I normally do not respond directly to another writer’s blog, as this can lead to strong misunderstandings and sometimes even inappropriate comments. It is worse when I generally agree with most of the writings of that particular author. In all honesty, when it comes to politics he and I are about as far apart as two Orthodox can be in the USA. However, when it comes to dogmatics and moral theology we are normally in complete agreement. However, this is a very rare time when I disagree strongly enough with what he said that I think it bears comment. I am referring to the article King James English and Orthodox Worship published on 09 September 2016. Father makes several arguments that I do not believe are fully valid, and I will explain my reasons below.
First, however, let me clearly state my argument so that I may not be misunderstood. First, I am not saying that current English must be used in worship. I am saying that it is wrong to mandate a King James style of English in worship or to imply that this is the English that ought to be used in worship. But, I might be minded to argue that a carefully wrought modern formal English is to be preferred over a King James style of English and that the use of King James English ought to be considered an allowance rather than a norm. Notice that I said a carefully wrought modern formal English. There are multiple worship texts floating around the USA since the liturgical ferment of the 1960’s. Some are atrocious, lacking all sense of poetic flow, and are incredibly pedestrian in their use of English, as though a vocabulary of more than 1,000 words and a complete pronouns list is somehow to be avoided. In the same way, there are uses of the King James style English that seem to delight in using either words that are no longer understood, or even worse, using words that mean something different enough that the believer is led into heresy rather than into Truth. Those who have ever seen a new believer using a Strong’s Concordance to try to figure out what is being said are quite well aware of how badly they can end up being misled as they try to understand confusing older English. Thus, even when a King James style English is used, extra care must also be taken so that believers may not misunderstand. Mind you, care must be taken even with current English, but even more care must be taken with King James style English.
I have several issues with the arguments made by Father on his blog post. They summarize down to some being somewhat emotive in nature, while others show a misunderstanding of the historical situation in which the translations into a King James like English took place, finally some of his arguments cite the current situation of incomplete translations as though there were a set of deliberate choices made, or perhaps a set of unconscious choices made, that prove that a King James style English is what we ought to be using. Let me go through various of them. (Note: I will not go through them in documentary order, but rather in my own order.)
-
“When the services were translated into Chinese and Japanese, for example, the style used was that which was used in traditional Chinese and Japanese religious practice… which was an older form of these languages.” This was cited in order to support the use of an older English. However, when the Divine Liturgy was translated into Spanish, both here in the USA and in the Western hemisphere, a Latin American Spanish was used rather than the older Castilian Spanish, which would have been the expected Spanish if what Father said about the retention of an traditional worship Spanish was used. One need only read Latin American history to know that Castilian Spanish was the worship norm. Yet, when the Antiochians (for instance), who use King James like English in the USA, translated the Divine Liturgy into Spanish, they used current Spanish, not the older Castilian in more than one country. Thus, the argument about using an older form of the language could only apply to certain countries, at best, if it even should apply.
-
However, it is then immediately interesting to note that the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain links to eMatins and also has an older link to the Anastasis by Archimandrite Ephrem which are both in current English. This puts Father in the position of arguing that the British are wrong for using current English while the Americans are right for retaining an English that the British no longer require. Frankly, that says more about those who support a King James like English in the USA than it says about the importance of retaining an older English.
-
Except it is not the English per se. Rather it is the Greek Orthodox English, for the Antiochian Orthodox English have a link to the American Archdiocese’s King James English like liturgical site. Which brings up an interesting point. The largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the USA is the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. According to some of the statistics I am able to find, they are 30 times larger than the second largest jurisdiction in the USA, the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. If you added up the other Orthodox jurisdictions, you would not equal the total of the Greek Orthodox jurisdiction. The point is important because the Greek Orthodox have no problem with current English translations. Having said that, Narthex Press (Greek) turns out some of the most pedestrian translations I have ever read. Holy Cross turns out much better translations. Thus, Father may not be aware that he is arguing that a minority of the Orthodox in the USA have the right to argue that the majority of Orthodox must submit to their opinions about the King James. Father is arguing from a minority position, which is a rather incommodious position from which to argue, for he has to argue that—in this case—the minority is correct. But, I am not done yet.
-
Father argues that an example of linguistic conservatism is that Jews “continued to use the Hebrew text of the Old Testament long after Hebrew ceased to be the spoken language of the people (and in fact, they continue to use it to this day).” But, in order to argue that he has to lightly pass by the history of the Septuagint which was translated precisely because Jews were not able to read the text of the Old Testament anymore. You see this documented in Ezra-Nehemiah when it comments for the need of a translation. Not only were people not able to understand Hebrew, but it is the Greek Septuagint which is the official Old Testament of the Orthodox not the Masoretic Hebrew text, nor any other Hebrew text. In fact, by citing the Hebrew, Father makes my argument that a current translation is regarded by God as better than the original! For if God really considered the Hebrew to be better, he would not have approved the Septuagint. There is NO Hebrew Old Testament which is official for the Orthodox.
-
Father argues that, “… contrary to popular belief, the Greek of the New Testament was not really “street Greek.” It is certainly in a form of Koine Greek, but it is in a Semitic style that it full of Hebraisms rooted in the Old Testament, both the Hebrew original, and the Greek Septuagint (which likewise is full of Hebraisms …”. I fully agree with Father. The language of the New Testament is a “mutt” or “creole” or “hybrid” language. It is a far from classical Greek as one would wish to get. It is indeed full of archaisms, however, those could also be labeled as “loan words”. Every good Baptist who says “Amen”, every good Pentecostal who shouts “Hallelujah” is using a hybrid form of English. Loan words are common in every language, because there are words that are difficult to translate from one language to another. You can thank us Latinos for “rodeo”, “burrito”, “lariat”, the State of “Colorado”, the City of “San Francisco”, etc. Nevertheless, loan words are an argument against older English because loan words violate the grammatical rules of older English. Just like we use loan words with current English, so there is no problem with using loan words with current liturgical language.
-
There was a point made about Hapgood, Nassar, and their translations. I will simply point out that most of those translations were made at a point when, culturally, English speakers were using a King James like language in worship, and alternate Bible translations were looked at with either great suspicion or outright rejection. This is only an argument that they translated in accord with the current culture at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.
I will stop here. But, I will argue that most of Father’s arguments are based on a minority viewpoint rather than a majority viewpoint. There are points I did not touch, but not because I did not have an answer, but rather because I thought to avoid too extensive a piece.
Well done, Father! I prefer a good BCP Rite II style language that is formal and even literary over the “O God you are so huge” sort of English that gets used often… but I would prefer either to needing to explain archaic words to folks who don’t get it. I’ve gotten into arguments over their meaning with clergy who don’t even understand the rubrics written in KJV style.
1. Not being a Spanish speaker, I can’t comment on the quality of the translations we have in Spanish. But there are a few differences just in terms of History. The Liturgical language of Spanish speaking people until the 1960’s was not Castilian Spanish. It was Latin. So there is no reason why using Castilian Spanish would be the liturgical move to make. I would think that the Spanish liturgical translations would be heavily influenced by Latin, but again, can’t speak from the inside. But another difference here. The Hapgood Service book was sponsored by an Orthodox Saint, who spoke English in the home (Tsar Nicholas), and was blessed by another Saint, the Hieromartyr Tikhon. I don’t think Spanish translations have that sort of pedigree. They are certainly very recent too. English Orthodox translations have a 250+ year history. Japanese translations were blessed by St. Nicholas of Japan. Slavonic was a language created for worship by Ss. Cyril and Methodius, and used for more than a thousand years by countless saints. So in terms of precedent, these translations carry a lot more weight.
2. The fact that some in Great Britain use “You Who” English is neither here nor there. The most widely used translations produced there are those of Met. Kallistos and Mother Mary, and those are not in “You Who” English.
3. The size of the GOA is also neither here nor there. Many GOA parishes use traditional English in their services. Many use primarily Greek, rather than English. The “You Who” translations that have been forced on much of the GOA are so bad that many think they are primarily designed to make people just want to do it in Greek. You also have some new strange directives from the GOA that forbid, for example, the use of the most commeon English responses to the Litanies “Lord, have mercy.” http://byztex.blogspot.com/2016/08/changes-acoming-to-greek-parishes-in-us.html
If the GOA was primarily using a particular translation, and if their parishes were actually doing full services, they should obviously be able to produce a complete set of service books with that translation. However, such is not the case. Why do you suppose that is?
4. I am well aware that Greek Speaking Jews translated the Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint. But the Septuagint was not just translated in to colloquial Greek. It is Hebraic Greek. Secondly, Aramaic speaking Jews continued to use Hebrew exclusively until about the 2nd century. The Peshitta is of course also very close to the Hebrew text.
An Aramaic speaker can learn Hebrew without too much difficulty. A Greek speaker cannot. Likewise, Slavonic is about 80% the same as modern Russian. If you have a good Slavonic text (and some Nikonian texts could be put into better Slavonic), it is not that difficult for a Russian to learn it. Though I think a revision of the Slavonic texts is in order — to put some texts into better Slavonic, and also to eliminate some of the more difficult problems.
5. It is actually not the case that the Greek of the NT was simply street Greek: http://www.bible-researcher.com/language-koine.html some of it is more simple and some of it is more classical, but none of it was simply the common Greek of the day.
6. The King James Version did not really cease to be the primary translation used in English speaking countries until about the 1980’s. It is still widely used. I don’t think the popularity of the NIV (the only translation more widely sold than the KJV today) has been a good thing. It is simply not a good translation. It is still the case that the text of the KJV is more widely quoted and known. You still hear “Thou shalt not kill”, for example, not “You shall not murder.”
I keep hearing of Nicholas II’s “sponsorship” of the Hapgood translation, but I have never seen any documentation pertaining to this. Likewise, I have never seen any documentation that Saint Tikhon “blessed” the 1906 edition, which in any case was based on a complete set of service books given to Hapgood but Tikhon’s successor in office. He did, on the other hand, endorse her efforts on creating a second edition and even recommended a number of people to work with her on that. I do find it odd that someone who was such a stickler for ecclesial practice would let it slip by that something blessed at the highest levels and “sponsored” by the Tsar wouldn’t even have the imprimatur for which all officially blessed Russian church books are known. I am quite willing to be corrected should my fears turn out to be unwarranted. Personally, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone added two plus two to the entire Nashotah House adventure and came up with a “blessing.”
Vova Hindrichs
Orthodox Antiquarian
I just typed an entire long reply which has disappeared. I am going to bed.
Vova, in the preface to the 1906 edition of the Service Book, Hapgood says: “His Grace, the Most Reverend Tikhon, Archbishop of North America and the Aleutian Islands, has, by his deep interest and practical aid, been of inestimable service, and I thank him most warmly.”
In the 1922 edition we have a photo copy of the letter blessing the text from St. Tikhon, as well as a translation of it, which endorses the text wholeheartedly.
When I said that he endorsed the Service Book, and also say that it was first published in 1906, I was not claiming that he formally blessed the 1906 edition. Only that he blessed the text, and that the text was first published in 1906. He formally blessed it in 1922, and we have a copy of the letter for all the world to see.
Marina Ledkovsky says in her essay on Hapgood that the Russian Imperial government gave $2,000.00 towards the publication of the book, which was a much more substantial sum in those days. And she says:
“Copies of the Service Book were sent to the Imperial family and her “beautiful book” was acknowledged with “innermost thanks.”11”
And that footnote reads:
11. Hapgood Papers, Box 3. Letter from E. Naryshkin, March 2/15, 1908, Manuscripts and Archives section, New York Public Library, New York.
Also, in the 1922 edition, there is a footnote to the original preface of the 1906 edition, which states the the liberal funding attributed to Count Sergius Witte came from “the late Emperor Nichols II”.
Father John, I would have the following comments to make:
1. It is true that among Roman Catholics the use of Spanish in the Liturgy did not really exist per se until Vatican Council II, anymore than it did among English-speaking Roman Catholics. But … that is not all that there is. There is also the rubric of Bible translations.
a. At the same general time as the King James Version, what became called the Reina-Valera version of the Bible was translated. It was also based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, exactly the same two texts as used by the King James Bible. The original version was translated by Casiodoro de Reina in 1562 and is somewhat akin to the Geneva Bible. Casiodoro was a Catholic who became a Lutheran. Cipriano de Valera revised it in 1602, and it became called the Reina-Valera version, first published in Amsterdam, the Spanish equivalent of the King James. Among Spanish Protestants it was THE Bible, with revisions published, just like the King James Version. The most important versions were published in 1708, 1909, 1960, and 1995 (as well as a 2011 version). Just like the King James Version, it originally had included the Apocrypha and uses the word Jehová and uses the vosotros Castilian form, the equivalent of JKV English. It is a version I have used. Contrary to popular belief there have always been Spanish-speaking Protestants.
b. Among Roman Catholics the first version of the Bible into Spanish was published circa 1280 under the leadership of King Alfonso X. The next version was really around 1825, nearly 600 years later. The Nácar-Colunga version was not published until 1944 in Mexico, but also used a Castilian Spanish, rather than Latin American Spanish. The current most popular version is the French Jerusalem Bible translated into Spanish, which was a Castilian translation all the way into 2000.
c. This is all to say that the Orthodox hierarchs had both a Protestant and a Roman Catholic tradition to draw from in Latin American, and both of them tended toward a Castilian Spanish. They uniformly chose to use a Latin American Spanish. And, this brings up my final in this area. By trying to use saints to validate your thesis, you also unbeknowingly endanger the role of the hierarchs. For, you are clearly implying that “common” hierarchs do not truly have the Holy Spirit and have made a wrong decision–in Spanish– by allowing a non-Castilian translation. But, that endangers any decision made by groups of hierarchs. And, the reality is that the Dioceses of Mexico, Chile, and Argentina (for the Antiochians) and the equivalent dioceses for the Greeks have all gone to Latin American Spanish.
Let me stop here for now, and I will dialogue on your other points tomorrow.
If Latin America had been predominately Protestant, and the if the Reina Valera translation had been a book in every home, and the first text book for people of many generations, then you would have an analogy. But there simply is no comparable history.
I have an assistant priest who also happens to be Cuban, and is in his 70’s, and when we purchased a Spanish Gospel book, I asked him if it was like the Reina Valera, and I can’t remember his exact response, but I remember that he said that the Reina Valera was only used by Protestants, and he did not think it was a good one.
The Geneva Bible was popular before the KJV came on the scene, but what makes the KJV different is that it decidedly did not reflect one groups slant. It was balanced between high-church Anglicans, and Puritans. They most kept each other honest. There are a few instances in which one could argue that the text reflects a Protestant bias, but they are few and far between.
Let’s see, there were not enough Latino Protestants for our history to count. Love the way you dismiss our non-Roman Textus Receptus translation as having significance. But, in point three of your answer it does not matter that the largest jurisdiction in the USA freely permits modern English and has more than one publishing house translating into modern English. (It does not matter that Greek is used or that some parishes use an older English since I have already stated that the issue is not whether old English is used but whether new English is allowed and/or encouraged.) But, Father, what is happening is that if it is small you promptly dismiss it. If it is large, then it does not count because there is no enforced uniformity. Bottom line, you are going to dismiss it.
The modern English translation of one of the two Greek publishing houses is pedestrian. The other one has much better translations and has a strong following. However, your comment about You Who appears to have more to do with what you hope will happen than what is actually happening, which is the free unforced spread of more and more English in the Greek jurisdiction, and most of that new spread is current English. The announcement to which you refer was a directive from the Federation of Musicians to its musicians, which was promptly repudiated by several of the chanceries as being an inappropriate statement by a non-hierarchical body. It has quietly disappeared and was NEVER an official pronouncement. However, the Greeks have a point. If you wish to do something ancient do it in one of the true ancient languages of the Liturgy, not in a multiply times revised English dating to the 1800’s.
Father, it is simply a fact… not just my opinion, that the Reina Valera translation has not impacted Spanish speaking culture in any way comparable to the impact that the King James Version has had in English. It is not even close. Also, the style of the King James Version was matched by the hymnody used in Protestant worship during the past 400+ years, and English speaking culture has been predominantly Protestant. Spanish speaking culture was predominantly Roman Catholic, and prior to Vatican II, that meant that they were not worshiping in any form of Spanish, Reina Valera, or otherwise.
And your point about the GOA has nothing to do with this. It is simply a fact that the GOA was not been a hotbed of interest in using English. Many parishes still use mostly Greek. I don’t know what the stats are these days, but I know that when people ask about parishes in some area that they are moving to, it has been more often than not that the GOA parishes have not used lots of English.
Given its size, if the GOA were using lots of English, then the GOA would have been the primary publishers of English texts, and yet there are very few texts that come to mind that the GOA can claim credit for. In fact, I can only think of one https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Easter-Services-English-Translation/dp/B000Q99OE8 and this was not published by the Archdiocese, but by an individual priest, and it is a Greek / English text, which was probably intended more for English speakers to follow a Greek service, then to be used as an English service book.
So you can talk about the size of the GOA all you want, but clearly the GOA has not been interested in publishing English translations, or we would have seen a complete set of services published by them a long time ago.