www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Diaconal admonition and its response at the Anaphora

This thread is intended as a study of the translation of the diaconal admonition and its response that takes place at the Anaphora.

Fr. David, explaining the work of the IELC has commented:

From Liturgical Reform in the Byzantine Church, Presentation to Catechists, Saturday, August 12, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, link [davidpetras.com] on his website link [davidpetras.com]:

And from an earlier post on this forum link:


I think we would all agree (?) that the translation in the1965 liturgicon needed to be reexamined. The 1965 liturgicon (aka Red book) has


The 2007 liturgicon (RDL) has for the admonition and response:


There is quite some controversy over the use and understanding of “Anaphora” in this admonition in the RDL, and I refer postings dealing with that topic here. For the purpose of this thread, the word anaphora in the admonition can be considered to be translated as before by oblation (or perhaps something else?). With this understanding, a comparison of the two translations shows a difference only in the first part of the people's response (except for a vs. the in the second part), i.e

1965: The offering of peace, (the)
2007: Mercy, peace, (a)

Both of these translations are to some extent the result of trying to clarify the enigmatic phrase that is in the received text in both the Recension Slavonic and the Greek versions used as the primary texts for both translations:

1. Slavonic [patronagechurch.com]

2. Greek [patronagechurch.com]

A straightforward, literal translation of the Slavonic and Greek, both of which have peace in the genitive is just Mercy of peace.

Neither the 1965 nor the 2007 translation gives this literal rendering. In attempting to clarify this literal rendering, the two translations take differing paths, each with pluses and minuses. The 1965 retains the genitive of the received texts but reads into mercy the meaning offering, which certainly fits the context but is clearly a different word. The 2007 here goes to a different reading than the received texts, as noted above by Fr. David, that being the Barberini Codex and corroboration by the referenced article by Fr. Taft:

3. Taft - Diaconal Admonition [patronagechurch.com]

There is also this, link:

These, then, are some relevant documents and background.

Initial questions and comments:

1. The last quote says “This is explained in more detail in: The response The offering of peace..” What is “The response” that is mentioned?

2. Taft’s work is from 1983. Is there anything more recent? Any follow-ups, errata etc. by Fr. Taft?

3. It is not clear to me why the Commission chose the Barberini reading; Taft is referenced but he gives no such explicit endorsement (I may be missing it.). If anything, he favors the accusative. That difference has no direct bearing on an (uninflected-English) translation, but it can influence interpretation. At any rate, why the “deliberate” choice of Barberini?

4. On the methodology of the IELC: link

Also, from the Foreword of the RDL liturgicon:

2007 Liturgicon Foreword

Yet, as sources 1 & 2 above – i.e. those mentioned in the foreword: “the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), ...[and] the Church Slavonic of the Služebnik (Rome, 1942)” -- indicate, “peace” is in the genitive not the nominative of Barberini or the accusative preferred (it seems to me) by Taft. [Taft dismisses the genitive, but I find him unconvincing (meaning, for me, "Taft said it" is not a sufficient answer here).] Regardless, this is at the level of textual criticism, and well beyond, even contravening “preferring the more literal meaning” of the received texts. Did the mandate of the IELC intentionally extend this far? Intentional textual modification of the received text(s) does not appear in the elements given in the foreword.

5. Taft presents data and conclusions and opinions. The data is sound and well organized. But I have misgivings about the validity of his conclusion and opinion about the form of the people's response from his study of the transmitted texts, thus my concern about how it may have influenced the RDL translation. Before saying more, however, perhaps there is a straightforward explanation or other comments on my summary or objections to my appraisal.

In the late 'sixties Father Vladimir Vanchik, of holy memory, called the problem of the people's response here to my attention. He preferred the reading "Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise".

The Old-Ritualists keep the reading "Mercy, peace, sacrifice and song", which is an interesting reading, although so far I've not found it in Greek.

Fr. Serge

Wouldn't "Milost' mira, zhertvu chavlenija" be translated as

"a merciful peace, a sacrifice of praise"?

Ung

That's a good translation Ung, but you have to use the Greek. ;-)

What is the Slavonic that they are translating this way?

My Slavonic language resources -- meaning reference books and ability -- aren't the greatest. The English "merciful peace" is an interesting proposal. In the Greek, peace is definitely in the genitive in the received text. For mir/mira mira seems to have the expected inflection for the genitive. To be strictly translated "merciful" I would have expected not milost' but something of the form milostiv.

Milost', mir, zhertva i pieniie.

Two more items for background:

link

As I said before, the RDL translation being based on Taft's article and also the choice of the Barberini Codex are ambiguous if not conflicting statements.

Also from Bishop Kallistos:

link [incommunion.org]

Fully aware of the bishop's magisterial stature, and respecting it, I think two of his points should be reexamined in light of Taft's study.

1. The warrant for his statement: "... in the correct text, “Mercy. Peace...If we consult the older Greek manuscripts we find, “Mercy. Peace. A sacrifice of praise."

2. He also states: "In fact in most churches they say, “a mercy of peace,” but that does not make very good sense."

Taft also in his article makes the same statement about the enigmatic phrase "mercy of peace" not making sense (in fact he makes a point of saying it twice in his article). It is also the common opinion of most if not all posts on this topic on this forum. In fact, it is said so often that surely it is true by now on that basis alone. And for that reason, in light of Taft's article, that OPINION should be critically reconsidered.

I found the following interesting:

"Now what is the meaning of this opening dialogue? Here is the explanation given by St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: “As we begin the actual celebration of the dread mysteries, the priest prays for the people and the people pray for the priest, for the words ‘and with thy spirit’ mean precisely this: Everything in the Eucharistic thanksgiving is shared in common. For the priest does not offer thanksgiving alone, but the whole people give thanks with him. For after he has replied to their greeting, they then give their consent by answering: ‘It is meet and right.’ Only then does he begin the Eucharistic thanksgiving.” So on the understanding of St. John Chrysostom, this opening dialogue exactly expresses our togetherness as we embark upon the central part of the Eucharist. The priest alone says the prayer of the Anaphora, but the people are directly and actively involved in everything that he does. And so, in this dialogue, the unity of priest and people in the shared action of the Liturgy is clearly underlined. The priest greets the people; they respond to his greeting:”The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” — “And with thy spirit.” This is mutual prayer, as St. John Chrysostom explains it. The priest then invites the people to raise their hearts on high; and the people respond by saying, “That is exactly what we’re doing!” And then the priest says, “Let us give thanks to the Lord,” and that could also be translated: “Let us offer the Eucharist to the Lord.” And the people say: “That is an excellent idea.” Only when they have responded in that way does the celebrant continue. The celebrant is, as it were, asking permission from the people to continue with the Eucharistic celebration. He needs their endorsement. He cannot act on his own. The prayer is theirs as well as his. Their active consent is indispensable. So the Eucharistic Anaphora begins with a dialogue because the Eucharist is, par excellance, the human action. We are eucharistic animals as human beings; and also, the human animal is essentially a dialogic animal — an animal that engages in dialogue. So what that dialogue before the Anaphora is expressing is just what I said a few minutes ago: I need you in order to be myself."

Fr. Deacon,

What do you feel is the correct translation?

Fr. Deacon Lance

This is a bit off topic, but why the added emphasis here?

That's the part I thought interesting. Many people were upset with oblation being changed to Anaphora and here Bishop Kallistos is commenting "Let us give thanks to the Lord" can be translated as "Let us offer the Eucharist to the Lord".

Fr. Deacon Lance,

The straightforward answer for me, without going into the textual criticism aspects for now, is to simply translate what is found in both the Slavonic and Greek of the received texts, those being also the stated two primary (if you will) sources for both the 1965 & 2007 translations (though in different order, but that doesn't affect this issue). As I alluded in the initial post:

I feel that is the correct translation.

Yes, thanks. That's what I was thinking but didn't want to presume. I'd like to come back to this point, but in the thread referenced above on that topic or perhaps a new one.

Since this is turning into a discussion of linguistic minutiae, might I suggest De minimis non curat praetor?

Fr. Serge

You certainly may so suggest -- in fact you just did -- but I don't know why? This is not trivial.

Then there is this comment from Archbishop Basil of Brussles:

"The same can be said about one of the first phrases of the Eucharistic Canon. It is read differently, at least in our time, by the Greeks and the Russians: 'Elaion eirhnhz, Qusian ainesewz, which means "Oil of peace, sacrifice of praise" (in Greek) and "Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise" (in Russian). It is obvious that this is the result of orthographic confusion that occurred in Greek manuscripts between the two words, which in Byzantine Greek, although written differently, were pronounced identically (although with different endings: elaion - oil and eleos - mercy). Similar confusions, called "iotacisms," occur very frequently. It is almost a certainty that the form elaion (oil) is the original and primary one, while eleos (mercy) is erroneous or more likely, a willful new introduction by a copyist who wanted to "enhance" the text. Here we see a classical example of the evolution of a literal Biblical text into a symbolic and a spiritualized one. This is the most unlikely case of a "reversed" evolution -- from a simple to a complex. Russian copyists and liturgists preferred the spiritualized form (mercy and not oil) and adapted it to the Slavonic Liturgy. However, it would be a mistake to think that it is precisely the Slavonic copyists to whom the "honor" of such "enhancement" belongs. This first occurred among the Greeks, and the witness to this is that Nicholas Cabasilas is well aware of this in his "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy" (14th century). Although he does not literally cite this passage but paraphrases it, his paraphrase shows that he reads it as "mercy" and not "oil." This becomes more evident in the following passage: "We offer mercy," Cabasilas says, "to Him Who said: I will have mercy and not sacrifice... We also offer the sacrifice of praise" (P.G. 150, 396 AB)."

http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/krivoshein-greekandrussian.html

Fr. Taft considers this reading, p 353:
The reading "oil" then is a later one that attempts to clarify the enigmatic "mercy of peace." I think Bishop Basil has the facts reversed and should reconsider. Taft's opinion that '"mercy of peace" is in fact meaningless' is open to debate and not further substantiated by him; but that he gives it explicitly of all the various readings as the one that needed to be changed and clarified (again in his opinion) also indicates that it must have been firmly in place.

The opinion that "mercy of peace" in this context is of dubious meaning is not unique to Father Archimandrite Robert.

What "Russian" language edition was Archbishop Basil of Brussels referring to? Russian liturgical texts are hard to come by, even now, since Church-Slavonic still reigns supreme.

Fr. Serge

I would think that if anything the context would point to the meaning of "mercy of peace" (at least that is what I'm advocating), especially since, as Taft notes, '"mercy of peace" is not found even once' (this is said it seems in the context of the LXX), p 353.

I can only repeat from my previous post:


And repeat and highlight yet again: "In fact, it is said so often that surely it is true by now on that basis alone. And for that reason, in light of Taft's article, that OPINION should be critically reconsidered."

This is a fascinating discussion.

All can agree that the 1964 translation of “Milost' mira” was not correct. But since there is no common agreement across the Church (Catholic and Orthodox) as to the exact meaning of this phrase then the literal transition ought to be used. If it is ambiguous in Slavonic it should be ambiguous in English. Anything other than a literal translation ought not to be considered until the entire Church (Catholic and Orthodox) comes to common agreement. There are plenty of examples where the latest scholarly opinions have proved to be wrong. Sticking with a literal translation until the whole Church acts together avoids problems.

To put this in perspective and to give some additional sources, it should be noted that this "linguistic minutiae" was the change noted by Fr. David for which references were provided in the form of the journal article by Fr. Taft in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, and the 8th c. Barberini Codex. Also, in his article in Logos, 39, (1998) p 334, Fr. Serge considers it as #19 of 28 translational issues and notes p 283 as background that "Certain words and phrases are of special interest;...During the 1998 Stamford symposium, Fr. Peter Galadza provided a list of eighteen such words and phrases, with the English translation of each as found in nine English versions. These words and phrases with some others as well are listed here." The response under consideration may not have been on Fr. Peter's list of 18 but even so, it is of that standing as indicated by inclusion at least in Fr. Serge's list; and considering those who have commented on it as indicated here and in previous posts, it is the kind of "minutiae" that has not been beneath the notice of the indicated luminaries.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Fr. Serge

I offer here some additional thoughts in the way of a summary and analysis and critique of Fr. Taft’s article [ Taft - Diaconal Admonition [patronagechurch.com]] in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 49, 340-365 (1986) entitled “Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradition,” especially concerning its bearing on the RDL.

First, it was a pleasure for me to read this very informative article and I appreciate Fr. David’s giving it for reference. Fr. Taft has done the work of true scholarship – he certainly doesn’t need my saying so, but I did want to say it. As happens in the case of scholarly disciplines, however, there can be instances of differing interpretations and applications of the facts, and the facts themselves are sometimes limited or disputed. In many instances, the honest scholar admits not knowing, and those who do claim to know disagree.

What should first be noted is the title of the article itself as indicating its primary thrust which is the admonition and not the response. If this article is the basis for making a change in the response from that which is found in the received text then it is rather arbitrary to ignore the primary analysis of the article, the form of the admonition, and its findings. The article makes a very good and strong case that the more "pristine" reading is one that has the holy anaphora/oblation in the dative and not the accusative of the textus receptus. Nevertheless, this dative reading is not followed in current usage and it is not found in the received (Roman edition) Slavonic (both Ruthenian and Volgata Recensions) and Greek texts. It is not followed (properly I’d say) in the 1965 or the 2007 translations, each of which here follows the form of the received text. [I think the dative form is very important in indicating the original or at least early intent of this admonition; this has a bearing on the present disagreements about the meaning and appropriateness of the translation “Anaphora” in the RDL – but as I’ve said, that’s the topic of another thread.] The dative gives the sense that we are to be attentive to the holy anaphora/oblation/“gifts” themselves and then to offer; the familiar accusative form is that we be attentive to offer the holy anaphora/oblation/ “gifts.”

I think Taft clearly makes his case; as he writes (the "variant" is the dative form, the textus receptus the accusative ), p 350:


Though this is the proper scholarly conclusion, i.e. the favoring of the dative reading, it does not or has not been seen as a justification for altering the received reading of the admonition which remains in the accusative.

That is the admonition. But what about the response?

(To be continued; comments welcome)

The Response

After presenting the documents and texts of the response (which he notes are tabulated), Fr. Taft gives his conclusion, pp 353-354. I repeat his points here to better focus on his findings (the Greek here due to a limited character set does not have the accents and breathing marks as given in the article).




Using A, N, G to stand for Accusative, Nominative and Genitive forms for each of the two words mercy and peace in that order (these are the same designations as given on p 344, just made explicit here for the two words to help keep track of things) the four considerations above address, respectively, the forms:

1) A-(A/G) rather than N-(N/G)
2) A-A vs. A-G
3) N-G
4) N-N

Of these, 1 and 3 state positions well demonstrated by the data. 4 deals with the form that includes the reading of the Barberini Codex mentioned as figuring into the RDL. This is an early witness to be taken seriously but ultimately is superceded, as Taft notes p 354, by this fact: “ that reading N is an Italian and Oriental peculiarity, finds support in our earliest witness to the complete text of this liturgical unit in Greek JAS.” Later he also notes p 356:“So between two sources less than a century apart we see the shift from nominative to accusative in the response. This priority of the nominative text is true, however, only in Oriental and Italian sources. Constantinopolitan-type sources invariably favor the accusative reading from the start, undoubtedly for stylistic and grammatical reasons.” [emphasis added] The other consideration is that the Barberini Codex gives only the incipits (i.e. the opening words only and not the complete phrase for the admonition and the response, i.e. the Barberini Codex gives only the first two words each of the admonition and the response; see link for the Barberini transcription [books.google.com]), and thus it cannot provide information in full on that reading and how the first two words of the response fit with whatever the form the admonition actually is intended to be in that Codex.

I would say then that Taft dismisses 3 and acknowledges 4 with honorable mention but also puts it out of further consideration. His analysis has the data favoring A over N as in 1; and in 2 he proceeds to evaluate the two forms A-A and A-G, offering considerations to resolve the priority of those two forms.

And this is the focus relevant to this study, the remaining item, point 2. What of these two forms then, A-A, and A-G?

(to be continued; comments are welcome)

(continuing from my previous post and referring back to it)

The two forms A-A, and A-G give rise to the two translations Mercy, peace and Mercy of peace respectively. Note, however, that the Mercy, peace form here is from a consideration of the A-A construction and not from the N-N construction of the Barberini Codex. Taft explains that the A-A form is more in line with grammatical expectations in that it is the anticipated/needed object of the verb form “to offer” especially for the dative form of the admonition as the more authentic “ pristine” reading (as he maintains). That is, in the usual form of the admonition, the object of to offer is already provided to some extent: to offer the holy anaphora/oblation. But the “pristine” dative form has be attentive to the holy anaphora/oblation to offer. The response then also functions to complete the admonition with what would be expected to be the direct object of to offer and therefore, according to standard grammar, should be in the accusative case (although some Greek verbs do take other cases as direct object; see also Taft's comment on the hapax legomenon, p 351). As Taft cautions, however, liturgical texts can also dispense with such niceties:


Nevertheless, the accusative form is the one to which he gives attention and, regarding the present translation, it is a coincidence that the A-A form gives the same rendering in English (since English has no inflection to distinguish nominative and accusative here) as the N-N of the Barberini reading listed in 4 (but, again, that is an artifact of the English). As stated above, this A-A form gives the reading, Mercy, peace. The A-G reading gives Mercy of peace, the form that is in the received (Slavonic and Greek) texts from Rome and what Taft calls the textus receptus.

So the considerations in his conclusion 2, given the appraisal in 1 [which I believe is correct if understood as referring to A-(A/G)] , is the one that needs to be considered further. And so, turning attention there and repeating that conclusion to bring it explicitly to the fore:


Here are the points (at the least) then as arrived at by Fr. Taft in his analysis, pro and con, that must be evaluated in making an informed decision on the text of the response and its translation.

To help in evaluating Taft’s arguments I’ve parsed his comments in 2 in order to denote his specific points. Repeating his conclusion 2 in this way, he says:

2.1 As for choosing between the accusative (ελεον ειρηνην) and the accusative-genitive (ελεον ειρηνης) as in the textus receptus, both sides of the balance seem about evenly weighted in Constantinopolitan-type sources.

2.2 But when the Italo-Greek (41) and Oriental sources are weighed in too,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3.0 there can be no doubt that the genitive ειρηνης is a later rhetorical flourish.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3.1 Its advantage is to provide stylistic balance with αινεσεως;
2.3.2 its disadvantage is that it renders the phrase meaningless.

2.4.1 "Sacrifice of praise" is a commonplace in the LXX (42),
2.4.2 but "mercy of peace" is not found even once.

I take these items as comprising two categories that overlap in 2.3 which is the reason for the dividing lines, the two categories being:

2.1 and 2.2 as pertaining to textual issues, relating to the sources themselves

2.3.1 to 2.4.2 as pertaining to stylistic concerns

For each point in that breakdown I would give the following evaluation regarding how it appraises each reading:

2.1 A-A and A-G equal
2.2 A-A preferred
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3.0 intended as disadvantage for A-G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3.1 A-G advantage
2.3.2 A-G disadvantage
2.4.1 infers a disadvantage for A-G
2.4.2 disadvantage for A-G

I’ll comment on the textual issues last. 2.3,0 is a statement that I see as involving both text-sources and style; for now I just raise the question of whether the explanation giving rise to ειρηνης can be simply dismissed as just something stylistic, a “rhetorical flourish”; I will come back to this point when considering 2.1 and 2.2.

Looking at the stylistic items first, specifically 2.4.

(To be continued)

Comments on Taft's comment in 2.4:

2.4.1 "Sacrifice of praise" is a commonplace in the LXX (42),
2.4.2 but "mercy of peace" is not found even once.

Regarding 2.4.1

I don’t think this is the correct point of comparison; in fact as stated it is prejudicial as a prelude for dismissing “mercy of peace” in 2.4.2. The reason is that "Sacrifice of praise" (2.4.1) is found as the last part of both the A-A and A-G readings. In that respect, whatever may be said of it, it is neutral. Taft says (p 353) "Sacrifice of praise" is a commonplace in the LXX (42) and gives examples (five verses are referenced). It is unquestionably found in scripture. To his type of examples can be added others e.g. Lev 7:12-15 and from the New Testament, which it seems he does not consider (he notes only “in LXX”), the very clear Heb 13:15 (αναφερωμεν θυσιαν αινεσεως ). So examples are certainly there but they do not indicate any preference for either A-A or A-G. Also, to better quantify his appraisal as“commonplace,” here is the breakdown I find, which includes all those referenced by Taft and some additional ones I found; also given are general or specific grammatical-case designations to better indicated the degree of correspondence to the actual liturgical-text forms. Using N, A, G as before for grammatical case, but now for this phrase with sacrifice and praise as the two words under consideration, I find (using basically Rahlfs’ LXX and the UBS NT):

A-G Ps. 49:14, 106:22; 115:8; Heb. 13:15

N-G Ps. 49:23

Various other related forms or with intervening words are: Lev. 7:12, 13; 2 Chr. 33:16; 1 Ma. 4:56; (Jer. 17:26; very remote); Lev. 7:15 sacrifices; 2 Chr. 29:31 of sacrifice and of praise

There are thus five solid examples (four of which Taft also lists); four of those have sacrifice in the accusative. Four of the five are from the LXX and all those are found only in three different Psalms. Whether this means commonplace or not is not directly relevant. If any one of the forms were found along with peace and mercy that would be a consideration. The finding is really neutral since it applies to the last part of the response that is common to both the A-A and A-G forms that are found in the first part of the response. That is, the two forms of the response are:

A-A, A-G: ελεον ειρηνην, θυσιαν αινεσεως

A-G, A-G: ελεον ειρηνης, θυσιαν αινεσεως

It is the first parts that should be compared to each other.

Regarding 2.4.2

The direct comparison is ελεον ειρηνην with ελεον ειρηνης. The latter phrase is a readily identifiable grammatical unit (A-G) that relates the two words, while the former is essentially just two words (A-A). Nevertheless, those are the two items that constitute a direct comparison of corresponding readings. I would look upon the A-A as a grammatical unit that is identifiable by the juxtaposition of the two words. At any rate it is a question that can be asked, and the scriptures can be queried for the result, just as was done for sacrifice of praise.

As Taft correctly notes, the A-G is not found; it is not a construction found in scripture. [The closest I found is just the one instance in Isaiah 54:10 ... so neither shall my mercy fail thee, nor shall the covenant of thy peace...; so this is quite remote.] What is the likelihood, however, of finding the two words (in Greek) mercy and peace in close proximity or juxtaposed as mercy, peace as found in the response?

I find a total of seven examples. There are four approximate examples (mercy and peace in the same verse though not together) in Tobit (Sinaiticus) 7:12; Ps. 84:11; Gal. 6:16; Jude 1:2.

Three examples give mercy, peace as in the response, although the case-form is N-N:

1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2 Jn. 1:3

These three are found in letters as a part of the salutation. I don’t find this lending support for the form in the liturgical text since its function in the liturgy is hardly a salutation (as it is in the letter examples from scripture); actually, if that’s the way it comes across, as a salutation, then it would indicate against that form in the liturgical context where it is a response (to an admonition). I found it somewhat surprising, in fact, that the two words mercy and peace do not occur together more often in scripture than they do.

My conclusion regarding 2.4: A scriptural usage is not established for either reading; consequently, there is NO support for either of the two readings on the basis of the considerations in 2.4.



Two additional remarks.

1. Taft notes on p 344: “the case of ελεος, which can be a nominative or a neuter accusative, as in Lk 1:72 and generally in the LXX and NT...” This is indeed so and an another variable. It seems there is a tendency for some words that have neuter grammatical gender in scripture to become masculine in later (Byzantine) use, and this is so for ελεος. All gender forms were considered in my results above. The accusative of the response as in 2.4 is ελεον indicating masculine accusative. [Neuter nouns have the same inflection in the nominative and accusative - - ελεος, ελεος; for masculine they are different - - ελεος, ελεον]

A familiar example is neuter nominative & accusative δειπνον /supper, found 27 times in scripture; but one finds in, for example, current iconography o μυστικος δειπνος / the mystical supper, the masculine nominative form, δειπνος, not found in scripture at all.

To quantify the different gender occurrences and to give a sense of the frequency of the word mercy itself in scripture: ελεος is found 279 times in 269 verses, 158 times in 154 verses as neuter accusative; masculine accusative ελεον occurs only 17 times in 16 verses. ειρηνη / peace occurs a total of 387 times in 355 verses; 124 times in 114 verses in the accusative.


2. All the occurrences of αινεσεως in the scriptural verses found in the analysis in 2.4.1 above have in the Hebrew, תודה / todah, which is routinely given in English as thanksgiving. The genitive of the potential candidate ευχαριστιας / eucharistias, however, which may seem a likely translation of the Hebrew, is not used in this context in the LXX, and is found only in prepositional phrases and then only in Sir. 37:11; Acts 24:3; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 4:3f. Other forms are more common and occur with greater frequency in the NT.


Turning to Taft's conclusion 2.3. (to be continued)

Comments on 2.3

Taft states:

2.3.0 there can be no doubt that the genitive ειρηνης is a later rhetorical flourish.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3.1 Its advantage is to provide stylistic balance with αινεσεως;
2.3.2 its disadvantage is that it renders the phrase meaningless.


Regarding 2.3.1

As stated, this speaks in favor of the genitive: the genitive form provides a stylistic element, and style is important. It produces a symmetry in the response and rhythm that even comes across in English: Mercy of peace, Sacrifice of Praise. That does not necessarily justify changing the text (if that is the case) but it does point to purpose (thought?) and intent. Oddly, however, the result is opposite of what conventional textual-criticism “norms” would expect for a change that “renders the phrase meaningless.” The dictum is that, other things being equal, the more difficult (though not absurd) reading is preferred (Lectio difficilior potior, “the more difficult reading is the stronger"). The reasoning is that if the pseudo-author scribe is going to “correct” a text it is to be expected that it would be done to make it more, not less, understandable. I relate this example (which I coincidentally have at hand), from The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy: The Moorhouse Lectures 1975, G. D. Kilpatrick, Cambridge University Press:1983, p 3:


Another is a mistake that is caused by repetition especially if influenced by alliteration. I was such an offender myself in a recent post (I saw the error only after my edit time had expired, otherwise I would have fixed it, so this isn’t a setup.): I was typing the intended word muckraking but instead type muckracking; influenced by the repetition of the “k” sound in the two words, I repeated typing the same letter combination. Thus one might expect under this type of influence, ελεον ειρηνης being mistakenly transcribed ελεον ειρηνην, but (probably) not the other way around.

All this doesn’t prove anything per se but that’s often the case in such things. But all the issues raised here, taken as points considered objectively, go to favor the genitive reading in my opinion:

1. better style
2. indicating intentional
3. more enigmatic reading
4. less likely than the A-A reading to be the result of a repetition error


What about 2.3.2, that Mercy of peace “renders the phrase meaningless”?

Regarding 2.3.2

Does the “ advantage” of the genitive form ελεον ειρηνης – as found in Taft’s textus receptus and our received Greek and Slavonic texts – that “provide[s] stylistic balance with αινεσεως” also exhibit the “disadvantage ... that it renders the phrase meaningless”? Is “Mercy of peace” meaningless in the given context of the admonition and response? How “meaningless” is it in comparison to its alternate reading “Mercy, peace” in that context? How meaningful is the response “Mercy, peace” in comparison?

The two responses that are to be compared are:

(1) Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise.

(2) Mercy, peace, sacrifice of praise.

Recall the context of the admonition which itself has two predominant readings, the “pristine” dative form as advanced by Taft [(I) below], and the accusative form of the textus receptus [(II) below]. Giving first the words common to both readings, the two admonitions are:

[common to (I) ans (II)]: Let us stand well, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive


(I) to the holy anaphora/oblation in peace to offer. [consider here both responses, (1) & (2) above]

(II) the holy anaphora/oblation in peace to offer. [consider here both responses, (1) & (2) above]

It must be keep in mind that for (II), what the English here cannot convey because of the word order, is that however one read this, “the holy anaphora/oblation” is marked (inflected) as would be a direct object (i.e. accusative case, presumably the object of “to offer”).

I’ve put this in the word order of the Greek and Slavonic to give a sense of how the phrase ends and leads into the response. In either case, especially (I), the ending word order suggests a conclusion, a direct object, and thus accusative case in the response [also, for the reading of (II) which already has a direct object provided]. (II) and English word order gives us also the standard phrasing, i.e. rearranging (II) for better sense in English:

Alternate (II): to offer the holy Anaphora/oblation in peace

Since, ultimately, it is a good English translation that is desired, while keeping the actual word order in mind, the comparison calls for using the alternate phrasings with the two responses:

... to offer the holy Anaphora/oblation in peace. Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise.
... to offer the holy Anaphora/oblation in peace. Mercy, peace, sacrifice of praise.

Again, the last part of the response is neutral, common to both readings, and fits in the context for either of the three forms of the admonition above, i.e. that we are “to offer the holy Anaphora/oblation,” and that we are to offer thereby a “sacrifice of praise.” Applying this to the first part, and with the reading (I) in mind: Is it the sense (or better sense) to offer “mercy, peace” or to offer “mercy of peace”?

The admonition also contains the word peace, specifically “in peace,” that is picked up by the response. The very first word of the response however, “mercy” seems to come out of nowhere, especially considering the immediate context. I can’t say, for me, that in the response “Mercy, peace,” just saying the isolated and interjected word “mercy” followed by the word “peace” (which is said in the admonition) conveys any inherent special meaning. It is true that because this two word unit in English says so little beyond the inherent meaning of the two words, that it can be inferred to have any number of meanings, thereby avoiding the charge of being meaningless. On the other hand, “mercy of peace” does soften the introduction of the word mercy by tying it to the word peace; it is relational. And that tying together does produce a new concept, a somewhat enigmatic phrase, an enhanced image over just saying as a response “mercy, peace.” In what way does “Mercy, peace” balance and lead into “sacrifice of praise”? On the other hand “Mercy of peace” introduces mercy by associating it with peace, and the admonition is that we are to offer not “peace” itself by “in peace.”

One could try to rationalize the meanings further, but considering that this is an admonition and a response to it - - the latter having the form of something like an acclamation - - being what they are, delving into such details of the words may not be entirely warranted. But I did want to indicate that questions arise about the meaning and function of both forms not just the one.

But the real challenge for “mercy of peace” is presented by Fr. Taft’s, p 353, 'the later reading “mercy of peace” is in fact meaningless' and also “the genitive ειρηνης is a later rhetorical flourish ... that... renders the phrase meaningless”; and Bishop Kallistos’s appraisal: ‘In fact in most churches they say, “a mercy of peace,” but that does not make very good sense.’

I offer for consideration then in support of a meaning for the reading “mercy of peace” two literary examples, and a possible explanation and interpretation from within the broad context of our current liturgy.

(To be continued; comments welcome)

Following are two contemporary examples utilizing the phrase “mercy of peace,” each in its context, one being a translation of an ancient source.

From Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament Ib. Thomas C. Oden, Gen. Ed., p 127-128, comments on Mat 21:1-17, excerpt from Severus of Anioch, link [books.google.com]:



The referenced volume of Patrologia Orientalis was not available for me to check for a transcription in Greek (I suspect the original is in Syriac; the English above may be from a French translation) which would have been informative, but ultimately it is the English usage itself, provided above, that furnishes the necessary corroboration.

A second example is one for which the State of Connecticut (at least that's the view on the website of the Connecticut State Library) appears to be quite proud, characterizing it as “famous”:

full text link [cslib.org]


(More can be said about this proclamation regarding its style and vocabulary, and the subsequent evolution or degradation of our language and literary expression -- but not here.)

I also offer for consideration this example and interpretation from the Liturgy.

In our liturgy we often pray “Lord have mercy” or “have mercy on us.” A common introduction for a prayer offered by the priest, in many of the various services, is the diakonika “Let us pray to the Lord” with the response “Lord have mercy.” This is very common, so common that I wonder if we every stop to think what we are saying and what it means.

Why is the response, "Lord have mercy"? Consider especially the repeated requests involving peace: the very first petition in the litany (cf. Litany of Peace, 2007 Liturgicon, p 36ff) and the small litanies: “In peace let us pray to the Lord,” “Again and again in peace let us pray to the Lord” which itself is said again and again in the Divine Liturgy and elsewhere (just think of Matins of Pascha). And even the second petition has “For peace from on high...” and the third, “For peace in the whole world...” with the familiar “Lord have mercy” response. Why do we ask for mercy from the Lord following an admonition for praying in peace followed by specific requests for peace? What is this mercy that we are asking of the Lord so frequently in these petitions? Is it not the “mercy of peace”?

There are two further considerations of style concerning the sense of “mercy of peace” that should be commented on before turning to the textual-criticism conclusions of Fr. Taft (see previous post above): (1) specifying its grammatical form; and (2) the grammatical range and meanings of mercy.

Two Further Considerations


(1) A further clarification of the meaning of “mercy of peace” is that it may be understood and read as a substantive genitive. In such a construction, the last word serves as the substance of the first; the first word gives the context or a further description of the last. Some familiar examples from Scripture are Acts 2:38, 10:45, the “gift of the Holy Spirit”: the Holy Spirit is the gift itself, and it is not that a gift, something else, is given by the Spirit. Another less edifying example is Mar 5:11, a “herd of swine.” A colloquial example is the phrase a bouquet of roses. For the A-G response form “mercy of peace,” peace is (God’s) mercy, granted us by Christ the Lord as we have petitioned. As the admonition states, standing well and attentive to our liturgy (our leitourgia/rendered-service; see Num. 4:24, 27f, 33; 2 Chr. 31:4; 35:10, 16; Phil. 2:17), we offer not only in peace (the admonition), but the offering, the oblation that is also Christ’s “Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise” (the response; see also details below).

(2) Previously I spoke about the response of the litany and asked about its meaning. The familiar response, Lord have mercy, in Greek is Κυριε ελεησον / Kurie, eleēson; eleēson is a verb (imperative aorist active 2nd person singular from ελεεω / eleeō) and I don’t think we have anything like it in English, i.e. mercy as a verb. Imagining mercy as a verb, expressions like Psalm 6:3, for example, are very direct and active – mercy(imperative) me Lord – rather than the English that has more a sense of bestowing leniency: have mercy on me Lord. Another example, Mat 9:27, the blind mens' “mercy us.” In the response under consideration, mercy is a noun not a verb, but both these related Greek forms for mercy come into play, rather consistently, but in expressing a range of meanings and words in the Hebrew.

A good example, a favorite of mine, is at the beginning of Psalm 50 (51) said by the deacon as he incenses at the beginning of the liturgy and at the cherubicon. Allowing mercy to function as both verb and noun to mimic the Greek (where the forms, however, are not exactly the same), gives

Mercy/ελεησον /eleēson me God according to your great mercy/ελεος/eleos ...

In the Hebrew of the MT, however, two different words are found for the word mercy, and this correspondence seems very consistent throughout the LXX. The verb form is the word khanan/חנן and the noun form the word khesed/חסד. Both can mean mercy but with different nuances; I would characterize khanan as more a sense of gracing or being gracious, and khesed, as it is often translated, loving-kindness or steadfast-love (even fervent; it is also the base of the designation Hasidic). The latter noun form is found in the Hebrew of the polyeleos Psalms [134, 135 (135,136)] and Psalm 117 (118) etc., usually rendered "For His mercy endures forever" but to illustrate the correspondence of the different words, maintaining the Greek and Hebrew (though here written left to right) word order:

for/as____forever/ unto the age(s)___the mercy of Him
hoti_______eis ton aiōna(singular)____to eleos autou
ki________________l-olam_______________khasdo

Thus Fr. Hopko comments that our prayer, then, “is not a simple plea for pardon, but a supplication that God continue to show His love to us.” [Fr. Thomas Hopko, The Lenten Spring, Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983, p.62]

One last comment - - before the final consideration of the textual issues - - on style, and this is a matter of taste and interpretation. I like rhetorical structure and the ancient writers were certainly its practitioners (chiasm, inclusio, the "Markan sandwich," etc.). Fr. Taft mentioned this issue in his article specifically, the “rhetorical flourish,” and he also considered the phrasing of “mercy of peace” relative to "sacrifice of praise" as found in the LXX. I commented on this and discussed it previously. Along the same lines used by Taft, the rhetorical structure that is accomplished by the A-G form versus the A-A is

A-G (a parallel structure suggesting perhaps a correspondence of terms)
mercy of peace
sacrifice of praise

A-A (three terms)
mercy, peace, sacrifice of praise

The A-G form suggests the parallel phrasing and correspondence of mercy/eleos with sacrifice/thusia. Searching the Greek scripture as before, besides the already considered combinations of mercy-peace and sacrifice-praise, there are no single verse examples with more than two of the four words. Besides the two word combinations already considered, others that are found are remote except for the combination mercy-sacrifice as in the A-G form. And this is the familiar Hosea 6:6 which, significantly, is echoed in part in Mat 9:13, 12:7.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy/steadfast love and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

The structure of the Greek here in Hosea is very suggestive of the parallel mercy-sacrifice, but as opposing concepts. Was/is this allusion also suggested by the A-G form of the response? I wouldn’t mind thinking yes, and that the A-G response in the liturgy calls attention to the harmony of mercy/steadfast love, the knowledge of God, with sacrifice(ritual) that is now achieved in our liturgy and which Hosea, in his time, lamented as incompatible.

Before turning to the textual issues, since I have provided an interpretation of the genitive reading, I would add here an interpretation of the response given by Fr. Taft; pp 363-364, presumably with the A-A reading that he advances especially in mind:


This interpretation could equally apply to the A-G version as I have interpreted it in previous posts.

The Texts

In an earlier post I characterized Fr. Taft’s conclusions as comprising two categories which I called textual and stylistic; and that these overlap in item 2.3 according to the breakdown I proposed. I have already commented on the stylistic elements. Repeating Fr. Taft’s conclusions for the textual items:

2.1 As for choosing between the accusative (ελεον ειρηνην) and the accusative-genitive ελεον ειρηνης) as in the textus receptus, both sides of the balance seem about evenly weighted in Constantinopolitan-type sources.

2.2 But when the Italo-Greek (41) and Oriental sources are weighed in too,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3 there can be no doubt that the genitive ειρηνης is a later rhetorical flourish.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For each point in that breakdown I gave the following evaluation regarding how it appraises each reading:

2.1 A-A and A-G equal
2.2 A-A preferred
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3 intended as disadvantage for A-G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.1 is neutral. 2.3 makes two statements that are not necessarily coupled: that the genitive reading is a stylistic “flourish” and that it is of later vintage. I have already discussed the stylistic “flourish” aspect and argue that it supports the genitive reading.

What is left then to consider is the conclusion that:

(1) “Italo-Greek (41) and Oriental sources” tip the balance in favor of the A-A reading

(2) that the A-G reading is of “later ” provenance.

To probe this further it is necessary to examine the Tables in Taft’s paper. First, however, another dictum of textual criticism must be noted and, once again, I’ll turn to The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy, Kilpatrick,, p 30:


So, in commenting on the data in the tables, I intend to defer to Fr. Taft’s evaluation of the weight of the evidence, although I may of necessity have to resort to a preponderance of evidence approach to at least raise some questions that highlight the need for further considerations. Also, the tables are arranged to address the stated primary concern of the paper as indicated by its title, the diaconal admonition. The tables then are for the cases:

Table I: the dative reading of the admonition and the accompanying responses for that reading
Table II: the accusative reading of the admonition and the accompanying responses for that reading
Table II: a variety of sources that give incomplete evidence of the form of the admonition and arranged according to the form of the response

One additional feature of the Tables I and II is noted by Taft in his conclusion about the admonition, p 350:


(last entry of the "blog" to follow)

The significance of the 11th-century is that it is the dating of the earliest reading that has the accusative form of the admonition (see Table II). Going to Table I and drawing a line above the 11th century heading separates Table I into a latter part where, for the indicated datings, dative readings are found that are contemporary with the accusative ones of Table II (based on the available mss evidence). The other part of Table I, above that line, has the oldest readings for which there are no corresponding ones in Table II (the accusative form of the admonition). For those 8th-10th century manuscripts, as indicated in Table I, two give the A-A reading for the response, but two also give the genitive – mixed, i.e. one N-G and the other the A-G of the textus receptus. Nevertheless, the genitive form of the response is clearly attested in these early readings, ones that in part establish the dative reading as advanced by Taft. I don’t see, then, how the genitive can be construed simply as a later flourish.

It is seen from Tables I and II alone that the response textus receptus reading, i.e. the A-G form, either has parity with or predominates the A-A on the basis of frequency. This is probably to be expected of what is characterized as the textus receptus, the product of the vicissitudes of history and circumstances, and for better or worse emerges in the end. Especially by the time of the later entries of Table II the outcome favoring A-G (finally determined, perhaps, by who had the best printing establishment) has become apparent. That elements of style and rhetorical function may have had an influence in the latter is possible but even if so they do not nullify the earliest witness to the genitive form. So, “rhetorical flourish”, yes; but just “later”, no.

This also carries through to the final point concerning the response: (1) “Italo-Greek (41) and Oriental sources” tip the balance in favor of the A-A reading . This is not readily apparent in looking at the tables. The indicated note (41) also is a caveat in that it states: “See Tables I, II, III above. However the Italo-Greek editio princeps, which departs from the editio princeps of Doucas (Rome 1526) in its preservation of local Calabrian uses, has the textus receptus of both admonition and response (p. 14).”

Finally - - yes finally - - there is that very first, oldest, entry in Table I. It is a reading that (not merely four words, e.g. incipits only as in the Barberini Codex; see p 342) gives the complete text of the admonition and the response (interspersed with commentary, but identifiable; see link [books.google.com], the “Historia Mystagogica and Other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy,” Brightman J., Theol Studies. 1908; os-IX: 387-397, Taft’s reference 5, p 342 ). It thus provides a complete and integral reading of the admonition-response text (I would think this textual-criticism gold). It is a text of the admonition that is considered as “pristine.” The A-G reading is there with it. That “pristine” dative reading of the admonition dissipated with time yielding to the accusative reading of the textus receptus and our received Greek and Slavonic texts; the A-G response persevered along with that change.

It is inconsistent, if not arbitrary, if not actually uncalled for, to introduce via translation an alteration from a received A-G response, while not also modifying the admonition which does (at least) have a clearer scholarly foundation.

The reading “Mercy of peace” is not meaningless, it has rhetorical panache, verve. It is there at the very beginning, the 8th century, the first item in Table I for the dative admonition form; it is there in the earliest entry in Table II with the accusative admonition form. It is in the textus receptus and in the received Rome, 1950 Greek, and Volgata Slavonic. And, most directly, it is in the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension text. What more can be asked of a liturgical phrase in terms of early witness, endurance and ubiquitous presence (see also Tables I-III)?

It is, however, not the reading in the RDL. I can only ask again, why?

The Armenian Liturgy provides a bit more context:

Celebrant: Let us conduct in awe, let us conduct in reverence, let us comport well, and let us keep ourselves in vigilance.

Deacon: In your presence, O God.

Celebrant: The sacrifice offered is Christ, the Lamb of God!

Deacon: Mercy, and peace, and a sacrifice of blessing.

Thus Christ is Mercy, Peace, and Sacrifice.

I can only recommend that the translators of the Armenian liturgy adhere to the language of their received text (presuming it is in good order) in rendering into English, and that that is what they have done. We should do the same for ourselves. Thereafter, proper inferences and meanings can be drawn.

In the case of the RDL that was not done (here) as objective fact, nor in methodology. The stated RDL process looked to two basic texts from Rome, the Greek version and the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension giving, incorrectly in my opinion, precedence to the Greek. It is a moot point here, however, since both received texts give the same reading, but it is Mercy of peace and not the RDL's Mercy, peace.

The reading Mercy, peace is found in other manuscripts and the RDL result appears based on a very fine study of Fr. Taft and the ancient witness of the Barberini Codex. Taft's study, however, primarily focuses on the diaconal admonition and not the response, and the RDL doesn't follow (correctly I would say for translating a legitimate received text) the scholarly conclusion. Nor does it at least follow Taft's preference in choosing the accusative reading for the response but, it seems as though name dropping, cites the Barberini Codex, which gives the reading used in the RDL but in the nominative -- same result in English but not consistent. The clincher is that the text of equal antiquity to the Barberini Codex, the oldest witness to the pristine reading of the admonition that Taft advances, that gives the text of both the admonition and response in full (unlike Barberini that gives only the incipits) has for the response the reading of the two present received texts, Mercy of peace. And that reading also is the most numerous and the most primitive for the other, the received version of the admonition.

Some have said Mercy of peace does not make sense, but there are interpretations as good, if not better, than those for the reading Mercy, peace... And legitimate, literary examples of the use Mercy of peace are known.

Given all this, objectively, without being arbitrary but in fidelity to the received text, why choose other than Mercy of peace?

What I am suggesting is perhaps we must look beyond our own tradition to others who share common origin with us, like the Armenians, to help decipher what is the more ancient text?

I agree that we should want to know what we can about the development of the Church's liturgies. The ancient text is not, however, the end or goal for our present liturgy. The whole sense of tradition, the very meaning of the word -- traditio, paradosis – is something that is handed on, but not something that is stagnant. The liturgy is not a museum piece. And so what is received can develop in an organic way as it is handed on.

That the reading Mercy of peace is found in the most ancient textual witness is not the determining factor in my analysis. It is a strong corrarborating factor but really should not be required for the question at hand. If it were just a matter of the "pristine" ancient text then if anything the admonition should be altered to read let us be attentive to the holy oblation, in peace to offer and not as in the received text let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation in peace. No one is saying this should be changed to reclaim the pristine reading.

So my point is, if we have a received text that is in good order (not tainted by corrupted texts or questionable, alien influences) we should simply adhere to it. I hold that the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension is just such a text for us today. It is THE legitimate tradition. One should not need the argument for the antiquity of the reading. In this case it is certainly nice to have it since I doubt most would be convinced by the argument from tradition, the handing on of the received Recension text, alone, although that is, to me, the proper and obvious approach.

About eight years ago I was speaking with a member of the IELC and asked him an unintended question: Were they preparing a critical edition that would accompany the actual text. He rightly answered (as I recall) that a critical edition was outside the mandate of the IELC for the translation. I realized that I used the wrong word, intending rather to have asked were they going to prepare an annotated version that would document and explain the changes or points of difficulty and what factors were considered in the ultimate renderings. What we have here in the RDL, it seems, in a critical-edition type alteration, with an unconvincing explanation for why it was done.

Why?

Is it really good for one local Church to destroy the liturgical unity of the Byzantine Rite in a misguided attempt to recreate what a few might consider a better Liturgy?

Would not such an effort be the job of the entire Byzantine Church working together?

Is the liturgical unity of the holy Churches of God something so unimportant that it should be ignored as it has with the invention of the Revised Divine Liturgy? [No other Greek Catholic nor any Orthodox Church has mandated such revisions to the Divine Liturgy.]

Why is the liturgical unity of the Byzantine Church - both among Ruthenian Catholics, other Byzantine (Greek Catholics) and the Orthodox so unimportant that it was tossed away? As important as these discussions of the details of the Revision are we must not forget the higher level questions that affect the entire Church.

What was so horribly unpastoral about the full and authentic Ruthenian Divine Liturgy - what all the other Orthodox and Byzantine Cathoilcs hold dear - that it could not be permitted? This question has been asked numerous times and has never been answered.

"The Byzantine Liturgy Anaphora is introduced, as in the Roman Rite (Canon) and the other Liturgies, with a dialogue between bishop or priest and people.
Before the dialogue starts, the deacon admonishes the people to stand properly: "Let us stand aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive to offer the holy oblation in peace." To this invitation, the people respond with a phrase that has caused some misunderstanding: "Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise," translating literally llie Greek text, but what could this mean? We are helped by the Armenian Liturgy, where we find this translation: "Mercy, peace, sacrifice of praise." Those three terms are in apposition to the word "oblation" in the preceding phrase of the deacon; thus, the meaning of the people's response is: "(The holy oblation which is) mercy, (is) peace, (is) sacrifice of praise."

From: The Evolution Of The Byzantine Liturgyby Fr. Juan Mateos, S. J.
Originally published in: John XXIII Lectures. Vol. I. 1965. Byzantine Christian Heritage. John XXIII Center For Eastern Christian Studies. Fordham University, New York (Bronx), N. Y. 1966.

Father Deacon Lance,

I am not sure how your post addresses my questions on liturgical unity. We can certainly use scholarship to help us understand the current texts, but seeking understanding (which is good) does not justify creating liturgical disunity by unilaterally changing texts (or avoiding common translations whenever possible).

I am not opposed to the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) someday changing the Slavonic text (the 1942 text being normative for Ruthenians as well as being common to others), based upon a combination of prayerful scholarship and organic development.

My point is about unity. Any changes to the structure and text of the Divine Liturgy should be made by the entire Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) working together (slowly admitting and documenting organic development). To make changes unilaterally introduces seeds of liturgical disunity. Why sow seeds of disunity?

What is so unacceptable about this premise, given by both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam, that directs us to preserve and restore liturgical unity? No one is willing to answer this question and it does need to be answered.

John

John,

Unacceptable? I don't think it is unacceptable. I think it is simply impractical, unworkable and ultiamtely impossible. If the Orthodox can't get it together and produce a common English translation or set of rubrics, Eastern Catholics and Orthodox together aren't going to produce one. I therefore think it acceptable for autonomous churches to correct texts and modify rubrics as they judge to be needed. I don't think liturgical differences mean liturgical disunity. The word organic is thrown around quite a bit, well nothing is more organic than for something to adapt to different environments. To me it is only natural, organic if you will, that after time and in different places the Byzantine Liturgy will differ.

And just a note on normative texts, I think if you research you will find that Rome considers the Greek text normative for all Churches of the Byzantine tradition, the Slavonic text only being normative for texts not found in Greek.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

I agree it will be some time before all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) can agree to common translations of common texts. Until such time I see it as very practical, very workable and very possible for us – when correcting our translations that are incorrect – to simply adopt common translations where they exist. In this case “mercy of peace” is a common translation for the Slavs, is a correct translation of “milost mira” and could easily have been used. Changing it to something new most certainly does further liturgical disunity. [And there was absolutely no need for rubrical changes. Liturgical disunity - or, rather, creating a different identity then our own - appears to have been a purposeful motive in the Revision.] True textual updates based upon correcting what is actually incorrect in the Church Slavonic can wait until we can work together.

As to your point about organic growth meaning adapting to different environments I strongly disagree (but your point is not overly clear so maybe there is no actual disagreement here). One just doesn’t rewrite the texts based upon the idea that it is organic to adopt the Liturgy based upon the needs of the people. The Liturgy is the transmitter of faith and doctrine. It needs to be translated in an exactingly correct manner so as to raise up the people. One does not dumb down the Liturgy. [See my earlier point based upon LA., specifically those given in the quote box under "A. “Global”/“Over-Arching” Principles".]

The normative base texts are all in Greek? I will again disagree. It was Rome’s clear intention to produce and publish a normative Church Slavonic text for the “Ruthenian Recension” (and it did just that with the 1942). Remember that later at Vatican II the Holy See required Bishop Nicholas Elko to produce a translation of that text. It was made from the Church Slavonic because that was normative. Rome has not issued anything directing otherwise. But maybe you are aware of an official and normative Greek edition of the Ruthenian recension and can provide it, together with the directives from Rome stating such? One cannot simply point to the assorted Greek texts without providing specific directives on which exact texts are normative for Ruthenians,and were the base text used to prepare the 1942 Divine Liturgy in Slavonic (as well as the rest of the Ruthenian liturgical books).

John

I am mystified by the characterization of "misunderstanding" of a simple, somewhat enigmatic, but hardly incomprehensible phrase. I have given intelligible examples of its use in English. That somehow a combination of the four words, where there are two words and a phrase in "apposition" and not just two phrase somehow clears the whole matter up is simplistic. And so what, that the Armenian Liturgy has it a certain way; why should we follow their textual tradition rather than our own?

Fr. Mateos, certainly to be respected and an authority, is writing here in 1965, 18 years before Fr. Taft's detailed 1983 study of the relevant Byzantine manuscripts. The comments of Fr. Mateos would need reconsideration on that basis, especially his "in apposition" explanation.

Then what has the IELC/RDL done? For the case in point, the topic of this thread, both the Greek and Slavonic have the same normative phrase, Mercy of peace, but the RDL has Mercy, peace.

Also, the RDL (correctly I would say) follows the Ruthenian Recensian as normative in the rendering (at the elevation of the diskos and cup) of its text that has Offering rather than the We offer as found in the Greek and the Volgata.

John,

As to Greek being the normative base text we have:

Ex Quo Primum:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14EXQUO.HTM

as well as the letter of the Oriental Congregation to the Ruthenian bishops upon publishing the Ruthenian Recension books:

"4. Considering, though, the private origin of these modifications from which the Holy See was always aloof and considering the firm will of the Supreme Pontiffs, more than once expressed, even in recent documents, to guard the integrity of the Oriental Rites, it has been judged opportune to follow readings of the older texts, taking care to adhere as much as possible to the (Greek) text of Benedict XIV, especially for what pertains to the rubrics. Thus it has been desired to remain faithful to the recommendation of that Pope, when, having approved the Roman edition of the Greek Euchologion in 1754, he recommended it to all the Bishops of the Byzantine Rite in the Apostolic Constitution Ex quo primum of March 1, 1756.

I would also note that when the OCA translated their Liturgicon in the 1960s the translated it from the Greek, not from the Slavonic.

This only makes sense. If one is going to translate the Pslams, for example, he is going to translate from the Greek Septuagint Psalter, not the Slavonic one.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Both the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Liturgicon have: "Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως", which the Greek Orthodox translate: "Mercy and peace, a sacrifice of praise."

Why then do they render it that way, with the and? What does Ἔλεον εἰρήνης actually mean, i.e. what does it literally say? Is εἰρήνης not a genitive, i.e. "of peace"? The expected Greek word for and in Greek και/kai; is it found anywhere in the referenced Liturgicon's response?

The issue is not the Greek, it is the goodness of the translation, and the unwarranted autonomy some translations/translators presume of themselves -- for instance, someone changing what I just said to read "translations/translators presume and themselves". In this case a flag goes up since it doesn't make sense, but that's the equivalent, in terms of fidelity to grammar and meaning, of saying Ἔλεον εἰρήνης is Mercy and peace. Mercy and peace happens to also make sense, but is it automatically legitimate on that basis, that it makes sense even though it doesn't say what the original says?

Can anyone provide the quote from Mateos where he actually suggests that the text / translation be changed?

In the text the deacon quoted Mateos seeks understanding. There is no evidence that he is demanding change.

This appears to yet be another example of where the committee has misused scholarship to advance personal agendas. And they got it wrong since the RDL text does not convey even the understanding that Mateos was trying to get to in what the deacon quoted. The whole RDL is so dated. It does nothing more then adopt some ideas that were avant guarde in the 1970s but were mostly passed by with additional scholarship. Hasn't anyone on the committee opened a book that was published since the 1970's?

According to Ex Quo Primum, a new Greek Euchalogion is to be used instead of the previous faulty (Greek) editions, but I'm not seeing normative in the sense stated above. Here is Ex Quo Primum:

I do agree, "more faithful to the original" is the goal.

[emphasis added]

So the Slavonic of the Recension conforms to the Greek in that it is only intended "to adhere as much as possible to the (Greek) text of Benedict XIV." The primary responsibility then should be to translate the traditional text, the text that is handed on to us, the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension, since (within this context) the Congregation has already taken the Greek text into consideration.

If just translating from the original is paramount, then what makes sense is to translate the Psalms from the original, Hebrew. Patriarch Nikon also thought that Geek means original and therefore the truest. He was not correct, having misinterpreted, oversimplified and misjudged the issue.

Ex Quo Primum, for instance, correctly notes concerning the Barberini Codex:
Yet, the Barberini Codex reading is NOT the one given as the Rome 1950 Greek text. Nor is it the reading in the Slavonic of the Recension for which the Oriental Congregation, as stated in the quote “judged opportune to follow readings of the older texts, taking care to adhere as much as possible to the (Greek) text of Benedict XIV, especially for what pertains to the rubrics.” This has resulted in the present Greek and Slavonic texts from Rome that have Mercy of peace and not Mercy, peace as in the RDL.

I don't see how that can be infered at all. It seems clear everything is to be translated from the Greek except that which does not exist in Greek.


That would be true if we had a Hebrew text older than the Septuagint. We don not, so Septuagint it is. Also Patriarch Nkion was relying on corrupted Greek texts not authenticated ones like Codex Barberini



But this particular rendering of the RDL is the Barberini rendering. I don't know why the 42 Slavonic or 50 Greek don't follow it but from the info presented they should have and the RDL does.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I didn't say he demanded change, I only provided the excerpt as a rationale behind the change.

Fr. Deacon Lance

You are saying it, but I'm not seeing it -- not in Ex Quo Primum, Tisserant's letter from the Oriental Congregation, or the Preface of the 1965 English Liturgicon. I just don't see that translation directive expressed. The RDL does put Rome's 1950 Greek first in line, but the reading in that text is in the Greek "Mercy of peace."

The Septuagint is itself a translation of what? The Hebrew "original." The textual witness of the Hebrew and Greek is another and complicated issue. Antiquity of the text is not the sole issue.

Why follow Barbreini? Ex Quo Primum itself noted that there were other manuscripts that were to be considered. Is the Euchologion of Benedict XIV in print? What does it give for the admonition and response?

Why did the RDL depart from the two standard texts -- Greek and Ruthenian Recension Slavonic -- that it acknowledges in its Foreword and, going beyond translating the given texts, choose another reading?

I would have thought this means literally 'a mercy *of peace* (genitive of mir is mira). I am a fair student of Russian and though it is not Church Slavonic or Rusyn it has a lot in common.

Indeed, as stated in the initial post of this thread:

But the question then arises, "Which Hebrew original"? There was no definitive Jewish canon of Scripture in the first century. Judaism was a polyvariant religion (with many more than the "three schools" outlined by Josephus), and each had its own favored canon. There were at least three or four Hebrew editions in circulation, based on scrolls and other papyrological evidence; some were closer to the Septuagint, others to the Masoretic, and some a mix of the two. There were other Greek translations besides the Septuagint, and there were also Aramaic translations in circulation. All of them were considered authoritative by the sects that used them. And, of course, not all of the books that ended up in the Septuagint were originally written in Hebrew. Some of the Deuterocanonicals were written in Aramaic (Hebrew having passed out of use as a spoken language during the Babylonian Captivity), and some in a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew. The present Masoretic text did not reach its present form until some time after the fourth century; some place it as late as the ninth century. The Septuagint is therefore considerably older than the Masoretic, and actually preserves more closely what the majority of Jews considered to be Scripture in the time of Christ.

In other words, there was no "original Hebrew text" to which one can refer; like "Q", it is an intellectual construct. In addition to which, the Church itself decided the Septuagint was its definitive canon of Jewish Scripture--something that goes back to the New Testament itself, where the overwhelming majority of quotes, citations and paraphrases from the Old Testament are right out of the LXX. The Apostles saw the LXX as their Scriptures, and we cannot depart from their norm. Jerome, God bless him, was dead wrong.

With regard to liturgical texts, most scholars agree that the oldest Slavonic manuscripts preserve an older stratum of the Byzantine rite than the extent Greek texts. The Slavs, being isolated, did not evolve their liturgical practices as rapidly as the Greeks, and were far less subject to outside influenced. They stood still, the Greeks changed. Scholars do not use the Greek texts to check on the meaning or accuracy of the Slavonic texts, they use the Slavonic texts to check on the accuracy and meaning of the Greek texts.

[quote=StuartKlike "Q", it is an intellectual construct. [/quote]

Thank you for pointing out that the "Q" source is merely a construct. A whole genre of bad Scripture "Scholarship" is built around "Q", as if it really existed out there, somewhere.

Dn. Robert

A very good point. A good friend of mine is OCA Orthodox (but a former Ruthenian Greek Catholic). His son just graduated with a degree from St. Tikhon of Zadonsk Seminary in South Canaan, Pa. The son indicates that the instructors at the seminary do point out that Carpatho-Russian usage has much which is pre-Nikonian, whereas the current English translation in use by OCA derives from the Nikonian Slavonic translation. In other words, we have more in common with the Old Believers than they do. We have a usage which is more "ancient" in its roots. So, we have to get rid of that?

Dn. Robert

Be patient - an English translation of the pre-Nikonian Divine Liturgy is in the works.

Fr. Serge

Vladyka Vsevolod's celebration of the Divine Liturgy according to the 1629 Liturgicon of St. Peter Moghila was impressive enough.

Once beneath a tree there sat
a very pious Jew.
He had the firm conviction that
he was Bartholomew.

But then, the Higher Critics came
with "L" and "M" and "Q"
and if you ask him now his name
he hasn't got a clue!

So out upon these men of clay
this weak, lick-spittle crew!
May others treat them, just as they
treated Bartholomew!

E. L. Mascall

That is the question. The first quote is merely pointing out that there is a Hebrew original, that the Psalms were not composed in LXX Greek.

Here is the context in the original post on the issue which speaks of "the original, Hebrew" and not "the original Hebrew":



The fuller context quote is trying to make two points:

1. Original language does not automatically mean better primitive reading of the text; a text can become corrupt in the original language while remaining stable in a translation.

2. Even a pristine text in the original language is not necessarily what becomes for the church the traditional text, the one that is handed on to us and that we receive. This is especially so when there is more than one pristine text. The reading in the Barberini Codex, on which the RDL is based, in not the reading handed on to us in the Ruthenian Recension Slavonic -- our recension -- and is not in Rome's 1950 edition of the Greek liturgicon either. Yet it seems the RDL's de facto scope, though never stated explicitly, included this intricate textual criticism issue. It rejects the reading of the Slavonic of the Recension and the 1950 Greek edition and purports to be based on Barberini.

The 1942 edition of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy remains normative. It should be the standard for any and all translations, and those translations should be full and complete. To pick and choose from various Greek texts is wrong, for many reasons but in the context of this discussion for scholarly reasons. One would need the exact copy of the Greek originally used to prepared the Slavonic from in order to know exactly what was going on. And a translator who re-works the Liturgy based upon his personal tastes and ideas in Liturgy has done an incredible disservice to the Church, let alone not produced an authentic translation.

If there are to be changes in the base text used then such changes should be the result of serious scholarship together with common consent among all members of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox). The Pittsburgh Metropolia has done damage to the unity of the Church, as well as great harm to her own people.

But, to keep on topic, it seems to me that the most literal translation is the best. And to recap what what has already been posted we have:

My preference is without the articles, giving it more the form of an acclamation: Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise.

There is no definite article in the Slavonic, so on that basis it can go either way. Greek has a very strong definite article that does not exactly conform with the English one, but the Greek of the received text does not have the definite article either.

There should be no doubt of the genitive rendering base on the Recension Slavonic, and the 1950 ed. and the Textus Receptus Greek. Inserting the definite article (or with the indefinite as some render it) in the English is a judgment call by the translator, a call that would be easier if it were present in the Greek text.

Mercy of Peace, sacrifice of praise may or may not be an acclamation, but syntactically it makes less sense than "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise!", which, in fact, is also an acclamation, and one that even makes sense in English (with the indefinite article, the waters are just muddied: "A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise"--what the heck does that mean?).

What's the preference based on syntax? Without the article it is neutral, and the article is not in the Greek.

Well, for what reason would we be saying, "Mercy of Peace! Sacrifice of Praise! Rah, Rah! Rah!"?

On the other hand, "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise!" states explicitly that which we desire and that which we offer.

Yes, I can appreciate that point. My tendency is lean towards commonality, and use a perfectly good translation that is already in use. Most of the translations from the Slavonic have either "The mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise" or "A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise." I have no strong preference, although using the "the" keeps the change from the 1964 to a minimum and seems to be more specific than using "a". For me at least, using "a" is fine but presupposes a mental addition of "This is" before the "a". I could also live with "Mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise" though the style (without articles) is rather different than that used elsewhere throughout the translation. All three translations would be accurate whereas the RDL revision of "Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise" is simply not an accurate translation of the Slavonic. Even if the Codex Barberini 336 referenced in earlier posts eventually finds support in the Church it is wrong for one local Church to act alone. Presentation of the scholarly evidence and a united effort to change the Slavonic original would have been the proper method to preserve unity.

Then your embellishment, which is worthy of the RDL approach, is equally applicable with the article, as you pointed out:

[emphasis added]

It explicitly states a desire, but is that the intent of the text. A translation can over-interpret and give a very clear, unambiguous, but incorrect meaning.

True, indeed. But at times it is necessary to choose, when moving from one language to another, because the degree of ambiguity would be so extreme as to completely obscure the meaning. In this particular case, there seems to be no other reasonable interpretation to give the text, given the context (that is, its place in the Liturgy, and the direction of the Liturgy up to that point).

??? An excellent translation has been available for many years by Fr. Pimen Simon et. al. from the Old Ritualist Church of the Nativity in Erie. There are several others floating around in manuscript form as English translations of Patriarch Joseph of Moscow's editions.

What would be more useful than another rendition of Patriarch Joseph of Moscow's editions would be an English translation of the "Old Kyivan"/Mohylian service books, but perhaps this is what is being considered.

Referring way back to Post 305390 on 11/25/08

At the time I wrote this comment I was simply noting the use of "mercy of peace" and the favorable impression Governor Cross's words made on me, words noble in their simplicity. I have since become aware that Cross was not just a politician who could turn a good phrase, but a man of letters: link [en.wikipedia.org]

Also, though not commenting on the "mercy of peace" phrase directly, William Zinsser in his book On Writing Well (considered a classic by some although he of course has his critics) refers to Cross's Proclamation:


Zinnser then gives the complete text of the Proclamation. Further on he comments:


Beyond the text and translation of this one phrase in the liturgy, mercy of peace, there is (for me) the nagging lack in the RDL, at crucial points, of “nobility of language as a means of” liturgical expression.

Zinsser writes further:


I would hope that, after all and at the least, the legitimacy of the phrase mercy of peace -- even though questioned by the authority of an RDL, a Petras, a Taft and an Mateos, – is properly acknowledged.

And, with Thanksgiving Day 2010 approaching, it seems appropriate to reproduce Cross’s Proclamation here, my emphasis added for mercy of peace, and noting also an accepted and unquestioned use of standard inclusive language:

link [cslib.org]