OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 01:08:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 16-year-old Latin whiz finds new liturgy language lacking  (Read 7847 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,450


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: November 03, 2011, 12:31:26 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal
 
By Erik Baker
 
It's definitely a better translation. That's probably the biggest misconception that critics of the recent revision of the General Roman Missal have. They perceive the new translation as some sort of conservative formalization of the text that is only ostensibly more faithful to the Latin. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Though there are some changes that really are no better, and certainly tend towards archaic jargon, the vast majority of the dramatic shifts -- especially to the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Nicene Creed -- are certainly far more accurate.
 
In fact, looking over the Latin, it’s quite clear that the former translation didn't even attempt to be literal. So the question clearly isn't "is it a better translation," if "better" is defined in terms of accuracy vis-a-vis the Latin. The question is "is a more accurate translation desirable?" For many that question will seem like a no-brainer. Of course we want to stay as close to the Latin as possible. And yet, I think it's valuable to use these changes as an opportunity to examine the value of the Latin Mass and ultimately the nature of the Mass itself. I think that the conclusions might be startling.
....
The next major change is to the Gloria. Most of the changes are innocuous enough, but there's one at the beginning of the prayer that seems bizarre to me. The familiar "and peace to his people on earth" is changed to "on earth peace to people of good will." Not only is the latter far more awkward in English, but there's also a problematic sentiment implicit in the new phrase. Why are we only praying that people "of good will" receive peace? This seems to say that people who are without "good will" are not deserving of peace.

But what is "good will"? It seems to me that it could either mean "good" in the virtuous sense of the word, or, more specifically, Catholic. In either case, it expresses a profoundly anti-Christian sentiment. The notion that only moral or Christian people deserve peace and our prayers is anathema to everything Jesus ever taught. There is simply no sound reason for abandoning "love your enemies" simply because it’s closer to the Latin. The original Greek text recognizes this, and expresses "goodwill to all people." Ironically, the Latin is then actually a mistranslation of the Greek. This just highlights the fact that the possibility of human error doesn’t disappear when writing church texts. It’s hard to see what inherent reason we have for respecting this highly fallible process.

Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 

« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 12:33:49 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 12:50:53 PM »

Would seem to be. (Good will towards men in Greek)

Quote
Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία. Ὑμνοῦμέν σε, εὐλογοῦμέν σε, προσκυνοῦμέν σε, δοξολογοῦμέν σε, εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, διὰ τὴν μεγάλην σου δόξαν. Κύριε Βασιλεῦ, ἐπουράνιε Θεέ, Πάτερ παντοκράτορ, Κύριε Υἱὲ μονογενές, Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, καὶ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Πατρός, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ κόσμου. Πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν, ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. Ὅτι σὺ εἶ μόνος Ἅγιος, σὺ εἶ μόνος Κύριος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ Πατρός. Ἀμήν.
http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Orthros.uni.htm


I don't know how modern this is though.  Grin Wink
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 12:51:34 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 12:51:57 PM »

To be frank, this was nonsense.

The creed in Latin AND Greek liturgy has been done "I believe" ever since it was used in baptisms in the 4th century. There's nothing Protestant about it at all.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 12:53:05 PM »

Also, nobody "deserves peace." It's a free unmerited gift of the Lord, and only those of good will are willing to receive it.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 12:54:09 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 12:55:15 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?

Fishwrap? lol...
Logged


I'm going to need this.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2011, 12:56:17 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal


Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 



This kid's observations are pretty solid with regards to the Latin language, though I wouldn't call him a Latin whiz by any stretch of the imagination.

His objection to the Gloria translation is built on solid ground.  It's not a problem with being faithful to the Latin though since "peace to people of good will" is what the Latin says.  The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  In fact, the kid does say that what's problematic is the Latin text in the first place.

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

One is not saved by another's faith.  Saying "I believe" vs. "We believe" does not destroy community and promote individualism, as he contends.  A bunch of I's confessing the same faith is communal.  
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 12:59:28 PM »

Also, nobody "deserves peace." It's a free unmerited gift of the Lord, and only those of good will are willing to receive it.

To be honest, I thought the 'assessment' was a bit thin, as well.

The Orthodox pray for "all Orthodox Christians". Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers". People of 'goodwill' are special because they live the word of God. It is fitting to pray for their blessing, or should I say "peace" with them.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,450


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 01:00:41 PM »

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  
What about this statement from OrthoWiki:

Quote
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as it is recited in Orthodox worship today uses the first person ("I believe..."/"Πιστεύω") rather than the first person plural as it was enacted at the councils.


Was the "original" form first person plural?

(Perhaps the kid is "leaning East"?)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 01:02:01 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2011, 01:07:40 PM »

Ha. Just clicked the link. National "Catholic" Reporter. Why am I not surprised?

Fishwrap? lol...

And his trashing of the Confiteor as too "negative" about humanity is idiotic. Who does this kid think he is?

It does say something though that the usual array of geriatric hippies at the Fishwrap make no better arguments than a confused teenager does.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2011, 01:08:12 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation, and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time. To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2011, 01:09:39 PM »

In the Coptic Orthodox Church we say "we believe".
Logged

scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2011, 01:34:29 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.


St. Jerome made a bad translation in that particular passage. That's not ad hominem.  Any first year student of koine Greek and Latin would be able to tell you that.  Stop the histrionics.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2011, 01:36:11 PM »

Was the "original" form first person plural?

(Perhaps the kid is "leaning East"?)

No, the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural.  I would like to know what the BUlgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, Arabs, etc all say now with regards to the first words of the creed. Is it "I believe" or "we believe?"

Maybe I'll make a poll question out of it.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2011, 01:36:57 PM »

Is this kid correct about the Greek?

Quote
On the revised Roman missal


Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness. 



This kid's observations are pretty solid with regards to the Latin language, though I wouldn't call him a Latin whiz by any stretch of the imagination.

His objection to the Gloria translation is built on solid ground.  It's not a problem with being faithful to the Latin though since "peace to people of good will" is what the Latin says.  The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  In fact, the kid does say that what's problematic is the Latin text in the first place.

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

One is not saved by another's faith.  Saying "I believe" vs. "We believe" does not destroy community and promote individualism, as he contends.  A bunch of I's confessing the same faith is communal.  

Actually, St. Jerome translated the Bible, not the Divine Liturgy, a fact that came immediately to a head as the Faithful, familiar with the old Latin texts, were confronted with St. Jerome's newly revised ones.  

The Creed was originally first person plural, as the Fathers were speaking for the Church, giving her voice.  It was changed to the first person when it was adapted (back) to indiviuals making the Faith of the Church their own in baptism/chrismation, when a bishop elect gave his testimony to it at his consecration, etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2011, 01:39:05 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2011, 01:41:21 PM »


No, the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural.  I would like to know what the BUlgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Russians, Greeks, Arabs, etc all say now with regards to the first words of the creed. Is it "I believe" or "we believe?"

Maybe I'll make a poll question out of it.


Take the poll here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40766.msg664107.html#msg664107
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,450


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2011, 01:41:43 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2011, 01:43:54 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".

I didn't say that was St. Jerome though.  Please read what I wrote:

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

Do you see St. Jerome anywhere? 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2011, 01:51:49 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since.  

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,450


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2011, 01:54:34 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
But you did write: "the original was first person singular and only later was it first person plural".

I didn't say that was St. Jerome though.  Please read what I wrote:

But his last point is not built upon the actual Latin text.  His objection is more subjective.  The original "I believe" of the Greek and Latin texts of the Nicene Creed is first person--Pistevo in Greek; Credo in Latin.  His objection that "we believe" remains the communal nature of the Catholic Church and makes it Protestant is mistaken and is a straw man.  Can't have "I believe"--that's Protestant.  Oh, no! Wink  Now, unless I'm mistaken, only later did the Greeks change from the 1st person singular to the plural--Pistevo became pistevomen.  I don't know about other orthodox communions and their preference.

Do you see St. Jerome anywhere? 
No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2011, 01:54:57 PM »

^I didn't say that St. Jerome translated the liturgy. I was referring to his translation of the Lucan passage which has been rendered in the hymn, Gloria in Excelsis, "And on earth peace to men of good will."

I never mentioned St. Jerome in my appraisal of first person singular vs plural.
The paragraphs were seperate issues.

The translation of the hymn is attributed to St. Hilary of Poitiers, not St. Jerome.
Quote
The tradition is that it was translated into Latin by St. Hilary of Poitiers (d. 366). It is quite possible that he learned it during his exile in the East (360) and brought back a version of it with him (so Belethus, "Rationale divinorum officiorum", c. 36; Duandus "Rationale", IV, 13, who thinks that he only added from "Laudamus te" to the Mass, and notes that Innocent III attributes it to Telesphorus, others to Symmachus). In any case, the Latin version differs from the present Greek form. They correspond down to the end of the Latin, which however adds: "Tu solus altissimus" and "Cum sancto Spiritu". The Greek then goes on: "Every day I will bless thee and will glorify thy name for ever, and for ever and ever" and continues with ten more verses, chiefly from psalms, to the Trisagion and Gloria Patri.

The "Liber pontificalis" says "Pope Telesphorus [128-139?] ordered that . . . on the Birth of the Lord Masses should be said at night . . . and that the angelic hymn, that is Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should be said before the sacrifice" (ed. Duchesne, I, 129); also "that Pope Symmachus [498-514] ordered that the hymn, Gloria in excelsis, should be said every Sunday and on the feasts [natalicia] of martyrs." The Gloria is to be said in its present place, after the "Introit" and "Kyrie", but only by bishops (ibid., 263). We see it then introduced first for Christmas, on the feast to which it specially belongs, then extended to Sundays and certain great feasts, but only for bishops.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06583a.htm

btw, the original Creed as issued by the Councils was in the first person plural.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 01:57:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2011, 01:58:58 PM »

No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.

Personally, I say "I believe"--Credo or Pistevo.  That was the original and later it was changed.  Don't know the year. I also don't know what other jurisdictions use and whether their current usage stems from when they were first converted (e.g. Did the Russians under Vladimir learn "We believe" or "I believe."). 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2011, 02:05:51 PM »

No, but I'm trying to see where you stand on the simple point of which was the original form of the creed: first person singular or plural.

Personally, I say "I believe"--Credo or Pistevo.  That was the original and later it was changed.  Don't know the year. I also don't know what other jurisdictions use and whether their current usage stems from when they were first converted (e.g. Did the Russians under Vladimir learn "We believe" or "I believe."). 
What do you mean by "the original"?  The creeds that were adapted by the Fathers at Nicea and Constantinople, or the Creed issued by the Fathers at those Councils?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,961



« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2011, 02:07:22 PM »

^The former.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2011, 02:58:43 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2011, 04:40:02 PM »

I don't think that kid's analysis is that great, and let's face it; it is a kid's paper.  When I was a kid we could have our theories and points but they weren't added into adult conversation.  With the advent of the internet every kid that can speak or writes thinks he is on par with an adult and is entitled to be accepted as one.  Maybe I grew up in a different society where you had growing up to do and that included learning how to form full and thoughtful opinions and then proving yourself as a young adult and finally having your say, opinions, etc.. accepted on the same merit as the elders in the community. 
Therefore, I don't care what this kid thinks.  He is a kid.  The folks that worked on the translation are educated folk.  He quotes protestanism as being individualistic but in essence that is what he is doing by critiquing the new translation.  I think the new translation was done rather well.  And yes, I know a thing or two about Latin.
Logged

William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2011, 04:53:06 PM »

To be frank, this was nonsense.

The creed in Latin AND Greek liturgy has been done "I believe" ever since it was used in baptisms in the 4th century. There's nothing Protestant about it at all.

Agreed. His comments about "I believe" vs "we believe" bothered me.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2011, 05:48:35 PM »

I don't think that kid's analysis is that great, and let's face it; it is a kid's paper.  When I was a kid we could have our theories and points but they weren't added into adult conversation.  With the advent of the internet every kid that can speak or writes thinks he is on par with an adult and is entitled to be accepted as one.  Maybe I grew up in a different society where you had growing up to do and that included learning how to form full and thoughtful opinions and then proving yourself as a young adult and finally having your say, opinions, etc.. accepted on the same merit as the elders in the community. 
Therefore, I don't care what this kid thinks.  He is a kid.  The folks that worked on the translation are educated folk.  He quotes protestanism as being individualistic but in essence that is what he is doing by critiquing the new translation.  I think the new translation was done rather well.  And yes, I know a thing or two about Latin.
To be fair, I've seen plenty of adults voice the same analysis as the kid.  So I can't fault it because he is a kid. I fault it because he doesn't know what he is talking about (which might be connected with him being a kid.  The adults of the same opinion have other, varying excuses).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2011, 06:57:06 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2011, 07:08:01 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. 

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 07:13:28 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2011, 07:38:01 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2011, 07:51:19 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.

Oh. I was being sarcastic, actually. I was playing on that Rome was rarely, if ever, in heresy early on, and lauded by the Fathers for this.

That being said. I meant it doesn't seem right to say they could be so wrong, not causing question with anyone else until near the schism.

Especially considering this was all done before the split of even the OO.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2011, 07:53:46 PM »


(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.


What does that say about all the Greek speaking heretics, such as the arch-heretics Nestorius and Arius, a patriarch and a priest (and therefore "well catechized")?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You seem to be insinuating that the reason the West "was in heresy a lot early on" was due to their inability to read Greek and not being very well catechized.  Considering that Rome had a reputation "early on" for being a bulwark of the True Faith while the Greek speaking East was dabbling in all sorts of heresies, especially the two big ones that damn near buried the early Church, I'm asking for clarification of your point here.  The Greek East engaged in far more heresy than the Latin West did during the first 800 years of the Church.

Oh. I was being sarcastic, actually. I was playing on that Rome was rarely, if ever, in heresy early on, and lauded by the Fathers for this.

That being said. I meant it doesn't seem right to say they could be so wrong, not causing question with anyone else until near the schism.

Especially considering this was all done before the split of even the OO.

Gotcha.  I thought your post sounded a little odd.  I suppose just asking you if you were being sarcastic would have been better, but I've made it a habit of being obtuse and argumentative, as of late. Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2011, 08:22:30 PM »

I remember hearing about this new translation of the Gloria and thinking how strange it was. I've never heard it rendered that way. All of the Bibles I've read the passage in or the Orthodox services I've been to that include it have always said some variation on, "...and on earth, peace and good will towards men." This is true to the Greek, as was posted above. The new translation for the Mass is surely not accurate, though I can see how people that don't know Greek very well could mess it up. The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

to give a parallel:

"Glory in highest to God and upon Earth peace in men goodwill."

Taken from that, I can see getting either translation, but what makes it mean what it does is wrapped up in the use of case and preposition. The prepositional phrase we're looking at is:

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

----

As for the Creed, it has always been my understanding that Nicaea I wrote it as "We believe", thus speaking in consensus as a Council on behalf of the whole Church. When It was adopted into the baptismal service and the Liturgy, it was changed to the singular "I believe" so that those reciting it were confessing their own belief in the Creed, thus displaying that they hold to the Orthodox Faith as members of the Church. I have never been to an Orthodox Liturgy in which the Creed was recited "We believe."

Personally, I prefer it be "I believe" in the Liturgy, as that is how it is done traditionally. The comments of this kid are really quite unfounded on this particular assertion.

Anyway...just my two cents...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 08:23:32 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2011, 08:35:58 PM »

In the Coptic Orthodox Church we say "we believe".

go figure...
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 03, 2011, 08:45:10 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 08:45:43 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #37 on: November 03, 2011, 09:46:05 PM »

The problem is that St. Jerome got it screwed up and that has remained the "official" translation of the Roman Catholic Church ever since. 

I've had a real problem with this stance, in all cases. It doesn't sit well with me, and it reeks of 'ad hominem' apologetics.

Besides, (1) the church of Rome was Greek at the time of the translation,
no, Rome was moving on to Latin by the 4th century, and would more or less complete it with Vulgate.

and (2) the church of Rome was "Orthodox" at the time.
True enough, although it is apparent from St. Jerome's writings and elsewhere, that strange ideas were already floating around the west.

To say the translation was bad is to deny the these statements.
No, the translation can still be bad.  Look at Genesis 3:15, and the trouble it has helped cause.

Additionally, which is more probable:

(1) That the western churches were too stupid to read Greek properly AND weren't very well catechized (seeing that Rome was in heresy a lot early on), and therefore made multiple errors in it's teaching and translations.
Plenty of evidence there.  St. Augustine himself comes out and explicitely says that, and the history of the filioque demonstrates it.

OR

(2) That the translations to Latin encapsulates the original teaching of the Church by cross-referencing the Teachings of the Church in a second language.
It could, or it has been modified to reflect those innovations in the original teaching of the Church when "translating" (maybe better to say, "paraphrasing") it into a second language.

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #38 on: November 03, 2011, 10:09:54 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #39 on: November 03, 2011, 10:11:20 PM »

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Off the top of my head, I don't think so.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2011, 10:17:26 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin

Thanks for the detailed response.

I ask because I take "peace to men of good will" to be similar to the beatitude "blessed are the peacemakers". Whereas, just as the last ICEL translation was not literal (and peace to his people on Earth), it still conveyed a similar thought. So if the Greek could be understood as with a similar thought, though not necessarily literal, then perhaps it wasn't necessarily a wrong translation, just not a literal one.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:18:50 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2011, 10:37:09 PM »

"ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

The word ἀνθρώποις is in the dative, meaning "to men" (i.e., humankind, for the P.C. folks Wink) the preposition "ἐν" can mean quite a lot, as most Greek preposition can mean quite a lot. We can understand it as "on, in, to, towards, etc." but "of" (as in "men of goodwill") isn't really in the right tenor of the word. It has this connotation of approaching, being within, etc. it's a state of relation, not a state of being, if that makes sense. We can't really use this word to talk about the quality of a noun, only it's relationship to something. This can't really mean that we're only talking about people who are of goodwill (i.e., "εὐδοκία" which could also be understood as "good tidings" or "blessings.")

As for the Latin...I don't have a clue. I've not studied Latin nearly as much as I have Greek. Nor do I know the history of the Gloria in Latin translation.

"et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis"

"and on Earth, peace to men of good will."

"Bonae voluntatis" is in the Genitive form. So literally "men whom have good will".

Can ἐν be understood as 'with', whereas you'd say "to men with good will" or "to men 'in the direction of' good will"? I'm not very well versed in Greek.

Interesting. I guess they're being true to the Latin, then. Meaning...the Latin is not a very good translation of the Greek, and should be fixed!

That's a different way to look at it. Indeed, ἐν can be translated sometimes as "with," meaning something like, "those who reside in" or "those who are within." However, this is to be taken in relation to something, and not being in possession of something. Perhaps, another way to say it is "those who are within a certain limit" or "those inside a greater whole." So, I suppose it would be more like the English "men within good will" or "men moving towards good will." In a sense, the good will possesses the men, the men do not possess the good will (i.e., they are not "men of good will" as if good will is an attribute ascribed to them).

In other words, ἐν is a preposition of location, not of attribution. You can't answer the question "who" with it, but rather the question "where." If that makes sense. To understand "with" in the sense of attribution, perhaps μετά with the dative would be a better preposition to convey that idea? Of course, there are probably others that are better at it. Greek has an abundance of prepositions which can be used a variety of ways, depending on the case, number and even inherent meanings of the individual noun in question. It's a very highly nuanced, and confusing, system. I have to admit to consulting my Greek dictionaries to answer you! Grin

Thanks for the detailed response.

I ask because I take "peace to men of good will" to be similar to the beatitude "blessed are the peacemakers". Whereas, just as the last ICEL translation was not literal (and peace to his people on Earth), it still conveyed a similar thought. So if the Greek could be understood as with a similar thought, though not necessarily literal, then perhaps it wasn't necessarily a wrong translation, just not a literal one.

I would say "peace to his people on Earth" while not literal, is in a similar vein to "peace and goodwill towards men." It bugs me as a Greek nerd a bit because they just totally eliminated "goodwill" from the phrase altogether. Honestly, it sounds like a compromise translation, like one camp wanted "peace and goodwill towards men" and another wanted "peace to men of goodwill" so they just dropped the goodwill altogether! Still, though it is quite different, and I don't like it at all, it's still closer than the "men of goodwill" bit, at least insomuch as it ignores the issue, whereas the new translation is simply wrong. Perhaps we could say one is wrong by omission, the other by commission? Tongue

Interesting. I went ahead and pulled that Beatitude for us! It reads:

"Μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοὶ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται"

Parallel: "Blessed the peacemakers, because they sons of God shall be called."

There's actually no preposition here at all. Whereas the new translation of the Gloria still uses a prepositional phrase "of" meaning, "have possession of", "those with the attribute of", etc. there's not even a verb in the phrase, "Μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοὶ" much less any prepositional phrase. Simply an adjective, the definite article, and the noun. The "to be" is understood. IIRC, Latin does a similar thing.

So, while in English I think we could understand "peace to men of goodwill" and "blessed are the peacemakers" in a similar vein, both of them displaying attributes of the people, the two phrases when considered in the Greek are vastly different. Not to mention the nuanced meaning of the Gloria, and the very straightforward and simple meaning of the Beatitude. Of course, in the Gloria, both "peace" and "goodwill" are nouns, not adjectives. In the Beatitude, "Blessed" is adjectival, thus describing the peacemakers.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a theological problem with the new Mass translation, as the kid seems to have. I think his tantrum about how it means peace is only deserved by men of good will is quite contrived. But, the translation is sadly unrepresentative of the Greek. it seems honest to the Latin, though, if that's any consultation to the Roman Church. Of course, the Latin is unrepresentative of the Greek, from which it is translated, so...yeah. I love Rome, but they seem to have fumbled the ball on this one.  Sad
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:47:02 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Clare G.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 90


« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2011, 05:10:50 AM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2011, 01:42:24 PM »

The whole phrase is:

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία"

A variant reading in Lk 2:14 has the genitive "εὐδοκίας": now that could definitely be construed "on earth peace to men of good will" = pax hominibus bonae voluntatis in the Latin.

But in contrast, if we retain "εὐδοκία", I would read it (with The Eastern Orthodox Bible New Testament) as
"on earth peace, [and] good will to men": making a parallelism of the two clauses.

Interesting!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2011, 01:51:31 PM »

So for, what, 600 years there were (apparently big) bad teaching secretly brewing in the west. All the while with constant exchange with the east, AND with byzantine bishops becoming Pope. Yet, no one noticed until recently?

It is interesting how the Vatican's followers claim ignorance when convenient:
Quote
Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.
http://www.marymediatrix-resourceonline.com/library/files/scholastic/ic_history.htm

I don't think he's referring to the 4th century, but schism to post schism.

And Gen 3:15. Isn't the Greek ambiguous to the gender?
No. Not at all.

Would someone mind learn'n me some Greek? Benjamin the Red or other?

From multiple translations, and from what I could tell of the language, it uses a neuter pronoun. Though I'm not very familiar with Greek.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.192 seconds with 73 queries.