to try to be able to understand all the Greek words in the iambic canons, and a scholar with a doctorate from Harvard told me: "Don't waste your time. It's not worth it."

[Max Percy]

A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W.H. Lampe is a good, but very pricey start. A Bargain at $600.00!!!
1616 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (December 15, 1969)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 019864213X
ISBN-13: 978-0198642138

This is a great resource with many noted contributors including Bishop Basil Krivocheine, among others.

[Clare G.]

Thank you, Max. I had glanced at that listed somewhere previously but thought it might be limited to the vocabulary of the Church Fathers and might not cover what I wanted. Your recommendation made me look again and I found it at a more reasonable but still expensive price on amazon.uk.

[Max Percy]

Dear Clare-
At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps you can borrow or look at one in a library to ensure that it meets your needs. Happy translating!

[Clare G.]

Great idea! I'm now waiting to see if the local university library will release their copy on an inter-library loan or whether they insist it must be kept in situ for reference only.