Though short, above is a good discussion of the need of translating Greek into English for use in the Divine Liturgy of English-speaking countries. Note that, unlike the USA, this points out that there are still parishes in various other parts of the English-speaking world in which Greek is the only language used in the Liturgy, or the main one. As the Archimandrite points out, this leads to various problems. Among them are that worship becomes a spectator sport in which the people do not participate. More important, the focus of the Liturgy is lost in that it is not the worship of the people, nor does it really bring home the truth of the Crucifixion. The focus stays on the consecration of the bread and wine in a foreign language, which tends to point more to the Resurrection. But the Resurrection, shorn of the Crucifixion, loses its meaning and its salt.
Oddly enough, in the USA we sometimes have the opposite problem. That is, there have been some translations into English which are so mundane and in so much “common” street language that the poetry and resonating rhythms of the original Scriptures and the Divine Liturgy are lost. No, I am most definitely not a fan of King James English in any way. All too many people have severely twisted the history of the translation of the King James Bible to make it almost appear as though a different dialect of English was invented by the translators. At my kindest, I can only compare the handling of the history of the King James by some to the handling of history by those who see secret meanings behind various world events. But, it is all too true that the lack of resonant poetic translations do a severe disfavor to both Scripture and Liturgy.
Right now there are some Orthodox scholars who are trying to work in this area, to see whether they can do some of the same as the King James translators, to translate not in street language but in resonant and poetic language. It is not surprising that the same type of English that turns up in the Bible turns up in places like Shakespeare. Theater, at its best, often contains resonant and poetic phrases, The actors speak in ways that would not be fully true of “real” life. Sadly, real life has all too many pauses, too many breaks, “too many non-lexical vocables” that are not present in theater. (In passing, those are called speech disfluencies.) And yet, no one accuses an actor of speaking in a special language. Everyone hears them as speaking English. But, in one sense actors are speaking a special language, not a language of special words, special verbs, and special noun forms, but an English short of speech disfluencies (except when done on purpose) filled with evocative phrases whose purpose is to communicate in the briefest way possible with a minimum of necessary explanation. Soliloquies are just fine, if it is Hamlet, but too many explanatory soliloquies would drive the best theater patron out the door.
Perhaps our Bible and Liturgy translators should consider hiring some poets and playwrights to help with the final polish to the translations. We need the same powerful result that the King James translators achieved but in today’s language, a language that an English speaker can understand, not in an English that our high school teachers struggled to explain as we sufferingly worked our way through the details of Macbeth or Romeo and Juliet or even a King James English translation of Euripides (yes, I have read those as well). May God raise up translators who are also playwrights and poets. May he give us translations full of resonance and poetry.
Father, there is another problem: no one speaks that language any more. Anyone who has studied English history and English literature can tell the difference between Shakespeare/AV language and some modern imitation: it’s rather like the difference between oak furniture and fiber-board. They get the tenses all wrong, the consonant/vowel links are bad and they make stuff up.
In some very real ways it’s like reading a poorly written High School essay complete with bad grammar and Dan Quayle-style potatoes.
I’m sure the writers succeed in helping other, equally-educated parties feel pious. It’s a stumbling block for the rest of us.
ROFL, I am glad that you phrased it so strongly. What most modern Christians take to be King James English is actually a version from the 1800’s. By the 1800’s original King James English was not understandable, and so those who wanted to preserve the King James Bible updated the Bible so that it would be understandable to those in the 19th century. That is what makes the arguments about the King James so incredibly sad. Those who most support the King James based on history are often those who are most unaware that they are supporting a “modern” version of the King James.
For instance, here are the first verses of Genesis 1 as they were written in 1611:
1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. 2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. 5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.