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

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)