Booklet: 'Study of English Orthodox theological terms compared to the original Greek'

[Antonios]

A resource for those who may be interested by the Holy Monastery of St. Gregoriou, Mount Athos.

link (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodox-terms.pdf)

[Effie Ganatsios]

A resource for those who may be interested by the Holy Monastery of St. Gregoriou, Mount Athos.

link (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodox-terms.pdf)

Thank you so much for this link, Antoni. Translating texts, especially religious texts, is perhaps one of the most difficult things to do given the fact that you must translate not the word but the meaning behind the word as it was meant by the original writer.

Effie

[Michael Stickles]

My thanks also, Antonios. Just a first glance has been a big help clearing up some misunderstandings I've had (especially about nous); can't wait to look it over more thoroughly.

Mike

[Eric Peterson]

I read part of the introduction, and from what I read, I did not determine that they were actually arguing for translating Greek theological terms, but leaving them in Greek. I find this to be most unhelpful. Explain the terms used, but translate them, for pitty's sake. I find the movement not to translate Greek theological terms a symptom of a larger problem. It seems to me that these people are not interested in making Orthodoxy accessible. There are several monasteries in America, for example, that use only Greek. By this, they have made it pretty clear who they wish to serve. Who but a few non-Greek speaking seekers will benefit, to say nothing of the thousands of Orthodox in America who have always worshipped in English. It's Hellenocentrism.

[Nina]

Eric, in several threads lately the issue of impossibility sometime to loyally render the meaning of Greek words (or words from other languages for that matter) in English has become apparent. As we know Orthodoxy is inclusive and has been pronounced in many languages and especially English. There is so much Orthodox info available in English that even yesterday we were discussing with Fr. Dcn. Matthew, (in the thread of the work of St. Innocent), about the abundant material that is accessible to all and sometime there is not even caution, or discernment, or guidance involved when using Orthodox material because it can be premature for many who are still babies in faith.

I am not happy to read your statement about Hellenocentrism and how you tie that to the monasteries who have services in Greek. How can you talk this way for this tradition of Orthodoxy when you pleaded people with tears in your eyes to be nice to WR in the other thread? Maybe I can't get it.

I do not know why I see so much divisivness and hatred lately here: East versus West, Latin versus Byzantine, Hellenocentrism versus Americancentrism. Can't we as Orthodox leave aside secular terms and terms of the world? Can't we put things of the world to rest when we think about Orthodoxy? Can't we all be good to each other and play nice? There are many monasteries in USA and whatever language they use it will be and may it be for the glory of God.

Plus didn't God tell always to welcome strangers? Let's say I am a stranger here in your country and I need the worship my own way. America is that great to accommodate all!

I think it is time to say also what St. Kosmas Aetolos, Geronda Paisios told us.

[Eric Peterson]

It appears my mouth must stretch further to accommodate my foot.

It just seemed to me that the article implied that English was not suitable. And, to me, it seems that some monasteries and churches in America believe the same. Now, I realize that there are still people coming to America from other countries and that many have a strong attachment to the language of their heritage. I accept that. That's well and good. But this article appeared to me to attack English, by advocating leaving Greek theological words as-is and not translating them. Maybe the writers go on to explain something different, but that is the message I received from the introduction. And that is the unstated message I receive as an English-speaking Orthodox visiting an American monastery. Many American Orthodox people (with no recent or relatively recent overseas Orthodox heritage) have the same feeling when visiting ethnic Orthodox churches and monasteries. Language becomes a barrier not just for communication but for the worship of God.

[Matthew Namee]

If I may...

On a visit to Holy Archangels Greek Orthodox Monastery in Texas (one of the Elder Ephrem monasteries), I asked the abbot, Fr. Dositheos, whether the monastery might eventually introduce English into the services. He said he did not think so. Why, I asked? Because of the inherent flaws in the English language, he replied. English didn't have the precision of Greek; it is not good for theological terms. And so forth.

To me, this is not an acceptable answer. If he were to say, "Well, gradually, as the monks and visitors become more proficient in English than in Greek, we might introduce English," that would be okay. But he's saying that English is inferior to Greek, and therefore Greek should be the language. It is this attitude, I think, to which Eric is responding. We Orthodox have a long tradition of worship in the language of the people. As early as St. Paul (and even before, with the translators of the Septuagint), the Church has a tradition of using the language of those to whom it is ministering. This tradition can be seen in such great saints as Boris and Gleb and Innocent of Alaska (among many others).

If these monasteries are filled with Greek-speaking monks and are visited by Greek-speaking faithful, then by all means they should use Greek. But if the monks are Americans, or the visitors understand only English and not Greek, then they should correspondingly use English. No, English is not as precise as Greek; neither is Slavonic or Arabic, but those have long traditions. Indeed, the Gospels were written in Greek despite the fact that the Lord spoke Aramaic. Would not the Aramaic better convey what he had to say? Yet the Empire spoke Greek, so the Gospels were written in Greek.

There is nothing inherently "holy" about Greek. It has an impressive pedigree, and it is unusually well-suited to theology. But for the sake of mission, even it has given way in many places and times to local languages. It is NOTHING against Greek or Greeks! It is a question of whether the people understand; this is my only concern. I do not understand Greek, and my experience when visiting such monasteries is hampered by that. Should I be punished for my lack of linguistic ability? Or should there be a middle ground, an attempt to meet the needs of the people? As the generations pass and the immigrants' children and grandchildren are further and further from the old country, the language will naturally become more and more obsolete. To resist this would create an unfortunate disconnect between the faithful and the Church.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I do think there is a real question behind the issue of terminology. The simple fact of the matter is that English is a relatively 'new' language in terms of its usage in Christian doctrinal expression, which for the bulk of its history (at least in an Orthodox context) has employed Greek as its principal lingua sacra. This is, of itself, not to assign some precedence to Hellenism, but simply to admit a fact of history. And as an effect of this history, certain terms central to theological expression have had the advantage of centuries of exposition, reflection, nuance and definition in an Orthodox context. A few examples are nous, hypostasis, ousia, physis. I don't believe many would suggest that it is not possible to translate such terms into English; the question is whether such translations have the innate ability to convey a meaning implied in a term that has been thoroughly 'Christianised' in the Greek-language expression of doctrine, in a language where the translated term does not.

Nous is an excellent example. How should this be translated into English? The editors of the Philokalia in English used 'intellect', but were immediately criticised. In English, the 'organ' one would most immediately associate with the term 'intellect' is the brain, the centre of rationality; but in the ascetical writings of the fathers, the 'organ' always associated with the nous is not the brain, but the heart. This is a critical difference. If the Greek term nous is used in the Church's spiritual writings to reflect to the activity of the heart, is a translation into the English 'intellect' really transmitting the same sense? Does not 'intellect' have the potential, given the term's meaning in common English usage, in fact to paint a rather different image of the power of the soul the nous represents?

Clearly, the Orthodox faith can be articulated in English, just as it has been articulated in many other languages. But each language has its challenges; and English has a set of challenges faced less by, for example, Slavonic, which is much closer to Greek in form. In many contexts, these challenges can be overcome by careful and effective glosses -- for example, glossing 'Trinity' so that it is not taken to mean 'triune God' (the latter being a thoroughly non-patristic concept). But with some terms right at the heart of the faith, there is a real question, to my mind, as to whether English indeed has any equivalent that will successfully convey the meaning of the Greek without distorting it. I know of no satisfactory term to use for nous; and in my own writings, I am extremely uncomfortable translating either ousia or hypostasis, since 'substance/essence' and 'person' are in fact not what the Greek means. This is not to admit of Hellenism, but simply to question the nuance of language. Of course, the terms were not originally Christianised when they were taken by in Greek by the Church; but the Church has had some 2,000 years to Christianise their nuance. If something similar is to be done in English, we must think carefully about the terms we are to use -- and perhaps, yes, question whether leaving some terms 'foreign' to common English might not be of use, in ensuring that we treat them as other-than-ordinary when considering how to articulate the faith.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Matthew Namee hit on a related but different topic in his post - that of the use of a non-local liturgical language (in his case Greek rather than English). I have started a new thread, "Local language vs the language of our fathers (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4866)" to continue that discussion which is slightly different but no less important than this discussion which should remain focused on translation of liturgical/theological terms.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

-- and perhaps, yes, question whether leaving some terms 'foreign' to common English might not be of use, in ensuring that we treat them as other-than-ordinary when considering how to articulate the faith.

We are already used to doing this in other fields - witness the common usage of Latin terms in law, and both Greek and Latin in the various sciences. English may be a wonderful language for everyday communications, but specialized purposes require specialized terminology.

In theology particularly, English can be ill-suited, as the connotations of many words have drifted away from spiritual meanings, or in ways which downplay the spiritual or religious (probably due to the influences of philosophical materialism). Just as one example, the adjectives "immaterial" and "material" used to be commonly used to distinguish spiritual reality and physical reality; these words have since picked up the meanings of "unimportant" and "important", respectively.

Also, many of our common English words for theological topics - "salvation", "justification", "soul", etc., etc. - can serve to obscure rather than promote communication, since different groups often mean quite different things when they use them. If I say nous and the person I'm talking to doesn't understand me, we have a temporary block in communications, but at least that is immediately apparent, and we can work to reach understanding. But if I say "intellect" while meaning nous, but the person I'm talking to thinks I mean that as "rational/logical thinking ability", communications is blocked far more effectively, because we think we're communicating when we really aren't (my wife and I used to be masters at this method of misunderstanding each other). I've found that when the thought pops into my mind "how can this person be so dense?", it's time to back up and look at our terminology, because we're probably using the same words to mean different things and it's causing confusion.

In Christ,
Mike

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Eric, in several threads lately the issue of impossibility sometime to loyally render the meaning of Greek words (or words from other languages for that matter) in English has become apparent. As we know Orthodoxy is inclusive and has been pronounced in many languages and especially English.

If theologically vital Greek words cannot be translated into English, then English speakers cannot be saved. That is what it boils down to. If it truly is impossible to express the meaning of Greek terms that are central to Orthodoxy in English, then it is impossible to transmit Orthodoxy to English speakers merely by virtue of their speaking English.

Is that the case?

[Nina]

If theologically vital Greek words cannot be translated into English, then English speakers cannot be saved. That is what it boils down to. If it truly is impossible to express the meaning of Greek terms that are central to Orthodoxy in English, then it is impossible to transmit Orthodoxy to English speakers merely by virtue of their speaking English.


First, this is part of a dialogue with friends we had when we were discussing translations across some threads.

Second, why do you complain in "Will Satan be saved" thread to people putting words in your mouth and then you come here and put words in *my* mouth? Can you specifically quote where I said these words "English speakers cannot be saved" as you claim?

Third, I am not willing to discuss with *you* (singular) about such matters because obviously we will not learn anything from each other. Be at peace.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

I did not state that you said English speakers cannot be saved. I repeated your claim that some important Orthodox concepts are "impossible" to express in English. My own logical conclusion of this is that English speakers cannot be saved. I did not, at any time, state that someone else said this. On the other hand, someone specifically stated that I claimed it was "cool" that Satan might be saved. Where, specifically, did I state that someone else, you or anyone, said that English speakers cannot be saved. I merely took your claim of "impossibility" to its rational conclusion.

[Nina]

My own logical conclusion

Exactly! *Your own*.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Seemd perfectly logical to me

[Nina]

Thank you for a heavy accusation. May God bless you both.

[Daniel R.]

Can we not say that it is impossible or at least very hard to faithfully render the Greek into English without saying that means it is impossible to be saved ? I'm sorry but I do not read Nina's post as saying that it is impossible for English speakers to be saved. I believe she was saying that when translating Greek words it can cause no end of problems as it is very hard to translate exactly into English.

Besides, God saves us not being able to read theologically vital words - which even if they can not be translated can be explained. But through the whole life of the Church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can we not say that it is impossible or at least very hard to faithfully render the Greek into English without saying that means it is impossible to be saved ? I'm sorry but I do not read Nina's post as saying that it is impossible for English speakers to be saved. I believe she was saying that when translating Greek words it can cause no end of problems as it is very hard to translate exactly into English.

No that is not what she said, but it merely extending what was said to a logical conclusion, a perfectly valid rhetorical tool. If something important cannot be expressed in any language except Greek, then what hope does anyone who does not speak Greek have? But while it may take effort, I think some very subtle thoughts can, indeed, be captured in English from the Greek.


Besides, God saves us not being able to read theologically vital words - which even if they can not be translated can be explained. But through the whole life of the Church.

Exactly. Communication is soooo much more than mere language.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Exactly! *Your own*.

And so? I never stated that someone else claimed it, I merely took an extreme claim and took it to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, I was specifically accused of making a statement that I did not make. Those are two different things.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Can we not say that it is impossible or at least very hard to faithfully render the Greek into English without saying that means it is impossible to be saved ?

Let’s do it in steps, then.

A requires B,
but B is impossible.

Therefore, A cannot happen.

Concrete example:

1: Salvation requires understanding certain theological concepts.
2: Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand these concepts in English.

Therefore Salvation is impossible for English speakers.

Now, my argument can be validly attacked on two bases:

I: These concepts can be understood in English (sentence 2 is wrong).
II: These concepts are not necessary for salvation (sentense 1 is wrong).

However, if both sentence 1 and sentence 2 are correct, then the conclusion is valid.

PS: "Translation" is not the same thing as "word-for-word correspondence".

[Daniel R.]

"Translation" is not the same thing as "word-for-word correspondence".
No but by translation most people mean translating it word for word or word for a few words not a running commentary or a list of meanings which might be needed in a few places.



Let’s do it in steps, then.

A requires B,
but B is impossible.

Therefore, A cannot happen.

Concrete example:

1: Salvation requires understanding certain theological concepts.
2: Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand these concepts in English.
One small point if A requires B then should it not be A: and B: not 1: and 2: ;)

The concepts might be needed the exact translation is not. Now seen as we are not Protestant me and my Bible crowd, but Orthodox Christians with the Holy Fathers (who yes wrote in Greek but concepts where not limited to one word) and also with English speaking priest and bishops to explain things to us.

Now if we look at what Nina said
Eric, in several threads lately the issue of impossibility sometime to loyally render the meaning of Greek words (or words from other languages for that matter) in English has become apparent. she does not say theological concepts concepts but some Greek words can not be loyally rendered in English.

[Antonios]

Let’s do it in steps, then.

A requires B,
but B is impossible.

Therefore, A cannot happen.

Concrete example:

1: Salvation requires understanding certain theological concepts.
2: Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand these concepts in English.

Therefore Salvation is impossible for English speakers.


The bolded area is where your position fails. I do not need to know all theological concepts in order to be saved. How can a child then be saved? And aren't we all really children in the faith? Who knows every theological concept but God alone? Or is there a certain degree one must know? Which theological concepts are needful and which are not? In fact, it is quite obvious that we will not be judged by our minds, but rather our hearts.

Nina's statement does in no way lead to the conclusion you have made from her statement. Knowing the Greek language may aid in understanding some theological concepts because of semantics, but it is in no way the only way to know theological concepts in the heart, where there is no earthly language, but God Himself present, in His divinity.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that we're trying to make the language of the Church bear more weight than it was meant to. Specific languages as developed for centuries within the Church such as Greek & Slavonic do indeed carry a depth and range of meanings that English does not (a comparison of the Great Litany to our English versions would be enough to show this). But even theologically developed language such as we find in Greek or Slavonic, refers to salvation rather than encompassing it within itself. (not merely the saying of 'Lord, Lord', will save us). So then even if a modern language does not succeed in capturing the depth of the original, it can still refer to the same basic sense of salvation that Greek or Slavonic does.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nina]

Knowing the Greek language may aid in understanding some theological concepts because of semantics, but it is in no way the only way to know theological concepts in the heart, where there is no earthly language, but God Himself present, in His divinity.

Yes, theoria.

[Owen Jones]

Why not start translating nous as heart?

[Daniel R.]

I think the problem is is nous means mind in the New Testament the Greek only took up the sense of heart in the Holy Fathers.

[Owen Jones]

Perhaps this will help:

What is the Human Nous?
Chapter 1 from Patristic Theology
by Father John Romanides

The chief concern of the Orthodox Church is the healing of the human soul. The Church has always considered the soul as the part of the human being that needs healing because She has seen from Hebrew tradition, from Christ Himself, and from the Apostles that in the region of the physical heart there functions something that the Fathers called the nous. In other words, the Fathers took the traditional term nous, which means both intellect (dianoia) and speech or reason (logos), and gave it a different meaning. They used nous to refer to this noetic energy that functions in the heart of every spiritually healthy person. We do not know when this change in meaning took place, because we know that some Fathers used the same word nous to refer to reason as well as to this noetic energy that descends and functions in the region of the heart.

So from this perspective, noetic activity is an activity essential to the soul. It functions in the brain as the reason; it simultaneously functions in the heart as the nous. In other words, the same organ, the nous, prays ceaselessly in the heart and simultaneously thinks about mathematical problems, for example, or anything else in the brain.

We should point out that there is a difference in terminology between St. Paul and the Fathers. What St. Paul calls the nous is the same as what the Fathers call dianoia. When the Apostle Paul says, �I will pray with the spirit,�[1] he means what the Fathers mean when they say, �I will pray with the nous.� And when he says, �I will pray with the nous,� he means �I will pray with the intellect (dianoia).� When the Fathers use the word nous, the Apostle Paul uses the word �spirit.� When he says �I will pray with the nous, I will pray with the spirit� or when he says �I will chant with the nous, I will chant with the spirit,� and when he says �the Spirit of God bears witness to our spirit,�[2] he uses the word �spirit� to mean what the Fathers refer to as the nous. And by the word nous, he means the intellect or reason.

In his phrase, �the Spirit of God bears witness to our spirit,� St. Paul speaks about two spirits: the Spirit of God and the human spirit. By some strange turn of events, what St. Paul meant by the human spirit later reappeared during the time of St. Makarios the Egyptian with the name nous, and only the words logos and dianoia continued to refer to man�s rational ability. This is how the nous came to be identified with spirit, that is, with the heart, since according to St. Paul, the heart is the place of man�s spirit.[3]

Thus, for the Apostle Paul reasonable or logical worship takes place by means of the nous (i.e., the reason or the intellect) while noetic prayer occurs through the spirit and is spiritual prayer or prayer of the heart.[4] So when the Apostle Paul says, �I prefer to say five words with my nous in order to instruct others rather than a thousand with my tongue,�[5] he means that he prefers to say five words, in other words to speak a bit, for the instruction of others rather than pray noetically. Some monks interpret what St. Paul says here as a reference to the Prayer of Jesus, which consists of five words,[6] but at this point the Apostle is speaking here about the words he used in instructing others.[7] For how can catechism take place with noetic prayer, since noetic prayer is a person�s inward prayer, and others around him do not hear anything? Catechism, however, takes place with teaching and worship that are cogent and reasonable. We teach and speak by using the reason, which is the usual way that people communicate with each other.[8]

Those who have noetic prayer in their hearts do, however, communicate with one another. In other words, they have the ability to sit together, and communicate with each other noetically, without speaking. That is, they are able to communicate spiritually. Of course, this also occurs even when such people are far apart. They also have the gifts of clairvoyance and foreknowledge. Through clairvoyance, they can sense both other people�s sins and thoughts (logismoi), while foreknowledge enables them to see and talk about subjects, deeds, and events in the future. Such charismatic people really do exist. If you go to them for confession, they know everything that you have done in your life before you open your mouth to tell them.

[Daniel R.]

I see what you mean but I would say in regard to some words this might not be possible. However, it would make sense to use the word heart in the Holy Fathers but I do not think it matters either way as long as a explanation is given to the reader.