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

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.