Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ustav] Correction to SJKP "Liturgical Calendar"

Expand Messages
  • Gabriel Sanchez
    Fr. John, Like the beast of burden from Raskolnikov s dream, this horse has been beaten to death. For the life of me, I don t know why this is being brought up
    Message 1 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Fr. John,

      Like the beast of burden from Raskolnikov's dream, this horse has been
      beaten to death.

      For the life of me, I don't know why this is being brought up again except,
      perhaps, to stir a needless debate, rouse some tempers, and provide a forum
      for those who like to nit-pick over trifles that no one on God's green earth
      cares about. I am sure most translators of Orthodox texts know of the
      "error" and perhaps, just perhaps, they'll "correct" it at some point in the
      future. But given the state of our Church, especially in America, I'm not
      so sure this is a first order problem that needs to be brought up in the
      context of a more immediate correction to a couple of mistakes in a
      liturgical calendar. It's akin to someone asking what tone a particular
      stichera is in and someone writing in response, "Speaking of questions, I
      have one: Why are there so many jurisdictions in America? Isn't that
      uncanonical?"

      Perhaps when the majority of our parishes in the U.S. evolve away from being
      "Sunday churches," return to good liturgical order, preach the Gospel to the
      un-churched and un-baptised, and repent for its failings, then we can worry
      about minor "mistranslations." Until then...

      On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:33 PM, <frjsilver@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Dear Friends --
      >
      > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the
      > phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
      >
      > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we
      > encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it
      > continues to be mistranslated.
      >
      > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew
      > original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually
      > replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The
      > Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct
      > pronunciation is forgotten.
      >
      > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that
      > _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the
      > sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really
      > Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
      >
      > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it
      > properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying
      > Hebrew.
      >
      > Peace and blessings to all.
      >
      > Monk James
      >
      >
      > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press,
      > there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February
      > 2011:
      >
      > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
      >
      > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now
      > & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
      >
      > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
      >
      > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
      >
      > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of
      > Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (
      > www.sjkp.org).
      >
      > Daniel Olson
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • stephen_r1937
      Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma s NETS translation), and I read there The Lord is God, and he showed us light. So
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the Bible do the same, and they are right.

        The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language with minimal adjustments.

        Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in English clothing.

        Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.

        Stephen

        --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" <Jamesdm49@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Dear Fr. James:
        >
        > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek, since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..." rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather than "Dominus Deus..."
        >
        > David James
        >
        > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Friends --
        > >
        > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
        > >
        > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it continues to be mistranslated.
        > >
        > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct pronunciation is forgotten.
        > >
        > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
        > >
        > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying Hebrew.
        > >
        > > Peace and blessings to all.
        > >
        > > Monk James
        > >
        > >
        > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February 2011:
        > >
        > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
        > >
        > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
        > >
        > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
        > >
        > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
        > >
        > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (www.sjkp.org).
        > >
        > > Daniel Olson
        > >
        >
      • stephen_r1937
        There are bigger issues to be addressed in the life of the Orthodox Church in America than the translation of Ps 117, to be sure. This forum, however, is not
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          There are bigger issues to be addressed in the life of the Orthodox Church in America than the translation of Ps 117, to be sure. This forum, however, is not the place to discuss most of them. The multiplicity of jurisdictions is really outside of our scope here. The "Sunday Church" syndrome and failure to reach out to the unchurched we can reasonably touch on only insofar as they way we order and sing our services may facilitate or obstruct our doing the right thing.

          But this list is a reasonable place to discuss getting our translations right. Just a few weeks ago I gave an essay on this very verse to our priest, making the same point that Fr James has brought up here; I discussed it also with a member of our congegation who is fluent in Hebrew and knows the Jewish religious tradition well. I cannot agree that it is a trifle that no one on God's earth cares about; that is not my experience at all.

          Una pregunta: ¿Cómo se escribe este versículo en libros liturgicos en español?

          Stephen



          --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...> wrote:
          >
          > Fr. John,
          >
          > Like the beast of burden from Raskolnikov's dream, this horse has been
          > beaten to death.
          >
          > For the life of me, I don't know why this is being brought up again except,
          > perhaps, to stir a needless debate, rouse some tempers, and provide a forum
          > for those who like to nit-pick over trifles that no one on God's green earth
          > cares about. I am sure most translators of Orthodox texts know of the
          > "error" and perhaps, just perhaps, they'll "correct" it at some point in the
          > future. But given the state of our Church, especially in America, I'm not
          > so sure this is a first order problem that needs to be brought up in the
          > context of a more immediate correction to a couple of mistakes in a
          > liturgical calendar. It's akin to someone asking what tone a particular
          > stichera is in and someone writing in response, "Speaking of questions, I
          > have one: Why are there so many jurisdictions in America? Isn't that
          > uncanonical?"
          >
          > Perhaps when the majority of our parishes in the U.S. evolve away from being
          > "Sunday churches," return to good liturgical order, preach the Gospel to the
          > un-churched and un-baptised, and repent for its failings, then we can worry
          > about minor "mistranslations." Until then...
          >
          > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:33 PM, <frjsilver@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > Dear Friends --
          > >
          > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the
          > > phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
          > >
          > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we
          > > encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it
          > > continues to be mistranslated.
          > >
          > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew
          > > original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually
          > > replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The
          > > Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct
          > > pronunciation is forgotten.
          > >
          > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that
          > > _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the
          > > sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really
          > > Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
          > >
          > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it
          > > properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying
          > > Hebrew.
          > >
          > > Peace and blessings to all.
          > >
          > > Monk James
          > >
          > >
          > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          > >
          > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press,
          > > there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February
          > > 2011:
          > >
          > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
          > >
          > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now
          > > & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
          > >
          > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
          > >
          > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
          > >
          > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of
          > > Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (
          > > www.sjkp.org).
          > >
          > > Daniel Olson
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Gabriel Sanchez
          Two points: I should have written Fr. James not Fr. John ; my apologies. But more importantly, pardon my hyperbole--but I think my point is sufficiently
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Two points:

            I should have written "Fr. James" not "Fr. John"; my apologies.

            But more importantly, pardon my hyperbole--but I think my point is
            sufficiently clear. However, I can list more "liturgically oriented" issues
            which are worth examining, including:

            - Truncating the services beyond recognition
            - Establishing some level of uniformity across jurisdictions that purport to
            follow the same Typikon
            - Restoring good practice in our parishes, including educating the laity
            about proper behavior in church
            - Refocusing on congregational singing in an effort to get away from the
            sense of the Liturgy being a "concert piece"
            - Etc.

            If I am disagreeable about the "Lord is God"/"God is the Lord" quarrel, it
            is because--as I said--it's been hashed and rehashed on here many times. At
            this point, it strikes me an excuse for individuals to score intellectual
            points and nothing more. While we're at it, can someone come forward and
            discuss the line "they have satisfied themselves with swine" from Psalm 16
            in the HTM Psalter or point out how "silly" it is that we still recite the
            prayers for the Emperor at the start of Matins? Bringing this stuff up now
            reminds me of first-year Bible Studies students at secularized institutions
            who go around telling their fundamentalist friends that the Gospel of Mark
            was written first, that there's some mysterious sourcebook called "Q" that
            serves as the common ancestor to the Synoptics, and that "Johannine comma"
            is a late interpolation.




            On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:05 AM, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>wrote:

            >
            >
            > There are bigger issues to be addressed in the life of the Orthodox Church
            > in America than the translation of Ps 117, to be sure. This forum, however,
            > is not the place to discuss most of them. The multiplicity of jurisdictions
            > is really outside of our scope here. The "Sunday Church" syndrome and
            > failure to reach out to the unchurched we can reasonably touch on only
            > insofar as they way we order and sing our services may facilitate or
            > obstruct our doing the right thing.
            >
            > But this list is a reasonable place to discuss getting our translations
            > right. Just a few weeks ago I gave an essay on this very verse to our
            > priest, making the same point that Fr James has brought up here; I discussed
            > it also with a member of our congegation who is fluent in Hebrew and knows
            > the Jewish religious tradition well. I cannot agree that it is a trifle that
            > no one on God's earth cares about; that is not my experience at all.
            >
            > Una pregunta: �C�mo se escribe este vers�culo en libros liturgicos en
            > espa�ol?
            >
            > Stephen
            >
            >
            > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Fr. John,
            > >
            > > Like the beast of burden from Raskolnikov's dream, this horse has been
            > > beaten to death.
            > >
            > > For the life of me, I don't know why this is being brought up again
            > except,
            > > perhaps, to stir a needless debate, rouse some tempers, and provide a
            > forum
            > > for those who like to nit-pick over trifles that no one on God's green
            > earth
            > > cares about. I am sure most translators of Orthodox texts know of the
            > > "error" and perhaps, just perhaps, they'll "correct" it at some point in
            > the
            > > future. But given the state of our Church, especially in America, I'm not
            > > so sure this is a first order problem that needs to be brought up in the
            > > context of a more immediate correction to a couple of mistakes in a
            > > liturgical calendar. It's akin to someone asking what tone a particular
            > > stichera is in and someone writing in response, "Speaking of questions, I
            > > have one: Why are there so many jurisdictions in America? Isn't that
            > > uncanonical?"
            > >
            > > Perhaps when the majority of our parishes in the U.S. evolve away from
            > being
            > > "Sunday churches," return to good liturgical order, preach the Gospel to
            > the
            > > un-churched and un-baptised, and repent for its failings, then we can
            > worry
            > > about minor "mistranslations." Until then...
            > >
            > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:33 PM, <frjsilver@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Dear Friends --
            > > >
            > > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the
            > > > phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
            > > >
            > > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as
            > we
            > > > encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it
            > > > continues to be mistranslated.
            > > >
            > > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew
            > > > original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually
            > > > replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The
            > > > Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its
            > correct
            > > > pronunciation is forgotten.
            > > >
            > > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that
            > > > _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of
            > the
            > > > sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really
            > > > Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
            > > >
            > > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it
            > > > properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its
            > underlying
            > > > Hebrew.
            > > >
            > > > Peace and blessings to all.
            > > >
            > > > Monk James
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            > > >
            > > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt
            > Press,
            > > > there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February
            > > > 2011:
            > > >
            > > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
            > > >
            > > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice;
            > "Glory...Now
            > > > & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
            > > >
            > > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
            > > >
            > > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
            > > >
            > > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The
            > Order of
            > > > Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (
            > > > www.sjkp.org).
            > > >
            > > > Daniel Olson
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stephen_r1937
            I m all in favor of discussing all of the issues. We have swine because Holy Transfiguration Monastery chose to follow a scribal error occurring in some LXX
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm all in favor of discussing all of the issues.

              We have "swine" because Holy Transfiguration Monastery chose to follow a scribal error occurring in some LXX mss (the Greek words for "son" and "pig" are similar). Probably no more people care about this than about the word order of Ps 117:27, but there is no reason not to discuss it here.

              If you are tired of discussing Ps 117, why not just skip over messages on that topic? This forum is pretty free of argumentation about English style because the "by-laws" or whatever you call it rule it out; in other similar discussion groups it comes up periodically and seems to me to lead nowhere. But if I don't want to read more argumentation on the topic, I just don't read those messages.

              Stephen


              --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...> wrote:
              >
              > Two points:
              >
              > I should have written "Fr. James" not "Fr. John"; my apologies.
              >
              > But more importantly, pardon my hyperbole--but I think my point is
              > sufficiently clear. However, I can list more "liturgically oriented" issues
              > which are worth examining, including:
              >
              > - Truncating the services beyond recognition
              > - Establishing some level of uniformity across jurisdictions that purport to
              > follow the same Typikon
              > - Restoring good practice in our parishes, including educating the laity
              > about proper behavior in church
              > - Refocusing on congregational singing in an effort to get away from the
              > sense of the Liturgy being a "concert piece"
              > - Etc.
              >
              > If I am disagreeable about the "Lord is God"/"God is the Lord" quarrel, it
              > is because--as I said--it's been hashed and rehashed on here many times. At
              > this point, it strikes me an excuse for individuals to score intellectual
              > points and nothing more. While we're at it, can someone come forward and
              > discuss the line "they have satisfied themselves with swine" from Psalm 16
              > in the HTM Psalter or point out how "silly" it is that we still recite the
              > prayers for the Emperor at the start of Matins? Bringing this stuff up now
              > reminds me of first-year Bible Studies students at secularized institutions
              > who go around telling their fundamentalist friends that the Gospel of Mark
              > was written first, that there's some mysterious sourcebook called "Q" that
              > serves as the common ancestor to the Synoptics, and that "Johannine comma"
              > is a late interpolation.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:05 AM, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>wrote:
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > There are bigger issues to be addressed in the life of the Orthodox Church
              > > in America than the translation of Ps 117, to be sure. This forum, however,
              > > is not the place to discuss most of them. The multiplicity of jurisdictions
              > > is really outside of our scope here. The "Sunday Church" syndrome and
              > > failure to reach out to the unchurched we can reasonably touch on only
              > > insofar as they way we order and sing our services may facilitate or
              > > obstruct our doing the right thing.
              > >
              > > But this list is a reasonable place to discuss getting our translations
              > > right. Just a few weeks ago I gave an essay on this very verse to our
              > > priest, making the same point that Fr James has brought up here; I discussed
              > > it also with a member of our congegation who is fluent in Hebrew and knows
              > > the Jewish religious tradition well. I cannot agree that it is a trifle that
              > > no one on God's earth cares about; that is not my experience at all.
              > >
              > > Una pregunta: ¿Cómo se escribe este versículo en libros liturgicos en
              > > español?
              > >
              > > Stephen
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@>
              > > wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Fr. John,
              > > >
              > > > Like the beast of burden from Raskolnikov's dream, this horse has been
              > > > beaten to death.
              > > >
              > > > For the life of me, I don't know why this is being brought up again
              > > except,
              > > > perhaps, to stir a needless debate, rouse some tempers, and provide a
              > > forum
              > > > for those who like to nit-pick over trifles that no one on God's green
              > > earth
              > > > cares about. I am sure most translators of Orthodox texts know of the
              > > > "error" and perhaps, just perhaps, they'll "correct" it at some point in
              > > the
              > > > future. But given the state of our Church, especially in America, I'm not
              > > > so sure this is a first order problem that needs to be brought up in the
              > > > context of a more immediate correction to a couple of mistakes in a
              > > > liturgical calendar. It's akin to someone asking what tone a particular
              > > > stichera is in and someone writing in response, "Speaking of questions, I
              > > > have one: Why are there so many jurisdictions in America? Isn't that
              > > > uncanonical?"
              > > >
              > > > Perhaps when the majority of our parishes in the U.S. evolve away from
              > > being
              > > > "Sunday churches," return to good liturgical order, preach the Gospel to
              > > the
              > > > un-churched and un-baptised, and repent for its failings, then we can
              > > worry
              > > > about minor "mistranslations." Until then...
              > > >
              > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:33 PM, <frjsilver@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Dear Friends --
              > > > >
              > > > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the
              > > > > phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
              > > > >
              > > > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as
              > > we
              > > > > encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it
              > > > > continues to be mistranslated.
              > > > >
              > > > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew
              > > > > original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually
              > > > > replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The
              > > > > Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its
              > > correct
              > > > > pronunciation is forgotten.
              > > > >
              > > > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that
              > > > > _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of
              > > the
              > > > > sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really
              > > > > Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
              > > > >
              > > > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it
              > > > > properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its
              > > underlying
              > > > > Hebrew.
              > > > >
              > > > > Peace and blessings to all.
              > > > >
              > > > > Monk James
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt
              > > Press,
              > > > > there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February
              > > > > 2011:
              > > > >
              > > > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
              > > > >
              > > > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice;
              > > "Glory...Now
              > > > > & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
              > > > >
              > > > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
              > > > >
              > > > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
              > > > >
              > > > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The
              > > Order of
              > > > > Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (
              > > > > www.sjkp.org).
              > > > >
              > > > > Daniel Olson
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • David James
              Well, Stephen is right, and I am left eating crow. I won t go into how I made the stupid mistake of quoting the Brenton text instead of NETS, but what I didn t
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Well, Stephen is right, and I am left eating crow. I won't go into how I
                made the stupid mistake of quoting the Brenton text instead of NETS, but
                what I didn't do, because I was too lazy to go upstairs to my library, was
                check the actual NETS text, of which I have two different editions.

                Having thus myself undermined my own credibility, I still don't have to
                concede the point completely. IMO, both interpretations/translations are
                supportable. The version currently prevalent in the English-language service
                books, which Fr. James (and Stephen) criticize, is that of *The Psalter
                According to the Seventy, *the 1535 translation of Miles Coverdale, the King
                James Version and Brenton's Septuagint. Miles Coverdale had little Greek and
                less Hebrew, but the same can't be said of the translators of the King
                James, the monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery or Sir Lancelot Brenton.
                The reading Stephen and Fr. James prefer is followed by the Douai-Rheims,
                the RSV and, as we all now know, NETS. Time will tell which translation
                ultimately prevails in the Church's service books.

                David James



                On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:42 AM, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>wrote:

                >
                >
                > Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_
                > (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he
                > showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different
                > recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that
                > of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its
                > predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the
                > Bible do the same, and they are right.
                >
                > The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different
                > circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the
                > saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for
                > them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language
                > with minimal adjustments.
                >
                > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical
                > languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by
                > inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God
                > was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr
                > James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear
                > our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in
                > English clothing.
                >
                > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in
                > translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.
                >
                > Stephen
                >
                > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" <Jamesdm49@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Dear Fr. James:
                > >
                > > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and
                > Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the
                > Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek,
                > since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the
                > Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they
                > translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..."
                > rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i
                > yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather
                > than "Dominus Deus..."
                > >
                > > David James
                > >
                > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Dear Friends --
                > > >
                > > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the
                > phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
                > > >
                > > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as
                > we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it
                > continues to be mistranslated.
                > > >
                > > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew
                > original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually
                > replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The
                > Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct
                > pronunciation is forgotten.
                > > >
                > > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that
                > _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the
                > sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really
                > Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
                > > >
                > > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it
                > properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying
                > Hebrew.
                > > >
                > > > Peace and blessings to all.
                > > >
                > > > Monk James
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt
                > Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20
                > February 2011:
                > > >
                > > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
                > > >
                > > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice;
                > "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                > > >
                > > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
                > > >
                > > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                > > >
                > > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The
                > Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (
                > www.sjkp.org).
                > > >
                > > > Daniel Olson
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • frjsilver@verizon.net
                Dear Friends -- God is the Lord, and He reveals Himself to us. Blessed is He Who is coming in the Name of the Lord. Please understand that I m not merely
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Friends --

                  'God is the Lord, and He reveals Himself to us. Blessed is He Who is coming in the Name of the Lord.'

                  Please understand that I'm not merely offering an opinion here; I'm giving you the correct rendering of the text at hand. Adducing mistranslations is unhelpful.

                  The good news, though, is that we still have several weeks until Palm Sunday, when this verse gets sung over and over and over again. Plenty of time for our choir directors to correct their books and instruct the singers!

                  Peace and blessings to all.

                  Monk James


                  Feb 18, 2011 09:42:25 AM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:



                  Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the Bible do the same, and they are right.

                  The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language with minimal adjustments.

                  Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in English clothing.

                  Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.

                  Stephen

                  --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Dear Fr. James:
                  >
                  > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek, since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..." rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather than "Dominus Deus..."
                  >
                  > David James
                  >
                  > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Dear Friends --
                  > >
                  > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
                  > >
                  > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it continues to be mistranslated.
                  > >
                  > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct pronunciation is forgotten.
                  > >
                  > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
                  > >
                  > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying Hebrew.
                  > >
                  > > Peace and blessings to all.
                  > >
                  > > Monk James
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February 2011:
                  > >
                  > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
                  > >
                  > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                  > >
                  > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
                  > >
                  > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                  > >
                  > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (www.sjkp.org).
                  > >
                  > > Daniel Olson
                  > >
                  >
                • frjsilver@verizon.net
                  Dear Friends -- Naturally, I got all balled up here and blew it. I need all the help I can get to keep me humble, so I thank Heaven for this embarrassment.
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Friends --

                    Naturally, I got all balled up here and blew it. I need all the help I can get to keep me humble, so I thank Heaven for this embarrassment.

                    Anyway, the REALLY real correct rendering is:
                    'The Lord is God, and He reveals Himself to us. Blessed is He Who is coming in the Name of the Lord.'

                    Please forgive me and remember me in your prayers as I do all of you in mine.

                    Peace and blessings to all.

                    Monk James


                    Feb 18, 2011 01:33:19 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                    Dear Friends --

                    'God is the Lord, and He reveals Himself to us. Blessed is He Who is coming in the Name of the Lord.'

                    Please understand that I'm not merely offering an opinion here; I'm giving you the correct rendering of the text at hand. Adducing mistranslations is unhelpful.

                    The good news, though, is that we still have several weeks until Palm Sunday, when this verse gets sung over and over and over again. Plenty of time for our choir directors to correct their books and instruct the singers!

                    Peace and blessings to all.

                    Monk James

                    Feb 18, 2011 09:42:25 AM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                    Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the Bible do the same, and they are right.

                    The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language with minimal adjustments.

                    Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in English clothing.

                    Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.

                    Stephen

                    --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Fr. James:
                    >
                    > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek, since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..." rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather than "Dominus Deus..."
                    >
                    > David James
                    >
                    > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Dear Friends --
                    > >
                    > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
                    > >
                    > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it continues to be mistranslated.
                    > >
                    > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct pronunciation is forgotten.
                    > >
                    > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
                    > >
                    > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying Hebrew.
                    > >
                    > > Peace and blessings to all.
                    > >
                    > > Monk James
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February 2011:
                    > >
                    > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
                    > >
                    > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                    > >
                    > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
                    > >
                    > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                    > >
                    > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (www.sjkp.org).
                    > >
                    > > Daniel Olson
                    > >
                    >
                  • Jopi Harri
                    ... Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern English but the modern reader? (Who doesn t understand the message either way is free to raise
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 18, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 18.2.2011 16:42, stephen_r1937 wrote:
                      > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than
                      > classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of
                      > what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is
                      > exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so
                      > we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right.
                      > The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our
                      > churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek
                      > clothing in English clothing.
                      >
                      > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An
                      > error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English
                      > is it not.

                      Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern
                      English but the modern reader?

                      (Who doesn't understand the message either way is free to raise
                      their [as gender-neutrally must we utter] hand.)

                      - Jopi Harri
                    • frjohnwhiteford
                      Stephen is wrong. In Hebrew, this verse begins El YHWH , i.e., God [is] the Lord . In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen is wrong.

                        In Hebrew, this verse begins "El YHWH", i.e., "God [is] the Lord".

                        In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English language, it reads "God is the Lord", and there is nothing wrong with that rendering.

                        I could say "Superman is Clark Kent" or "Clark Kent is Superman". Both statements are grammatically correct. Which one you use would be a function of whether you wanted to emphasize that Superman has been revealed to be Clark Kent, or to emphasize that Clark Kent has been revealed to be Superman.

                        -Fr. John Whiteford

                        --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "stephen_r1937" <stephen_r1937@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the Bible do the same, and they are right.
                        >
                        > The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language with minimal adjustments.
                        >
                        > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in English clothing.
                        >
                        > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.
                        >
                        > Stephen
                        >
                        > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" <Jamesdm49@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Dear Fr. James:
                        > >
                        > > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek, since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..." rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather than "Dominus Deus..."
                        > >
                        > > David James
                        > >
                        > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Dear Friends --
                        > > >
                        > > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
                        > > >
                        > > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it continues to be mistranslated.
                        > > >
                        > > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct pronunciation is forgotten.
                        > > >
                        > > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
                        > > >
                        > > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying Hebrew.
                        > > >
                        > > > Peace and blessings to all.
                        > > >
                        > > > Monk James
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February 2011:
                        > > >
                        > > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
                        > > >
                        > > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                        > > >
                        > > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
                        > > >
                        > > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                        > > >
                        > > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (www.sjkp.org).
                        > > >
                        > > > Daniel Olson
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • stephen_r1937
                        Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point. Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject and predicate
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point. Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject and predicate nominative are wholly interchangeable with no real change in meaning. Even in these cases, there are factors that tend to govern the word order; if I ask, "Who is Clark Kent?", you are much more likely to reply "Clark Kent is Superman" than "Superman is Clark Kent."

                          But there are equally cases where subject and predicate nominative are not so interchangeable. As Deacon Michael points out, in John 1:1 the Greek is "Theos in o Logos," but where do find that word order preserved in English? With all the translations that have been made, likely somewhere there is one that reads "God was the Word," but it does not sound right, does it? And almost all translations in fact read "the Word was God."

                          Now, YHWH is a proper name in a sense in which El is not; f. ex., "el" has a plural form YHWH does not ("Superman" in the Kentian sense does not either, so in this sense "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are more alike than are "El" and "YHWH"). In the early mss of the LXX, this was made plain by writing the Tetragrammaton, not in Greek letters but in the Old Hebrew (Canaanite) alphabet, as it appeared also in the Hebrew mss of the day even when these otherwise used the New Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet. The main purpose of this in Hebrew was no doubt already to prevent readers from pronouncing the ineffable Name. From an early time on, they substuted "Adonai" or sometimes "Elohim," as is done to the present day by observant Jews.

                          Hellenistic Jews in reading from the LXX substituted instead "Kyrios," the translation of Adonai, and in later manuscripts the Hebrew was dropped in favor of "Kyrios," but "Kyrios" is still but a substitute for a name that is not pronounced out of reverence, or for early Christian scribes because we really don't know how it should be pronounced. There is no serious question that YHWH or whatever stands in for it is the subject, and "God" the predicate nominative.

                          Later translations such as the Slavonic, the Vulgate Latin, the KJV, for centuries mechanically reproduced the word order of the Hebrew directly or with the intermediary of the LXX. Most recent translations do not do this, and for good reason; the analogy from John 1 is more relevant here than the Superman analogy, and in the case of John 1 just about everyone sees the need to reverse the original word order when making an English translation. I think a closer parallel in modern Englisn would be "President is Obama" vs "Obama is president"; or "David is king" vs "King is David."

                          Stephen

                          --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "frjohnwhiteford" <frjohnwhiteford@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Stephen is wrong.
                          >
                          > In Hebrew, this verse begins "El YHWH", i.e., "God [is] the Lord".
                          >
                          > In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English language, it reads "God is the Lord", and there is nothing wrong with that rendering.
                          >
                          > I could say "Superman is Clark Kent" or "Clark Kent is Superman". Both statements are grammatically correct. Which one you use would be a function of whether you wanted to emphasize that Superman has been revealed to be Clark Kent, or to emphasize that Clark Kent has been revealed to be Superman.
                          >
                          > -Fr. John Whiteford
                          >
                          > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "stephen_r1937" <stephen_r1937@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Well, I am looking at my copy of _The Psalms of the Septuagint_ (Pietersma's NETS translation), and I read there "The Lord is God, and he showed us light." So either David James and I have significantly different recensions of NETS or he should take another look. This word order is that of the NRSV, which is the English starting point for NETS, and also of its predecessor the RSV. Most twentieth-century English translations of the Bible do the same, and they are right.
                          > >
                          > > The Cyrillo-Methodian translations were made in quite different circumstances; there was no preexisting Slavonic literary tradition, so the saints and their disciples could devise a literary style designed just for them, that is, one designed to carry Greek texts into the Slavic language with minimal adjustments.
                          > >
                          > > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right. The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek clothing in English clothing.
                          > >
                          > > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English is it not.
                          > >
                          > > Stephen
                          > >
                          > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "David" <Jamesdm49@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Dear Fr. James:
                          > > >
                          > > > Everyone is welcome to their opinion. However, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, the editors of "A New English Translation of the Septuagint", clearly do not concur in your interpretation of the Greek, since they translate the phrase "Theos Kyrios" in Ps 117:27 as "God is the Lord..." Neither, apparently, did SS. Cyril and Methodius, since they translated the Greek into Church Slavonic as "Bog gospod' i yavisya nam..." rather than, if your understanding is correct, the expected, "Gospod' Bog i yavisya nam..." Likewise, the Latin, "Deus Dominus, et illuxit nobis" rather than "Dominus Deus..."
                          > > >
                          > > > David James
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, frjsilver@ wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Dear Friends --
                          > > > >
                          > > > > As long as we're corrrecting things here, it needs to be said that the phrase from PS 117 must be rendered 'The Lord is God....'
                          > > > >
                          > > > > To sing 'God is the Lord' here is a serious error, and as frequently as we encounter this in our divine services, it's an embarrassment that it continues to be mistranslated.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Basically, the problem can by typified by understanding that the hebrew original says 'YHWH is the Lord....' and that YHWH is The Name, usually replaced in hebrew diction by 'Adonay' ('My Lord') or 'Ha Shem' ('The Name'). No devout Jew ever pronounced the Name, so strictly that its correct pronunciation is forgotten.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > When we sing _theos kyrios kai epephanen hymin_ we must realize that _theos_ is placed first for emphasis, not because it is the subject of the sentence in Hebrew. We must also realize that the Greek 70 isn't really Greek, but Hebrew in greek clothing.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Our standard is and remains the Greek 70, but we must understand it properly. For that, we must also have something of a grip on its underlying Hebrew.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Peace and blessings to all.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Monk James
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Feb 17, 2011 01:51:06 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > In the "Liturgical Calendar" published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press, there are two errors in the entry for this coming Sunday, 7/20 February 2011:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 1. Under Matins, at "God is the Lord", the entry should read:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > At "God is the Lord...": troparion of the resurrection, twice; "Glory...Now & ever...", troparion of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                          > > > >
                          > > > > 2. Also under Matins, the entry for the katavasia should read:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Katavasia of the feast of the Meeting of the Lord
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Complete liturgical instructions are available in Vol. III of "The Order of Divine Services", published by the St. John of Kronstadt Press (www.sjkp.org).
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Daniel Olson
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Meg Lark
                          Knock yerself out, but I find that The Lord is God is generally preferred by New Calendarists and proponents of You-Who English, which tells me everything
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Knock yerself out, but I find that "The Lord is God" is generally preferred
                            by New Calendarists and proponents of "You-Who" English, which tells me
                            everything I need to know.

                            In Christ,
                            Meg

                            On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>wrote:

                            >
                            >
                            > Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point.
                            > Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject
                            > and predicate nominative are wholly interchangeable with no real change in
                            > meaning. Even in these cases, there are factors that tend to govern the word
                            > order; if I ask, "Who is Clark Kent?", you are much more likely to reply
                            > "Clark Kent is Superman" than "Superman is Clark Kent."
                            >
                            > But there are equally cases where subject and predicate nominative are not
                            > so interchangeable. As Deacon Michael points out, in John 1:1 the Greek is
                            > "Theos in o Logos," but where do find that word order preserved in English?
                            > With all the translations that have been made, likely somewhere there is one
                            > that reads "God was the Word," but it does not sound right, does it? And
                            > almost all translations in fact read "the Word was God."
                            >
                            > Now, YHWH is a proper name in a sense in which El is not; f. ex., "el" has
                            > a plural form YHWH does not ("Superman" in the Kentian sense does not
                            > either, so in this sense "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are more alike than are
                            > "El" and "YHWH"). In the early mss of the LXX, this was made plain by
                            > writing the Tetragrammaton, not in Greek letters but in the Old Hebrew
                            > (Canaanite) alphabet, as it appeared also in the Hebrew mss of the day even
                            > when these otherwise used the New Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet. The main
                            > purpose of this in Hebrew was no doubt already to prevent readers from
                            > pronouncing the ineffable Name. From an early time on, they substuted
                            > "Adonai" or sometimes "Elohim," as is done to the present day by observant
                            > Jews.
                            >
                            > Hellenistic Jews in reading from the LXX substituted instead "Kyrios," the
                            > translation of Adonai, and in later manuscripts the Hebrew was dropped in
                            > favor of "Kyrios," but "Kyrios" is still but a substitute for a name that is
                            > not pronounced out of reverence, or for early Christian scribes because we
                            > really don't know how it should be pronounced. There is no serious question
                            > that YHWH or whatever stands in for it is the subject, and "God" the
                            > predicate nominative.
                            >
                            > Later translations such as the Slavonic, the Vulgate Latin, the KJV, for
                            > centuries mechanically reproduced the word order of the Hebrew directly or
                            > with the intermediary of the LXX. Most recent translations do not do this,
                            > and for good reason; the analogy from John 1 is more relevant here than the
                            > Superman analogy, and in the case of John 1 just about everyone sees the
                            > need to reverse the original word order when making an English translation.
                            > I think a closer parallel in modern Englisn would be "President is Obama" vs
                            > "Obama is president"; or "David is king" vs "King is David."
                            >
                            > Stephen
                            >
                            > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "frjohnwhiteford" <frjohnwhiteford@...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Stephen is wrong.
                            > >
                            > > In Hebrew, this verse begins "El YHWH", i.e., "God [is] the Lord".
                            > >
                            > > In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English
                            > language, it reads "God is the Lord", and there is nothing wrong with that
                            > rendering.
                            > >
                            > > I could say "Superman is Clark Kent" or "Clark Kent is Superman". Both
                            > statements are grammatically correct. Which one you use would be a function
                            > of whether you wanted to emphasize that Superman has been revealed to be
                            > Clark Kent, or to emphasize that Clark Kent has been revealed to be
                            > Superman.
                            > >
                            > > -Fr. John Whiteford
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • frjsilver@verizon.net
                            Christ is risen, truly risen! Dear Friends -- Our valued correspondent Meg Lark has really stepped in it here, making aggressively ignorant statements assuming
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Christ is risen, truly risen!

                              Dear Friends --

                              Our valued correspondent Meg Lark has really stepped in it here, making aggressively ignorant statements assuming that proponents of contemporary English and people who follow the 'new calendar' are somehow unable to make sense of language and to translate ancient texts accurately.

                              We were trying to make progress here, and to make our sacred texts and our liturgical observance available without getting into mutual recriminations about style and calendar.

                              Please, friends, let's continue that noble endeavor. Eventually, we'll all meet in the middle -- God willing.

                              In any event, no matter which way we have of counting the days, the fact remains that the correct transaltion of this verse is 'The Lord is God, and He reveals Himself to us.'

                              Peace and blessings to all.

                              Monk James


                              Feb 19, 2011 06:15:22 PM, ustav@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                              Knock yerself out, but I find that "The Lord is God" is generally preferred
                              by New Calendarists and proponents of "You-Who" English, which tells me
                              everything I need to know.

                              In Christ,
                              Meg

                              On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, stephen_r1937 <stephen_r1937@...>wrote:

                              >
                              >
                              > Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point.
                              > Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject
                              > and predicate nominative are wholly interchangeable with no real change in
                              > meaning. Even in these cases, there are factors that tend to govern the word
                              > order; if I ask, "Who is Clark Kent?", you are much more likely to reply
                              > "Clark Kent is Superman" than "Superman is Clark Kent."
                              >
                              > But there are equally cases where subject and predicate nominative are not
                              > so interchangeable. As Deacon Michael points out, in John 1:1 the Greek is
                              > "Theos in o Logos," but where do find that word order preserved in English?
                              > With all the translations that have been made, likely somewhere there is one
                              > that reads "God was the Word," but it does not sound right, does it? And
                              > almost all translations in fact read "the Word was God."
                              >
                              > Now, YHWH is a proper name in a sense in which El is not; f. ex., "el" has
                              > a plural form YHWH does not ("Superman" in the Kentian sense does not
                              > either, so in this sense "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are more alike than are
                              > "El" and "YHWH"). In the early mss of the LXX, this was made plain by
                              > writing the Tetragrammaton, not in Greek letters but in the Old Hebrew
                              > (Canaanite) alphabet, as it appeared also in the Hebrew mss of the day even
                              > when these otherwise used the New Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet. The main
                              > purpose of this in Hebrew was no doubt already to prevent readers from
                              > pronouncing the ineffable Name. From an early time on, they substuted
                              > "Adonai" or sometimes "Elohim," as is done to the present day by observant
                              > Jews.
                              >
                              > Hellenistic Jews in reading from the LXX substituted instead "Kyrios," the
                              > translation of Adonai, and in later manuscripts the Hebrew was dropped in
                              > favor of "Kyrios," but "Kyrios" is still but a substitute for a name that is
                              > not pronounced out of reverence, or for early Christian scribes because we
                              > really don't know how it should be pronounced. There is no serious question
                              > that YHWH or whatever stands in for it is the subject, and "God" the
                              > predicate nominative.
                              >
                              > Later translations such as the Slavonic, the Vulgate Latin, the KJV, for
                              > centuries mechanically reproduced the word order of the Hebrew directly or
                              > with the intermediary of the LXX. Most recent translations do not do this,
                              > and for good reason; the analogy from John 1 is more relevant here than the
                              > Superman analogy, and in the case of John 1 just about everyone sees the
                              > need to reverse the original word order when making an English translation.
                              > I think a closer parallel in modern Englisn would be "President is Obama" vs
                              > "Obama is president"; or "David is king" vs "King is David."
                              >
                              > Stephen
                              >
                              > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "frjohnwhiteford"
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Stephen is wrong.
                              > >
                              > > In Hebrew, this verse begins "El YHWH", i.e., "God [is] the Lord".
                              > >
                              > > In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English
                              > language, it reads "God is the Lord", and there is nothing wrong with that
                              > rendering.
                              > >
                              > > I could say "Superman is Clark Kent" or "Clark Kent is Superman". Both
                              > statements are grammatically correct. Which one you use would be a function
                              > of whether you wanted to emphasize that Superman has been revealed to be
                              > Clark Kent, or to emphasize that Clark Kent has been revealed to be
                              > Superman.
                              > >
                              > > -Fr. John Whiteford
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Deacon Michael Bishop
                              Meg, Most of my life I have been on the new calendar and I have never heard The Lord is God. This discussion is the first time that I have heard it. Deacon
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Meg,

                                Most of my life I have been on the new calendar and I have never heard
                                "The Lord is God." This discussion is the first time that I have heard it.

                                Deacon Michael

                                On 2/19/2011 6:14 PM, Meg Lark wrote:
                                > Knock yerself out, but I find that "The Lord is God" is generally preferred
                                > by New Calendarists and proponents of "You-Who" English, which tells me
                                > everything I need to know.
                                >
                                > In Christ,
                                > Meg
                                >
                                > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, stephen_r1937<stephen_r1937@...>wrote:
                                >
                                >>
                                >> Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point.
                                >> Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject
                                >> and predicate nominative are wholly interchangeable with no real change in
                                >> meaning. Even in these cases, there are factors that tend to govern the word
                                >> order; if I ask, "Who is Clark Kent?", you are much more likely to reply
                                >> "Clark Kent is Superman" than "Superman is Clark Kent."
                                >>
                                >> But there are equally cases where subject and predicate nominative are not
                                >> so interchangeable. As Deacon Michael points out, in John 1:1 the Greek is
                                >> "Theos in o Logos," but where do find that word order preserved in English?
                                >> With all the translations that have been made, likely somewhere there is one
                                >> that reads "God was the Word," but it does not sound right, does it? And
                                >> almost all translations in fact read "the Word was God."
                                >>
                                >> Now, YHWH is a proper name in a sense in which El is not; f. ex., "el" has
                                >> a plural form YHWH does not ("Superman" in the Kentian sense does not
                                >> either, so in this sense "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are more alike than are
                                >> "El" and "YHWH"). In the early mss of the LXX, this was made plain by
                                >> writing the Tetragrammaton, not in Greek letters but in the Old Hebrew
                                >> (Canaanite) alphabet, as it appeared also in the Hebrew mss of the day even
                                >> when these otherwise used the New Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet. The main
                                >> purpose of this in Hebrew was no doubt already to prevent readers from
                                >> pronouncing the ineffable Name. From an early time on, they substuted
                                >> "Adonai" or sometimes "Elohim," as is done to the present day by observant
                                >> Jews.
                                >>
                                >> Hellenistic Jews in reading from the LXX substituted instead "Kyrios," the
                                >> translation of Adonai, and in later manuscripts the Hebrew was dropped in
                                >> favor of "Kyrios," but "Kyrios" is still but a substitute for a name that is
                                >> not pronounced out of reverence, or for early Christian scribes because we
                                >> really don't know how it should be pronounced. There is no serious question
                                >> that YHWH or whatever stands in for it is the subject, and "God" the
                                >> predicate nominative.
                                >>
                                >> Later translations such as the Slavonic, the Vulgate Latin, the KJV, for
                                >> centuries mechanically reproduced the word order of the Hebrew directly or
                                >> with the intermediary of the LXX. Most recent translations do not do this,
                                >> and for good reason; the analogy from John 1 is more relevant here than the
                                >> Superman analogy, and in the case of John 1 just about everyone sees the
                                >> need to reverse the original word order when making an English translation.
                                >> I think a closer parallel in modern Englisn would be "President is Obama" vs
                                >> "Obama is president"; or "David is king" vs "King is David."
                                >>
                                >> Stephen
                                >>
                                >> --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "frjohnwhiteford"<frjohnwhiteford@...>
                                >> wrote:
                                >>> Stephen is wrong.
                                >>>
                                >>> In Hebrew, this verse begins "El YHWH", i.e., "God [is] the Lord".
                                >>>
                                >>> In the King James Version, which is the gold standard of the English
                                >> language, it reads "God is the Lord", and there is nothing wrong with that
                                >> rendering.
                                >>> I could say "Superman is Clark Kent" or "Clark Kent is Superman". Both
                                >> statements are grammatically correct. Which one you use would be a function
                                >> of whether you wanted to emphasize that Superman has been revealed to be
                                >> Clark Kent, or to emphasize that Clark Kent has been revealed to be
                                >> Superman.
                                >>> -Fr. John Whiteford
                                >

                                --
                                Deacon Michael Bishop
                                PO Box 422
                                Baltimore MD 21203
                                http://www.Michael-Bishop.com

                                See you at the Russian Festival
                                14-16 October 2011
                              • Fr. John Whiteford
                                Stephen wrote: Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point. Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 19, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Stephen wrote:

                                  "Forgive me, Fr John, but I am going to stick to my guns on this point. Certainly there are innumerable possible phrases in English where subject and predicate nominative are wholly interchangeable with no real change in meaning. Even in these cases, there are factors that tend to govern the word order; if I ask, "Who is Clark Kent?", you are much more likely to reply "Clark Kent is Superman" than "Superman is Clark Kent.""

                                  Me: And what if the question is "Who is God?" The Answer, "God is YHWH" is not at all awkward.

                                  Stephen: "But there are equally cases where subject and predicate nominative are not so interchangeable. As Deacon Michael points out, in John 1:1 the Greek is "Theos in o Logos," but where do find that word order preserved in English? With all the translations that have been made, likely somewhere there is one that reads "God was the Word," but it does not sound right, does it? And almost all translations in fact read "the Word was God.""

                                  Me: Most translations follow the KJV's lead on that -- because the KJV is the gold standard of the English language, but in the verse in question, the gold standard has it as "God is the Lord."

                                  Stephen: "Now, YHWH is a proper name in a sense in which El is not; f. ex., "el" has a plural form YHWH does not ("Superman" in the Kentian sense does not either, so in this sense "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are more alike than are "El" and "YHWH"). In the early mss of the LXX, this was made plain by writing the Tetragrammaton, not in Greek letters but in the Old Hebrew (Canaanite) alphabet, as it appeared also in the Hebrew mss of the day even when these otherwise used the New Hebrew (Aramaic) alphabet. The main purpose of this in Hebrew was no doubt already to prevent readers from pronouncing the ineffable Name. From an early time on, they substuted "Adonai" or sometimes "Elohim," as is done to the present day by observant Jews."

                                  Me: Ah, but "El" is a proper name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29

                                  Who is El? El is YHWH.


                                  Presbyter John Whiteford
                                  St. Jonah Orthodox Church
                                  Parish Home Page: http://www.saintjonah.org/
                                  ROCOR Discussion Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/
                                  Parish News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saintjonah/
                                  Blog: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/
                                  Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/frjohnwhiteford

                                  "This is the cause of all evils: the ignorance of the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe?" -St. John Chrysostom, Homily IX on Colossians.
                                • James
                                  Careful, Jopi, or you will begin to sound like Fr. Vasiliy Vasileivich from the Onion Dome! Rdr. James
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 20, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Careful, Jopi, or you will begin to sound like Fr. Vasiliy Vasileivich from the Onion Dome!

                                    Rdr. James

                                    --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > On 18.2.2011 16:42, stephen_r1937 wrote:
                                    > > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than
                                    > > classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of
                                    > > what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is
                                    > > exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so
                                    > > we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right.
                                    > > The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our
                                    > > churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek
                                    > > clothing in English clothing.
                                    > >
                                    > > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An
                                    > > error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English
                                    > > is it not.
                                    >
                                    > Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern
                                    > English but the modern reader?
                                    >
                                    > (Who doesn't understand the message either way is free to raise
                                    > their [as gender-neutrally must we utter] hand.)
                                    >
                                    > - Jopi Harri
                                    >
                                  • James
                                    In my New Calendrist but thee thou parish we sing God is the Lord. I am not understanding very well the nuances and underlying perhaps meanings of which you
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 20, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In my New Calendrist but thee thou parish we sing God is the Lord. I am not understanding very well the nuances and underlying perhaps meanings of which you speak.

                                      Fr. Vasiliy Vasileivich
                                      Olympia, WA

                                      --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Meg Lark <woolfolk3@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Knock yerself out, but I find that "The Lord is God" is generally preferred
                                      > by New Calendarists and proponents of "You-Who" English, which tells me
                                      > everything I need to know.
                                      >
                                      > In Christ,
                                      > Meg
                                      >
                                    • Meg Lark
                                      On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Deacon Michael Bishop
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 20, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Deacon Michael Bishop <
                                        Photo@...> wrote:

                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Meg,
                                        >
                                        > Most of my life I have been on the new calendar and I have never heard
                                        > "The Lord is God." This discussion is the first time that I have heard it.
                                        >


                                        The priest in the local GOA parish is a big proponent of it, and I've seen
                                        it discussed elsewhere -- though I can't remember where. I've been New
                                        Calendar most of my Orthodox life, too, so it could have been any one of a
                                        number of places.

                                        It did occur to me that "God is the Lord" makes more sense when you consider
                                        that for most of history, people were ruled by a "nobility of blood"; so
                                        "Lord" could mean the Lord of the Manor, or of a given territory. So if you
                                        said, "The Lord is God," that comes across as sounding as if the local
                                        bigwig is God -- eep. Whereas, "God is the Lord" tells it like it is; God
                                        is even the lord's Lord.

                                        I'm not seeing where "Theos Kyrios" is anything different from "God is the
                                        Lord."

                                        In Christ,
                                        Meg


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Deacon Philip Turner
                                        Dear Reader James, Book being just published, have just got mine:) http://isoutrage.wordpress.com/book/ D. Philip
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 21, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Reader James,

                                          Book being just published, have just got mine:) http://isoutrage.wordpress.com/book/

                                          D. Philip

                                          --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "James" <rdrjames@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Careful, Jopi, or you will begin to sound like Fr. Vasiliy Vasileivich from the Onion Dome!
                                          >
                                          > Rdr. James
                                          >
                                          > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > On 18.2.2011 16:42, stephen_r1937 wrote:
                                          > > > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than
                                          > > > classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of
                                          > > > what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is
                                          > > > exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so
                                          > > > we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right.
                                          > > > The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our
                                          > > > churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek
                                          > > > clothing in English clothing.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An
                                          > > > error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English
                                          > > > is it not.
                                          > >
                                          > > Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern
                                          > > English but the modern reader?
                                          > >
                                          > > (Who doesn't understand the message either way is free to raise
                                          > > their [as gender-neutrally must we utter] hand.)
                                          > >
                                          > > - Jopi Harri
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • James
                                          I have a copy signed by the author, Alex Riggle! He is a dear friend. Rdr. James
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 22, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I have a copy signed by the author, Alex Riggle!
                                            He is a dear friend.

                                            Rdr. James

                                            --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "Deacon Philip Turner" <mildert@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Dear Reader James,
                                            >
                                            > Book being just published, have just got mine:) http://isoutrage.wordpress.com/book/
                                            >
                                            > D. Philip
                                            >
                                            > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, "James" <rdrjames@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Careful, Jopi, or you will begin to sound like Fr. Vasiliy Vasileivich from the Onion Dome!
                                            > >
                                            > > Rdr. James
                                            > >
                                            > > --- In ustav@yahoogroups.com, Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@> wrote:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > On 18.2.2011 16:42, stephen_r1937 wrote:
                                            > > > > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than
                                            > > > > classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of
                                            > > > > what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is
                                            > > > > exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so
                                            > > > > we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right.
                                            > > > > The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our
                                            > > > > churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek
                                            > > > > clothing in English clothing.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An
                                            > > > > error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English
                                            > > > > is it not.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern
                                            > > > English but the modern reader?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > (Who doesn't understand the message either way is free to raise
                                            > > > their [as gender-neutrally must we utter] hand.)
                                            > > >
                                            > > > - Jopi Harri
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • stephen_r1937
                                            Once more into the breech. El in fact occurs either as a common noun (one that we would write all in lower-case letters) or as a proper noun (we would
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 22, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Once more into the breech.

                                              "El" in fact occurs either as a common noun (one that we would write all in lower-case letters) or as a proper noun (we would capitalize the first letter--of course Hebrew has no capital / lower-case distinction, and in antiquity neither did Greek). In this it is just like "god" in English or "theos" in Greek &c &c. When it is used in the Old Testament as a proper noun denoting the true God, it is generally accompanied by a qualifying epithet (El Elyôn 'God Most High', El Shaddai 'God Almighty' &c)--usually and not always, to be sure, and it is found alone most frequently in poetry such as the Psalms, so there is nothing that prevents it from being a proper noun in Ps. 117.

                                              YHWH, on the other hand, is always and exclusively a proper noun, and is more than that, it is a name borne exclusively by the God of Israel. It is treated in very special fashion--no need to go into that again.

                                              Meg's reading makes good sense, but it is not what the psalmist intended. For Meg, "God" is a proper noun and "lord" a common noun. For the psalmist, if anything, the reverse. This is disguised by the pious practice of substituting another word, potentially a common noun, for the Tetragrammaton, but it is certainly so. An Assyrian might have said "Asshur is God" (saving your reverence!); a Babylonian, "Marduk," . . . , a Moabite would name Chemosh, an Ammonite Milcom, and so on. A Hebrew would regard all of these as abominations and would say "YHWH is God." And we of course agree with the Hebrew. "Lord" in Ps. 117 is a substitute for YHWH. In this context "YHWH" or its stand-in must come first in English, no matter the word order of the Hebrew.

                                              Douai reads "The Lord is God and hath shone upon us," which would seem to indicate that what Monk James and I regard as the correct rendering antedates the King James Version. But in using Douai we must remember that what we have nowadays is not the original version but Bp Challoner's eighteenth-century revision. The original Douai, criticized in the prefatory matter King James, is written in translation English that at its worse is reminiscent of _English As She Is Spoke_. This verse in the earlier Douai--not one of those in weird English--reads "our Lord is God, and he hath given light to us." Since "our YHWH" is impossible in biblical Hebrew, the order of this rendering is not based on a fuller understanding of the Hebrew; whether Challoner has such an understanding I cannot say.

                                              No one is going to lose a share, as the Jews say, in the World to Come by saying "God is the Lord," and I don't want to belabor the issue further, but I continue to support Monk James, who is among the most competent linguists participating in these discussions (John Burnett, likewise a good linguist, participates in other similar forums and agrees also with Fr James and me). Fr Seraphim and Meg are quite welcome to hold to their preferences; my esteem for them is in no whit diminished by our disagreeing on this little point, as my esteem for Monk James is not lessened by disagreements that he and I have aired in the past. Unlike Gabriel and Jopi, I think the point is worth discussing, but not ad infinitem, so now I am out of this thread.

                                              Stephen
                                            • smackdaddy.au@gmail.com
                                              A timely reminder it is, Master Yoda (I mean Joppi). Inflexible word order reject we must, if ever to grasp the meaning of texts we are.My rule of thumb is,
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 23, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                A timely reminder it is, Master Yoda (I mean Joppi). Inflexible word order reject we must, if ever to grasp the meaning of texts we are.

                                                My rule of thumb is, if the passage requires more attention for the listener, just read it a little more slowly. And if you don't have the time to review it all before the service, at least scan ahead and take enough time so you can read with understanding. It isn't always easy, and I'm by no means the best. But sometimes an unusual rendering serves to grab your attention and make you think about the passage instead of just letting it wash over one without letting it sink in.

                                                I guess my point is that what seems "awkward" may be intended for poetic or rhetorical purposes. We need to be careful about superimposing our modern predilections and linguistic bias over the author's - and for that matter the Spirit's - intent.

                                                Just my 2 bob's worth. Take it or leave it. I'm not taking sides or going to be drawn into debates. It's fruitless they are. (Which is perfectly acceptable word order when read with an Irish accent, btw.)

                                                When people argue for modernising translations, they rarely realise but they are also arguing for regionalising the translation. Modern hiberno-, anglo-, american-, african-, and australian English regionalisms to name but a few, involve differences in vocabulary, word order, patterns of speech and a variety of idiomatic considerations. One mans poetry is another's poison, if you like. And these are issues by no means limited to modern English. All modern languages have these concerns. Most non-English speakers are happy to have anything at all available in their spoken language. For all that is lacking, we Anglophones are a spoiled bunch.

                                                The matter of translation is more complex than people realise, and no outcome can satisfy everyone. In my opinion, it's best left to the experts. Unless you are willing to learn how and get involved with your bishops blessing, discussions on the question are generally a waste of time, I find.

                                                Apologies if any of this is politically insensitive. I'm not very good at the diplomatic shuffle. No offence intended to anyone or any cherished opinion.

                                                'Nuff said anyway. Rant done. Thanks for listening, all. I feel better now.

                                                Have a good lent everyone. :)

                                                In Christ,
                                                Dcn Stephen McKay
                                                Sent from my BlackBerry� from Optus

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Jopi Harri <jopi.harri@...>
                                                Sender: ustav@yahoogroups.com
                                                Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 03:31:53
                                                To: <ustav@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Reply-To: ustav@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [ustav] Ps 117:27 (was Re: Correction to SJKP
                                                "Liturgical Calendar")

                                                On 18.2.2011 16:42, stephen_r1937 wrote:
                                                > Modern English is much less flexible in word order than
                                                > classical languages, since it conveys by word order much of
                                                > what they convey by inflection. The parallel to John 1:1 is
                                                > exact; we do not translate it "God was the Word," and just so
                                                > we should not translate "God is the Lord." Fr James is right.
                                                > The LXX gave us Hebrew in Greek clothing, and what we hear our
                                                > churches when this verse is sung is usually Hebrew in Greek
                                                > clothing in English clothing.
                                                >
                                                > Or if you still disagree with him, "right is Fr James." An
                                                > error in translation is "God is the Lord"; idiomatic English
                                                > is it not.

                                                Perhaps all wrong is Greek? Or much less flexible not modern
                                                English but the modern reader?

                                                (Who doesn't understand the message either way is free to raise
                                                their [as gender-neutrally must we utter] hand.)

                                                - Jopi Harri



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.