Ruthenian Books

[Cluny]

I have a whole set of the Ruthenian office books published by the Sisters of St. Basil the Great.

I especially like their edition of the Lenten Triodion. It’s the most practical that I have seen, having the entire text (except for lessons) between two covers.

Who all was involved in the translation of this series? What did they use for their primary texts.

 

[Diak]

The usage of “inclusive language” as well as some oversimplifications in tranlsation are present. But they are not bad for overall content.

The Greek *Anthologion *would possibly have been used as a consulting text, since the Service to St. Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast was only restored to Greek Catholic liturgical practice since the late 60s or early 70s in the Rome Anthologion. The *Anthologion *would have been the starting point for a Greek Catholic translation of that service.

Have you seen the Melkite set of Triodion books?

 

[Cluny]

Have you seen the Melkite set of Triodion books?

No. I’m aware they exist, but in comparing the Uniontown and Orthodox editions (in two mismatched volumes) it’s a whole lot more convenient to have it in one book (would they had included the lessons).

I’ve also found the Uniontown edition easier to follow aurally when others are chanting the text.

I have no objection to inclusive languge if the sense of the original is inclusive.

Having it disposed into several volumes (as would be the Melkite version) negates the purpose for me.

 

[Diak]

I have no objection to inclusive languge if the sense of the original is inclusive.

In most cases (especially in the Triodion) chelovikolubce/philanthropos is translated as “humankind”, “man” (anthropos, referring to a singular particular individual which is generally understood in Greek translation in a male sense) is reduced to “one” or “a human” (i.e. “blessed is the one”, etc.). It is silly and unnecessary.

But you can do what I did and simply correct the text in the book. In terms of singeability the Holy Myrrhbearers text is a better quality translation, and as singeable if not more in Kyivan or Galician samohlasny. But it is far less comprehensive.

I also have yet to check out in detail the Melkite books, and have no problem at all with using multiple volumes (the SJKP Octoechos is four and I have become accustomed to that).

 

[Cluny]

In most cases (especially in the Triodion) chelovikolubce/philanthropos is translated as “humankind”, “man” (anthropos, referring to a singular particular individual which is generally understood in Greek translation in a male sense) is reduced to “one” or “a human” (i.e. “blessed is the one”, etc.). It is silly and unnecessary.

Actually, in the Greek “anthropos” IS generic.

“Anir”, on the other hand, corresponding with the Latin “vir” and jSlavonic “muzh” is gender specific male.

Psalm 1 is properly a Messianic prophecy, according to the Fathers, and does begin “Makarios anir”–so “blessed is the one” is inaccurate. It should definitely be “man.”

On the other hand, we should remember that our service books originated in monasteries. I don’t think the meaning is changed if references to 'brethren" (“While fasting physically, brethren…”) is changed to “faithful” or similar word, especially if used in a parish.

 

[Diak]

“Anir”, on the other hand, corresponding with the Latin “vir” and jSlavonic “muzh” is gender specific male

.

“Aner” is indeed used to denote this or that specific man or male person. But I think there are some misconceptions regarding the use of “anthropos”, as it is not always generic.

“Anthropos” when referring to a single man has nearly universally been translated as “man”. There is no need to discard centuries of translational convention (especially when it not technically a wrong translation) simply for modern “sensitivity”.

In Koine when “anthropos” is used for a single individual it almost always denotes a male. In Greek literature it appears quite often to refer to a male singular being. I would also point out that in Greek literature “anthropos” is never used in reference to an individual woman.

When a particular person is introduced as “anthropos”, that person is invariably male. For example in Ephesians it is the “anthropos” that leaves his father and mother and wife. In Corinthians it is good for “anthropos” not to touch a woman, in Matthew in the case of an “anthropos” and his wife, etc. It simply is not true that “anthropos” always denotes a gender-neutral condition, in fact that is the minority of its usage. Otherwise “gyne” is used for the specific female.

“Anthropos” has thus a similiar ambiguity that “man” has in English, and thus while “man” can be understood to encompass males and females in the general sense “mankind”, “man” is never used to refer to an individual female, as is neither “anthropos”. Numerous citations in the LXX can be found that actually place “anthropos” in semantic opposition to “woman”.

Often in Koine when “one” is described (such as “they brought Him one from the crowd”, etc.) avto is used, and not “anthropos”.

A revisionist approach to translation is neither warranted by necessity or the technical considerations of translation from the original Greek. The idea that “anthropos” is always devoid of male connotation does not seem sensible.