THEORIES OF
THE
TRANSLATION
PROCESS*
Bruce M. Metzger
If, according to the traditional
rendering of Proverbs
lator is scarcely
less hard. Not only does the work of translation
demand the utmost in
concentrated effort, but the result will sel-
dom please
everyone, least of all the conscientious translator.
Since
not all the nuances in a text can be conveyed into another
language, the translator
must choose which ones are to be ren-
dered and which are
not. For this reason the cynic speaks of
translation as "the
art of making the right sacrifice," and the
Italians
have put the matter succinctly in a proverb, "The trans-
lator is a
traitor" (traduttore, traditore).
In short, except on a
purely practical
level, translation is never entirely successful.
There
is always what Ortega y Gasset called the misery and
the
splendor of the
translation process.1
The work of translating the Bible
presents special difficul-
ties. Since the
Scriptures are a source of both information and in-
spiration, Bible
translations must be accurate as well as felici-
tous. They must be
suitable for rapid scanning as well as for de-
tailed study, and
suitable for ceremonial reading aloud to large
and small audiences. Ideally, they
should be intelligible and
even inviting to
readers of all ages, of all degrees of education,
and of almost all levels of
intelligence. Such an ideal is, of
course, virtually
impossible to attain.
Bruce
M. Metzger is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Emeri-
tus, Princeton
Theological Seminary,
*
This is article two in the four-part series, "Translating the Bible: An
Ongoing
Task,"
delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at
ological Seminary,
1 Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Miseria y esplendor de la traducci6n," Obras completas,
4th
ed. (Madrid: Revista de Occidante,
1958), 5:433-52.
Theories of the Translation Process 141
The problem is compounded by the
diversity of theories of the
translation process. Should
the translation be literalistic or free
and paraphrastic?
At what level of English style should it be
pitched? Is it right to
introduce into the rendering cultural expla-
nations, and if so, how
frequently? In the printed format of the
Bible, should pronouns that refer to
Deity be capitalized? Is it ad-
visable to print the
words of Christ in red ink? All these are legit-
imate questions that
need to be considered by Bible translators.
Perhaps
it is well to note the graceful phrasing of metaphors
for the translation process that the
King James translators ad-
dressed to the reader
near the beginning of the preface to their ver-
sion (a preface that
unfortunately is seldom included in modern
printings of that
version):
Translation it is that openeth the window, to
let in the light;
that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth
aside the curtain, that we may look into
the most Holy place; that
removeth the cover of
the well, that we may come by the water,
even as Jacob rolled
away the stone from the mouth of the well,
by which means the
flocks of Laban were watered.2
Basically there are two competing
theories of translation. In
one the predominant purpose is to
express as exactly as possible
the full force and meaning of every
word and turn of phrase in the
original, and in the
other the predominant purpose is to produce a
result that does not
read like a translation at all, but that moves in
its new dress with the same ease as
in its native rendering. Of
course in the hands of
good translators neither of these two ap-
proaches can ever be
entirely ignored. The question is merely
which should come
first, and which second, in the translator's
mind; and when the
two are in conflict and it is therefore neces-
sary to choose
between them, the question is which side is to be
sacrificed. This article
discusses examples of various kinds of
translations of the
Scriptures down through the ages.
TRANSLATIONS
IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
Early in the Christian era, a Jewish
scholar named
was dissatisfied with the Septuagint
translation and undertook to
produce a Greek
rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures that would
represent each Hebrew
word with a corresponding Greek word.
The
result of following this procedure was the production of a ren-
2 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to
the King James Version 1611, ed.
Edgar
J. Goodspeed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1935), 21.
142
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April.-June
1993
dering that was so
slavishly literal that it was often unintelligi-
ble to a reader who
did not know Hebrew as well as Greek. For
example in Genesis 1:1
the Hebrew text prefixes the word tx, to
"heaven" and to "earth" in order to indicate
that these words are
the object of the verb
"create."
be the Hebrew preposition, spelled
the same way, and therefore
rendered the text e]poi<hsen o[ qeo>j su>n to>n ou]rano>n kai>
su>n th?n
gh?n, a rendering
that is totally un-Greek.
SYMMACHUS
Toward the end of the second Christian
century another
Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was prepared. This
was by Symmachus,
an Ebionite Christian of Jewish back-
ground. His theory and
method were the opposite of that of
for his aim was to make an elegant
Greek rendering. To judge
from the scattered
fragments that remain of his translation,
Symmachus tended to be paraphrastic in representing the Hebrew
original. He preferred
idiomatic Greek constructions in contrast
to other versions in which the
Hebrew constructions are pre-
served. Thus he
usually converted into a Greek participle the
first of two finite
verbs connected with a copula. He made copious
use of a wide range of Greek
particles to bring out subtle distinc-
tions of relationship
that the Hebrew cannot adequately express.
In
more than one passage Symmachus had a tendency to
soften
anthropomorphic expressions of
the Hebrew text.
JEROME
Jerome's approach is puzzling. On the
one hand in his letter
to Sunnia
and Fretela, Jerome declared that the work of a good
translator consists in
rendering idiomatic expressions of one
language
into the modes of expression native to the other.3 In an-
other letter,
addressed to Pammachius, he discussed the best
method of translating
literary works in general, and stated,
"From
my youth up I have always aimed at rendering sense not
words.... A literal
translation from one language to another ob-
scures the
sense."4 At the same time, however, Jerome made an
exception when it came to
the Bible. He added a qualification, "In
translating from the Greek
I render sense for sense and not word
for word-except in the case of the
Holy Scriptures, where even the
order of the words is
a mystery."5
3 Jerome, Epistle
106. 3. 3.
4 Ibid., 57.6.
5 Ibid., 57.5.
Theories of the Translation Process 143
Here Jerome clearly advocated two
different methods of
translation, depending on
whether the original is a secular or a
sacred text. In the
Bible every word is sacred. In his letter to
Paulinus, Jerome wrote,
"The Apocalypse of John has as many
mysteries as words,"6
and these mysteries must be preserved in
the translation. Since the order of
words transcends human un-
derstanding, a change in
the order of words not only destroys this
mystery, but it also
endangers the profundity of the sacred text.
All this seems to be clear enough until
one looks at Jerome's
work in preparing
the Latin text of the Vulgate. His declaration
of policy in translating Scripture
seems to be inconsistent with
his general practice. It is
perplexing that although Jerome advo-
cated the
word-for-word method of Bible translation, he was not
always consistent in
following it. Perhaps the best solution to this
anomaly is to suggest
that in making the Vulgate translation
Jerome
had in fact renounced a great part of the ornamentation of
style and paraphrase
he was accustomed to employ when dealing
with secular works,
but nevertheless allowed himself a certain
amount of freedom and
variety of renderings in the Vulgate.
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
English translations of the Bible
present a great variety of
types of rendering.
THE KING JAMES
VERSION
In the preface to the 1611 English
version, the translators set
forth their theory of
translation. At some length they declared:
We have not tied ourselves to an [sic] uniformity of phrasing, or
to an identity of
words, as some peradventure would wish that we
had done, because
they observe, that some learned men some-
where, have been as
exact as they could that way. Truly, that we
might not vary from
the sense of that which we had translated be-
fore, if the word
signified the same in both places (for there be
some words that be
not of the same sense everywhere) we were
especially careful, and
made a conscience, according to our duty.
But, that we should express the same
notion in the same particu-
lar word; as for
example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek
word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Jour-
neying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if
one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy,
never Gladness,
etc. Thus to mince
the matter, we thought to savour more of cu-
riosity than wisdom,
and that rather it would breed scorn in the
Atheist, than bring profit to the godly
Reader.7
6 Ibid., 53.9.
7 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to
the King James Version 1611, 36.
144
BIBUOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1993
As examples of the wide variety of
translation in the King
James
Version one can point to the 11 ways in which the Greek
verb me<nw is rendered in
the New Testament, including "abide,"
"remain," "continue," "dwell,"
"tarry," "endure," "stand,"
and "be present." Even
within the space of a few verses in 1
Corinthians
13 four renderings of the same Greek verb are used:
"prophecies, they shall fail
. . . knowledge, it shall vanish away
that which is in
part shall be done away ... I put away ...
childish things."
Clearly the apostle had some purpose in reiter-
ating the key word of
this passage, but this purpose is lost to the
reader of the King
James Version.
EDWARD HARWOOD'S
TRANSLATION
After the publication of the King James
Version and its gen-
eral acceptance in
succeeding generations, its position was chal-
lenged by a classical
scholar and biblical critic named Edward
Harwood
(1729-1794). Dissatisfied with what he termed "the bald
and barbarous languages of the old
vulgar version," that is, the
Authorized
Version, in 1768 Harwood issued a rendering of the
New
Testament in the elevated style of English that was current
among many British
authors in the second half of the 18th cen-
tury.8 The opening
sentences of the Parable of the Prodigal Son
are an example of the contrived and
artificial style imposed on
the simple and direct language of
the Gospel of Luke. "A Gen-
tleman of a splendid
family and opulent fortune had two sons.
One
day the younger approached his father, and begged him in the
most importunate and
soothing terms to make a partition of his
effects betwixt himself
and his elder brother--The indulgent fa-
ther, overcome by
his blandishments, immediately divided all
his fortunes betwixt them."
Likewise the simple and chaste language
of Mary's Magni-
ficat in the King
James Version (Luke
Harwood
so as to read, "My soul with reverence adores my Cre-
ator, and all my
faculties with transport join in celebrating the
goodness of God, my Saviour, who hath in so signal a manner
condescended to regard my
poor and humble station. Transcen-
dent goodness! Every
future age will now conjoin in celebrating
my happiness!"
8 The title page
reads, "A liberal translation of the
New Testament; being an at-
tempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same
Freedom, Spirit, and Ele-
gance with which other English translations of the Greek
Classics have lately
been executed ... with Select Notes, Critical and
Explanatory. By
T. Becket and Others,
Theories of the Translation Process 145
NOAH WEBSTER'S
BIBLE
Altogether unlike the garish style used
in Harwood's render-
ing was the sober
and restrained revision of the King James Ver-
sion that Noah
Webster, the lexicographer, issued at
remove obsolete words
and phrases and to correct errors of
grammar and
mistranslations. Examples of the former are the
use of "who" for
"which" when it refers to persons; "it" for "his"
when it refers to
plants and to things without life; "falsehood" for
"leasing";
"hinder" for "let"; "button" for "tache"; "boiled" for
"sodden"; "Holy Spirit" for "Holy
Ghost." Errors of grammar
are "Whom do you say I
am?" and the occasional use of the sin-
gular number of the
verb with a plural subject (e.g., Luke
roneous or misleading
were corrected in the various passages
where they appeared.
Practically all these changes have been
adopted by later
revisers, who found his judgment sound as to the
need of change.
In addition to the kinds of changes
mentioned above, Webster
introduced another kind of
amendment in the language, which
he considered of very grave
importance. In his own words,
To these may be added many words and
phrases, very offensive to
delicacy and even to
decency.... Language which cannot be ut-
tered in company
without a violation of decorum, or the rules of
good breeding,
exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers,
impairs their
authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of
our holy religion.10
JULIA E. SMITH'S
TRANSLATION
Another idiosyncratic rendering,
published a century after
Harwood's
version, was produced in 1876 by an American trans-
lator, Julia E.
Smith. This rendering has the distinction of being
the first translation of the entire
Bible made by a woman. It was
issued at her own
expense by the American Publishing Company
of
"translated literally from the original tongues," and in
the pref-
ace Smith indicates that she
"endeavored to put the same English
9 The Webster
Bible was reissued in 1987 by the Baker Book House of Grand
Rapids.
10 In the
following passages Webster introduced various euphemisms in place of
the expressions used in the King
James Version: Genesis 20:18; 29:31; 30:22; 34:30;
38:9,
24; Exodus
Judges
2:17; 1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8; 18:27; Job
3:10-12;
40:17;
Psalms 22:9, 10; 38:5; 106:39; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 16 and
23;
John
11:39; Ephesians 5:5.
146
BIBUOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
word for the same
Hebrew or Greek word everywhere," for she
considered that this gave
a "much clearer understanding of the
text." The result,
however, was a rendering teeming with obscu-
rities and nonsense on
almost every page.
Paying no attention to the function of
the Hebrew waw
con-
secutive, she frequently
used the future tense in translating He-
brew] verbs in
historical narrative, giving the reader the impres-
sion that everything
in those narratives, including the acts of
creation in the first
chapter of Genesis, was yet to happen! The
extent of the
obscurity is suggested by Jeremiah 22:23, presented
as a complete sentence and reading,
"Thou dwelling in
building a nest in the
cedars, how being compassionated in pangs
coming to thee the
pain as of her bringing forth."
THE REVISED
VERSION (1881-1885)
In 1870 the
issued a proposal that
a committee should be formed to undertake
a revision of the Authorized or
King James Version of the Bible.11
At
first it was hoped to keep the work entirely in Anglican hands,
but eventually Free Church scholars,
plus one Unitarian, joined
the revision committee. As was to be
expected, the great majority
of the members of the revision
committee had been trained at Ox-
ford or
J.
Cadoux,12 these two universities
inculcated quite different ide-
als for the
translation process. The
veying the sense of
the original in free idiomatic English without
too much regard for the precise
wording of the former; the
bridge method paid
meticulous attention to verbal accuracy, so as
to translate as literally as
possible without positive violence to
English
usage, or positive misrepresentation of the author's
meaning, and to leave
it to the reader to discern the sense from the
context. For good or
for ill, the
the English Revised Version.
The rules set before the revisers were
rigid and conservative.
For
example it was determined that, so far as possible, only such
expressions were to be used
as were already present in the King
James
Version. It is no surprise that by following this rule there
was actually an increase of archaic
English expressions in the
revision.
11
It
is significant that the
vision on the ground
that it would deplore any recasting of the text of Scripture.
12 C. J. Cadoux, The Bible and Its
Ancient and English Versions, ed. H. Wheeler
Robinson (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1940), 251.
Theories of the Translation Process 147
As a sample of the sometimes unidiomatic
English, the ren-
dering of Luke 9:17
can scarcely be regarded as good English
style: "And they
did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken
up that which remained over to them
of broken pieces, twelve bas-
kets." The
evaluation of the New Testament in the Revised Ver-
sion by the famous
was brief and to the point:
"The revision is strong in Greek but
weak in
English." Nevertheless for those who desire an English
version that presents a
formal equivalent of the original texts, the
Revised
Version has no equal.
Like the Revised Version, the American
Standard Version is
extremely literalistic.
DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT TRANSLATIONS
At the other extreme to translations
that present a formal
equivalent are those that
seek to offer what can be called a dy-
namic equivalent. The
prime mover in developing such transla-
tions, whether in
English or in other languages, has been
A.
Nida, long associated with the American Bible
Society.
Trained
in linguistics and competent in many related fields,
Nida has published
extensively13 and has prompted other schol-
ars to carry on
similar projects.
"Dynamic equivalence" is
defined as "the quality of a trans-
lation in which the
message of the original text has been so trans-
ported into the
receptor language that the response of the receptor is
essentially like that of
the original receptors. . . . The opposite
principle is formal
correspondence."14 More recently the term
"functional equivalence"15 has been used to
describe such a
quality in the
translation.
Whichever term is preferred, the process
involves the re-
wording of expressions
and customs not well known today. For
example in Psalm 23:5
the literal translation, "anointed my head
with oil," is
replaced with what is deemed to be its modern equiva-
lent, "welcomed
me as an honored guest." Applying the process of
dynamic equivalence in
translation, in 1966 the American Bible
13 For a
bibliography of Nida's publications from 1945 to 1975
see Language Struc-
ture and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida, selected and introduced by An-
war S. Dil
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 274-83.
14
(Leiden: Brill, 1969), 202.
15 So described in
the subtitle of the book by Jan de Waard and Eugene
A. Nida,
From One
Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating
(Nashville: Nelson, 1986). See also the
appendix entitled "Diverse Theories of
Translation," 182-87.
148
BIBUOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
Society
issued Robert G. Bratcher's rendering of the New Testa-
ment in Today's
English Version, under the title Good
News for
Modern
scholars, the translation
of the Old Testament was finished in
1976 and issued with the New Testament,
as the Good News Bible.
The
apocryphal or deuterocanonical books followed in
1979. The
version uses
contemporary American English, and has won wide
acceptance because of its
ready intelligibility.
The most recently produced translation
(1991) that embodies
"functional equivalence" is the American Bible Society's
Con-
temporary English
Version, under the title Bible for
Today's
Family. Originally
intended as an easily understood Bible for
young people, the
version was recognized as having appeal for a
much wider audience.
The New Testament, produced by Barclay
Newman
and others for the American Bible Society, is somewhat
similar to the Good News Bible; it is an idea-by-idea
translation
that arranges the
text in a sequence understandable to today's
readers of English. The
translators were also concerned about
using
gender-inclusive language for men and women.
PARAPHRASES
The difference between a translation and
a paraphrase may
be expressed as follows: A
paraphrase tells the reader what the
passage means, whereas
a literal translation tells what the pas-
sage says. Of course
a paraphrase can be useful, just as a com-
mentary is a useful
tool for Bible students. The first paraphrase
of the New Testament in English was
prepared by an Anglican,
Henry
Hammond (1605--1660), and entitled A
Paraphrase and
Annotations upon
all the Books of the New Testament (
1653).
In the following century Samuel Johnson commended this
pioneer work of English
biblical criticism. In the 20th century,
paraphrases have once again
attracted readers, first through the
publication of J. B.
Phillips's Letters to Young Churches
(1947),
followed by Kenneth S. Wuest's Expanded Translation
of the
Greek New
Testament,
3 volumes (1956-59). A few years later a
paraphrase of the entire
Bible was published through the Lockman
Foundation under the title The Amplified Bible (1962). This
contains comments,
enclosed within brackets, that clarify the
sense of the original
text. F. F. Bruce's characteristically care-
ful work appeared
in a volume entitled The Letters of Paul:
An
Expanded
Paraphrase (1965).
By far the most popular biblical
paraphrase has been Kenneth
Theories of the Translation Process 149
simplified, easy-to-follow
rendering in idiomatic present-day
English. At times,
however, the text is greatly expanded by imag-
inative details for
which there is no warrant in the original. A
clear example is Amos
1:1, where the first 16 words of a literal
word-to-word English
rendering (such as that of the American
Standard
Version) are expanded to 46 words. Sometimes in the
interest of smoothing
away a difficulty,
ranted liberties with
the text. For example, contrary to what the
Synoptic
Gospels report, John
found the donkey on
which He rode into
Bible
takes care of this problem by eliminating the passage.
SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS
Over the years preferences of style in
printing English have
changed. Neither in the
King James Version nor in subsequent
English
versions down to the 20th century have translators capi-
talized pronouns that
refer to Deity. It is only rather recently that
several translations
have adopted this practice, including the
Amplified
Bible, the
dard Version, and
the New King James Bible. Though such a
practice is thought to
show more reverence, it must be acknowl-
edged that there is
absolutely no such differentiation made in the
Hebrew or Greek text.
Furthermore where does one stop in
applying such a mis-
guided policy? If the
translator capitalizes third person pronouns
(he, his, him), what should be done with the relative
pronouns
(who, whom, whose)? Should one capitalize "you,"
even in
speeches of unbelievers
that are reported in the narrative, such as
Pilate's
question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" (Matt. 27:11)?
Such
problems as these indicate how inadvisable it is to follow the
practice of capitalizing
pronouns.
Another modernism introduced rather
recently in printed
Bibles
is the use of red ink for the words of Christ. The first such
New
Testament was the King James Version edited by Louis
Klopsch and issued by
the Christian Herald (
it was reprinted many times. During
the 20th century other pub-
lishers have issued a
variety of other versions in this manner.
Besides
passages in the Gospels, such editions, of course, also
print in red the
sayings attributed to Christ in the Book of Acts, 2
Corinthians, and Revelation.
Difficulties arise in ascertaining
the end of a conversation; in John 3
do the words of Jesus end at
verse 15 or at verse
21?
The advisability of the practice can be
debated. On the one
150
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April-June 1993
hand a different
color of ink may assist the reader to find more
quickly certain
familiar passages. On the other hand printing
the words of Christ in red not only
violates the unity of the text, but
also seems to lay a
greater emphasis on the report of what Jesus
said (as a teacher)
than on what He did (as the Savior).
Another difficulty confronts translators
today because of the
inability of modern English
to differentiate between "you" sin-
gular number and
"you" plural number. In earlier days "thou"
and "ye," with the
objective forms "thee" and "you," could repre-
sent exactly the
Hebrew or Greek text. Today it is necessary to
indicate in a footnote
(as the NRSV does) that the Greek word for
"you" is plural in Luke 14:24; John
Timothy
spoken to an
individual. In other contexts that mention several
persons, a footnote
indicates that the word "you" is singular in
number (e.g., Phile.
4-21).
CONCLUSION
One time at a meeting of his diocesan
clergy, Richard
Whately (1787-1863),
the Anglican Archbishop of
ished his hearers
when he held up a copy of the Authorized Ver-
sion of the Bible
and said, "Never forget, gentlemen, that this is
not the
Bible."' Then, after a moment's pause, he continued,
"This,
gentlemen, is only a translation of the Bible."16
What should one say about Whately's pronouncement? From
one point of view he was no doubt
correct. But from another point
of view one must also recognize the
truth in what the translators of
the King James Version forthrightly
declared in the preface to
their rendering:
We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow,
that the very meanest
translation of the Bible in
English, set forth by men of our pro-
fession, . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being
translated into French,
Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the
King's speech, though it be not
interpreted by every translator
with the like grace,
nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so
expressly for sense,
everywhere.... No cause therefore why the
word translated
should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to
be current,
notwithstanding that some imperfections and blem-
ishes may be noted in
the setting forth of it.17
16 Reported by
Henry Solly, "These Eighty Years," or, The Story of an
Unfinished
Life (London: Simpkin & Martall, 1893),
2:81.
17 The Translators to the Reader; Preface to
the King James Version 1611, 28-29.
:
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium