New English Translation of the Maronite Qurbono

[Denho]

I have the final draft of the new translation of the Maronite Book of Offering sitting in front of me. It is supposed to be finalized and implemented in the next six months or so (or when Christ comes in His Terrible Majesty, if according to Maronite timetables ).

Leaving aside the inherent Novus Ordo Latinizations in the revised Arabic/Syriac texts, there are a number of good things and a number of peculiar items in the new translation.

The good:

Finally the last sickening vestiges of ICEL have been erased with the long awaited replacement of

and also with you.

with

and with your spirit.

Many of the truncated responses have been properly rendered.

Cel: We render always glory and thanksgiving to you, O Lord, for giving us your body to eat and your blood to drink. O Lover of all, have mercy on us.

Cong: O Lover of all, have mercy on us.

with

Cel: Again and again we thank you, O Lord, and raise glory to you, for giving us your body to eat, and your living blood to drink. O Lover of all people, have mercy on us.

Cong: Have mercy on us, O Lord.
O Compassionate and Merciful One,
O Lover of all people,
have mercy on us.

The not so good:

The Hoosoyo have been butchered.

An example from the Sunday of the Announcement to Mary:

Old Proemion & Sedro:

Cel: To the praise and glory of the Most Holy Trinity.

Cel: May we be worthy to praise and confess the God of earth and sky, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Life-Giver. In his love and foreknowledge he decided to return to the heirs of Adam and pitch his tent in their midst. Prophets, apostles, and teachers came before him in order to create a well-disposed people. Finally, the “Man of God,” Gabriel, came and revealed his imminent coming. To the God of this holy dispensation we offer praise and thanksgiving, now and for ever.

Cong: Amen.

Sedro

Cel: The Virgin Mary received the angel messenger with fear and amazement. “Peace be with you, Mary. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among all women.” Mary answered, “Never have I heard such a greeting. Who are you; who is your Lord, and why have you come?” “I am Gabriel. My name means ‘God’s strong One,’ and I have come to tell you that you will bear a son, Emmanuel, by the overshadowing of God’s own Holy Spirit.” Mary was overtaken with wonder and astonishment. Fear seized her and doubt filled her mind. “Good sir, I am but a girl. Do no speak to me this way, for I have never known man, nor am I married.” The angel said, “Mary, the power of God’s Spirit is now upon you. Your Son is the long-awaited hope of the prophets. He dwells in eternal realms, and fiery ranks of angels accompany him, for he is the flaming Word of God, a searing fire, a white hot coal.” Mary said, “I am a mortal creature. Surely I will be consumed by God’s all-consuming fire. How fearful is this moment! How my breath leaves me for fear! How humble am I, and how overcome that such a thing should come to pass!”

Now, O Lord, we are seized with amazement, and like Mary, we do not understand. With her we draw back, blinded by your eternal flame, scorched by its touch and overcome by its power. We know only to offer incense as a fitting response to so great a Word who this day makes his presence among us. We hide behind clouds of perfumed smoke, and dare not even glimpse the power that now descends over our altar. Purge us with your living flame, O God. Treat us as wayward children and not as hostile enemies. And we will praise you, now and for ever.

Cong: Amen.

the new version:

Cel: To the glory and honor of the Most Holy Trinity.

Cel: Let us raise glory, honor, and praise to the Father, who sent Gabriel to Nazareth as a messenger; and to the Son, who dwelt in the Virgin Mary as the Good News; and to the Spirit, who sanctified her and accomplished this wondrous mystery. To the Good One be glory and honor, on this feast, and all the days of our lives, and for ever.

Cel: Glory to you, O Exalted One, for you chose to live among us. You are the power who dwelt in the pure Virgin Mary and appeared from her as God Incarnate, and so today we cry out proclaiming:

Blessed are you, O Mary, because the Son of God has chosen you as his mother! Blessed are you, O Mary, because of you Adam has been freed! Blessed are you, O Mary, because you are the glory of nations and the pride of all generations!

Now, O Word of God, we ask you, with the fragrance of this incense, and in your mercy, to grant us the pardon of our faults and the gifts of your Spirit. Grant security to your flock and peace to your monasteries, piety to priests and purity to deacons, dignity to the elderly and generosity to the parents, restraint to the youth and a good education to the children. Sanctify monks and nuns, and spread truth and love throughout the world. Grant rest to the departed in your eternal kingdom, that we may raise glory and thanks to you, and to your Father, and to your Holy Spirit, for ever.

Amen.

There are still a large number of circumlocutions that will say anything except “Mankind”.

There are a lot of promising things in the text that will be a breath of fresh air for those who have been longing for something a little better than what we had before.

There are two new anaphorae in the book than in the previous edition, those of Sts. John Chryosostom and John Maron. There is no sign of III Peter or any of the others.

 

[Denho]

Also, some portions of the anaphorae have been edited to make them less verbose:

From the Anaphora of St. James:

Old:

Truly it is right, just, and fitting, O Creator of all things visible and invisible, to glorify you, bless you, praise you, adore you, and thank you. The heights of heaven and all its powers exalt you: the sun, the moon, and the whole choir of the stars; the earth, the seas, and all that is in them; the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church of the firstborn, those whose names are written in heaven; the angels, archangels, dominions, and thrones; the powers above this world; the heavenly hosts; the cherubim with many eyes and the six-winged seraphim, who veil their faces with two wings, cover their feet with two wings, and, with two wings, fly toward one another. With unceasing voices and never ending divine knowledge they sing the victorious hymns of your great glory, and praise you with a clear voice, shouting, proclaiming, and singing (saying):

New:

Truly it is right and just to glorify you, bless you, praise you, adore you, and give you thanks, Maker of all things, visible and invisible. The highest heavens and all its powers praise you; the sun, the moon, and all the stars; the earth, the seas, and all that is in them; the heavenly Jerusalem and the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven; the angels, archangels, and heavenly hosts all sing praising your majestic glory with triumphant hymns, with never ending voices, and with acclamations. They cry out and proclaim:

 

[Cristiano]

I am glad that somehow the English translations will be aligned again at some point in time. I have difficulties of keeping track of differences between the OF, the Maronite Mass, and the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. I am getting old and sometime I have to bad habit of shifting into autopilot.

 

[iohanne]

I’m really disheartened a bit. The poetry is all gone!

 

[malphono]

I have the final draft of the new translation of the Maronite Book of Offering sitting in front of me. It is supposed to be finalized and implemented in the next six months or so (or when Christ comes in His Terrible Majesty, if according to Maronite timetables ).

I can only say inchallah that, by the Levantine timetable, it never happens. But of course it will.

Leaving aside the inherent Novus Ordo Latinizations in the revised Arabic/Syriac texts,

Unfortunately, it is impossible to leave the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations aside. They are sum and substance of the 2005 aberration of the Missal.

The good … Finally the last sickening vestiges of ICEL have been erased with the long awaited replacement …

That’s about it. The elimination of the dreaded “and also with you.” Beyond that …

Many of the truncated responses have been properly rendered …

I suppose if one considers introducing even more gender-neutral, politically correct terms “more proper” … let’s face it: the Syriac “o rohem nosho” (or even the now-sacrosanct Arabic version, “ya mubhib al-bashar”) does not render into “oh lover of all people” … no way, now how. Oh, but how 1970s ICEL can one get?

The not so good:

I presume that you mean the rest of it.

There are a lot of promising things in the text that will be a breath of fresh air for those who have been longing for something a little better than what we had before.

Where are they? I’m not familiar with them.

There are two new anaphorae in the book than in the previous edition, those of Sts. John Chryosostom and John Maron.

Two extremely l-o-n-g anaphorae which, BTW, were included in older editions of the Missal (before it was Novus Ordo-ized) and which, in any case, were rarely used, mainly because of their length. In their previous incarnations they were quote lovely, but with the Novus Ordo-inspired butchering in the “new version” I’d rather never hear them.

There is no sign of III Peter or any of the others.

Oh, don’t worry … that will make it’s appearance in due (or undue) time.

 

[Denho]

Unfortunately, it is impossible to leave the Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinizations aside. They are sum and substance of the 2005 aberration of the Missal.

I wonder how much of the new text was the result of the original 2005 “revision” and how much was added English “adaptation” by the powers at be.

That’s about it. The elimination of the dreaded “and also with you.” Beyond that … :confused

:

We implemented that today to little fuss, it was amusing how much hand-holding and tedious catechesis occurred in the local Latin parishes and it went in with our community with little more than a shrug.

I suppose if one considers introducing even more gender-neutral, politically correct terms “more proper” … let’s face it: the Syriac “o rohem nosho” (or even the now-sacrosanct Arabic version, “ya mubhib al-bashar”) does not render into “oh lover of all people” … no way, now how. Oh, but how 1970s ICEL can one get?

Oh, I know. At this point I just consider the genderless pronouns a de facto part of the equation. My parish prints our own Liturgy books for each Sunday that includes all of the music and texts and my priest and I are tempted to just replace everything with mankind and plead ignorance.

Where are they? I’m not familiar with them.

I was mainly referencing the inclusion of all the work by Abouna Geoffrey Abdallah with the qole. I’ll take that any day after I opened a copy of the* Cedars of Lebanon* and saw a Labaky hymn that was an exact melodic match to Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.

Two extremely l-o-n-g anaphorae which, BTW, were included in older editions of the Missal (before it was Novus Ordo-ized) and which, in any case, were rarely used, mainly because of their length. In their previous incarnations they were quote lovely, but with the Novus Ordo-inspired butchering in the “new version” I’d rather never hear them.

I’ll have to take a look at the old Anaphora Book tomorrow to compare them.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Are any/all of the translations for the Qurbono available online? I’d love to study the three different translations that have been mentioned here thus far.

 

[malphono]

I wonder how much of the new text was the result of the original 2005 “revision” and how much was added English “adaptation” by the powers at be.

It’s the 2005 aberration. The English “translation” is pretty much that: a translation of the Arabic version. It takes few, if any, liberties on its own. In fact, it’s a rather slavish rendering.

Oh, I know. At this point I just consider the genderless pronouns a de facto part of the equation. My parish prints our own Liturgy books for each Sunday that includes all of the music and texts and my priest and I are tempted to just replace everything with mankind and plead ignorance.

Only if he wants a reprimand from the chancery.

I was mainly referencing the inclusion of all the work by Abouna Geoffrey Abdallah with the qole. I’ll take that any day after I opened a copy of the* Cedars of Lebanon* and saw a Labaky hymn that was an exact melodic match to Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.

Frankly, I find what has been done to the “qolé” to be rather distasteful, not to mention that they are, in the vast majority of cases, liturgically misplaced. Here, again, the music is a slavish rendering of the “official” version, (which itself is modernized and, in some cases, even Arabized, putting it at some variance with the traditional Syriac), incorporating some heavy-duty ICEL-style dynamic equivalence in the English text. Give me Khoury Labaky’s work any day.

BTW, the tune to “Twinkle, Twinkle” is quite old (IIRC dating back to 17th century France) and has been incorporated into a number of classical pieces, including Haydn’s “Surprise Symphony” among others. In any case, I don’t have my copy of “Cedars of Lebanon” at hand, but which item has that tune?

I’ll have to take a look at the old Anaphora Book tomorrow to compare them.

S John Maron was last published in the 1908 Missal. I’ve forgotten which printing last included S John Chrysostom, but it was prior to that one.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Malphono,

Do you know of an internet resource where I can check out the different English translations of the Maronite Qurbono referenced above? I’m very interested in learning more about the Maronites as my knowledge is very limited/non-existent.

Phillip

 

[malphono]

Malphono,

Do you know of an internet resource where I can check out the different English translations of the Maronite Qurbono referenced above? I’m very interested in learning more about the Maronites as my knowledge is very limited/non-existent.

Phillip

Just to clarify one thing, it’s not simply a matter of translations. There are actually different versions.

In any case, IIRC one or another parish had the “ordinary” (with one Anaphora) up a couple of years back, but I’ve no memory of which parish it may have been. Sorry, but I guess I’m not being of much help.

 

[LumenGent]

What an absolute disaster. The Latins are running away from the “old” ICEL drama, the Maronites have no interest in doing the same. No doubt, that if asked why it came out this way, they will say “It is in line with Vatican II”.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m really disheartened a bit. The poetry is all gone!

I’d be more disheartened if the Syriac/Arabic were all gone.

 

[LumenGent]

I’d be more disheartened if the Syriac/Arabic were all gone.

Yes for Syriac, not so much for the Arabic. Notice that the comments above point out that the new English text is a slavish translation of the Arabic text, so the problem originates there. If you meant the actual spoken languages, I think there will be more advocates for the restoration of Syriac than the preservation of the vernacular (Arabic included).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Yes for Syriac, not so much for the Arabic. Notice that the comments above point out that the new English text is a slavish translation of the Arabic text, so the problem originates there. If you meant the actual spoken languages, I think there will be more advocates for the restoration of Syriac than the preservation of the vernacular (Arabic included).

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. I can’t really speak for the Maronites, but the Arabic-speaking Melkites are extremely fond of their Arabic language and wouldn’t switch back to liturgical Greek without putting up a big fight, despite the fact that we already use some Greek in our Liturgy to begin with.

I suppose too it depends on what the translators mean by “slavish translation.” If they adopted the philosophy of dynamic equivalency for their “slavish translation” then it would indeed be possible to render an accurate translation (note I said accurate, not good or poetic ) that captures the full sense of the original language without the text being an exact word-for-word rendering of the Arabic.

My own opinion (for what it’s worth) is that any translator should strive to strike a balance between literal word-for-word translating and dynamic equivalency. I say this only because not all concepts translate well from one language to another and it is sometimes necessary simply to use the closest thing in whatever language the original text is being translated into (sorry about the poor grammar, but my daughter is crying and I only got four hours of sleep last night).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Just to clarify one thing, it’s not simply a matter of translations. There are actually different versions.

In any case, IIRC one or another parish had the “ordinary” (with one Anaphora) up a couple of years back, but I’ve no memory of which parish it may have been. Sorry, but I guess I’m not being of much help.

Actually, that was helpful. Thank you, Malphono. The idea of searching through parish websites hadn’t dawned on me.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes for Syriac, not so much for the Arabic. Notice that the comments above point out that the new English text is a slavish translation of the Arabic text, so the problem originates there. If you meant the actual spoken languages, I think there will be more advocates for the restoration of Syriac than the preservation of the vernacular (Arabic included).

I certainly hope so. The Syriac is awesome.

 

[malphono]

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. I can’t really speak for the Maronites, but the Arabic-speaking Melkites are extremely fond of their Arabic language and wouldn’t switch back to liturgical Greek without putting up a big fight, despite the fact that we already use some Greek in our Liturgy to begin with.

Yes, that fits with the Melkite mentality but be that as it may, one has always to keep in mind that the Melkite texts are themselves translations from the Koine and not original compositions in Arabic. IMO, that’s the proper way to go about it. Interestingly enough, the pre-1992 Maronite texts in Arabic were done in a very similar way to the Melkite. IOW, they were decent renderings of the original Syriac.

I suppose too it depends on what the translators mean by “slavish translation.” If they adopted the philosophy of dynamic equivalency for their “slavish translation” then it would indeed be possible to render an accurate translation (note I said accurate, not good or poetic ) that captures the full sense of the original language without the text being an exact word-for-word rendering of the Arabic.

The problem now is manifold. For one thing, the original Syriac has been relegated to little more than a guide, and even there the Arabic has become an ICEL-like free-rendering from the original Syriac, so much so that in many cases it qualifies as original composition. For another, things have been added that are 100% original Arabic compositions.

The English version is, as I said earlier, based strictly on the Arabic, and frankly it is a slavish rendering. The older English versions clearly used dynamic equivalence in order to give a more-or-less readable text. This new version, however, does other things too. While it continues to employ dynamic equivalence, it has also taken to rendering some things directly from the Arabic which results in some rather clumsy constructions. This drives me crazy particularly because, in most cases, the Arabic text is exactly the same as it was before. IOW, there was no need to re-render those things in English, yet that’s exactly what was done. And even where the Arabic text itself underwent an ICEL-like change, there wasn’t necessarily a reason to change the English. In sum, a good portion of it amounts to nothing more than change for the sake of change.

 

[iohanne]

Was the older version of the Proemion and Sedro of the Hoosoyo for the Sunday of Announcement to Mary… was that from the original Syriac? Because it’s breath-taking. The new version is a result of slavish translation from the Arabic which itself was a re-writing or as you say an original composition… right?

 

[LumenGent]

Phillip,

I think it is a case of apples and oranges. It is my understanding that the Melkites abandoned their authentic Liturgical language many centuries ago (maybe over a millenium) in favor of the vernacular. Afterall, isn’t the late Patriarch Maximos highly praised during the Second Vatican Council for advocating the use of the vernacular? From what I know about the Maronites, Syriac remains the official Litirgical language and is mandated for specific parts of the Mass. There are many advocates for the restoration of the Syriac language, if not for all the prayers of the Mass, at least an increase to what already exists. As Malphono pointed out, the problem is that the Arabic text is somewhat seen as the “official” text and that is where the problem rests.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Phillip,

I think it is a case of apples and oranges. It is my understanding that the Melkites abandoned their authentic Liturgical language many centuries ago (maybe over a millenium) in favor of the vernacular. Afterall, isn’t the late Patriarch Maximos highly praised during the Second Vatican Council for advocating the use of the vernacular? From what I know about the Maronites, Syriac remains the official Litirgical language and is mandated for specific parts of the Mass. There are many advocates for the restoration of the Syriac language, if not for all the prayers of the Mass, at least an increase to what already exists. As Malphono pointed out, the problem is that the Arabic text is somewhat seen as the “official” text and that is where the problem rests.

It is, perhaps, a case of apples and oranges, especially with regards to the issue of “official” liturgical languages. In the Byzantine tradition there really is no sense of a “liturgical” language, as liturgy has traditionally been offered in the language of the people. The Greek is the standard by which translations following the Greek tradition are measured, whereas the Slavonic is the standard by which translations following the Slavic traditions are measured. But, as you say, it’s really a matter of apples and oranges comparing the Maronites and Melkites, or Byzantines vs. Orientals for that matter. But perhaps this would be an issue for a different thread, if you want to continue discussing languages (liturgical vs. vernacular).