Observations on ἱλασμὸν σωτηρίας

“[Soul-]saving forgiveness [of sins]” (ἱλασμὸν σωτηρίας).  This phrase does not make good sense in English:  “the pardon of salvation,” “the propitiation of salvation” etc. 
First, we must settle the definition of ἱ­λα­σμός.  Throughout the hymns ancient and modern, ἱλασμὸν ἁμαρτιῶν (which looks as if it is based on 1 John 4.10), ἱλασμὸν τῶν πταισμάτων and ἱλασμὸν ἐπταικότων appear regularly.  We note in particular that St. John of Damascus uses such expressions as πταισμάτων ἱλασμόν, πλημμελημάτων ἱλασμόν, ἱλασμὸν καὶ ἄφεσιν τῶν πταισμάτων in his Theotokarion.  We read also in the Triodion (canon 1, ode 9 of Monday of Cheesefare) that the fast is εἰς ἁμαρτημάτων ἀποτροπάς καὶ ἱλασμὸν σωτήριον, where the parallelism cinches our conclusion that the hymnographers seem to regard ἱλασμόν as a synonym for ἄφεσις.
How does ἱλασμὸν σωτηρίας fit together?  The crucial fact is that ἱλασμὸν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ μέγα ἔλεος is a common collocation in the hymns of the church.  No monastic hymnographer can escape seeing this collocation on a regular basis in the cycles of the services, particularly in the Menaion. 
This collocation can be broken up:  we find in the hymns ἱλασμὸν καὶ θεῖον ἔλεος and ἱλασμὸν καὶ σωτηρίαν.  E.g., St. Gerasimos also writes ἱλασμὸν τὸν σωτήριον, Παύλου τοῖς λόγοις ὡς ἐκομίσω (“when you received the salvific forgiveness by the words of Paul”) (St. Lydia of Philippi [May 20]).  
We can therefore suppose that ἱλασμὸν σωτηρίας and ἱλασμὸν τὸν σωτήριον are intended as poetic renderings of ἱλασμὸν καὶ σωτηρίαν.  The exact construction of ἱλασμὸν σωτηρίας I take in Wallace’s framework as an attributive genitive, which masks the attributive adjective as a genitive complement.  Apparently St. Gerasimos regarded ἱλασμὸν καὶ σωτηρίαν as hendiadys.   

Observations on πανάμωμος

 “Wholly pure” (πανάμωμος).  In the hymns of the church we often find the Mother God being described as "all-blameless" (πανάμωμος). Is that the best translation?  

Kittel reports that ἄμωμος is used mostly “for physical perfection as a presupposition of cultic use.” I.e., it describes the ideal victim of a sacrifice. He goes on to describe how ἄμωμος is spiritualized by Philo, which leads to the NT use of the word to refer to the “moral blamelessness” of Christians. These facts affect how we translate ἄμωμος or πανάμωμος. The ever-popular “all-immaculate” is out, as the Mother of God is not a sacrificial victim, and, as Cato points out, such a translation appears to lend backhand support to a Catholic heresy.  The DGE, Great Scott and Montie all agree that ἄμωμος is used to mean "pure" in the LXX and Christian literature. “Pure” has the advantages of ambiguity and acceptability of usage, while it avoids the distractions of translationese and Romish overtones. 

Observations on Placatory vs. Expiatory

 “Forgiveness” (ἱλαστήριον).  According to C. H. Dodd, ἱλαστήριον means “not propitiation, but ‘a means by which guilt is annulled,’” that is, “a means by which sin is forgiven” (The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Fontana Books).  The placatory theory is, he observes, a purely pagan one, whereas the expiatory theory “is found in scores of passages” in the Septuagint.  We might suppose that the ἱλαστήριον might have been understood by our hymnographer as referring to the effect of the sacrifice of Christ—the forgiveness of sins.  In the same way, we find that ἱλασμός advances from meaning a means of appeasing, propitiation to meaning forgiveness (Abbott-Smith).   Akathist to the Protection of the Mother of God.

Excursus on κόρη in the Greek hymns.

Throughout the hymns of the church we find references to the Mother of God as maiden.  Why is that?

Let’s examine the evidence of the lexicographers.

Great Scott lists girl, maiden (“with respect to virginity”), bride, daughter. 

Schrevelius lists virgin, handsome woman.

Donnegan reports virgin.

Giles reports virgin, daughter, bride.

Which of these several definitions should we understand in our hymns? 

Let’s take a randomly chosen line from the menaion for the conception of the Forerunner—χαῖρε, ἀκήρατε Κόρη—and apply each of the several definitions in turn:

(1)  Hail, pure girl. 

We can strike this one out, as the Mother of God is not a girl in the NT. 

(2)  Hail, pure handsome-woman.

We can strike this one out without further comment. 

(3)  Hail, pure bride.

We need to provide more evidence on bride before we dismiss it.  Montie reports that it means married or wooed daughter.  Clearly this sense does not fit any context in which this word is used in or texts.  Option (4) is dismissed together with (3).

(5)  Hail, pure maiden.

This is the option of most translators.

(6)  Hail, pure virgin.

No one seems to use this one.

 

Let’s take a closer look at (5).  COED defines maiden as “girl, young (unmarried) woman, virgin, spinster.”  Returning to χαῖρε ἀκήρατε Κόρη, we get the following possibilities.

(7)  Hail, pure girl.

(8)  Hail, pure young (unmarried) woman.

(9)  Hail, pure virgin.

(10)  Hail, pure spinster.

We can dismiss (7) and (10) immediately.  It takes a moment of thought to realize that since the Mother of God appears in the Gospel as already betrothed, she cannot be counted as a young (unmarried) woman.  This leaves us with virgin.

Another fact to consider is that if we translate κόρη as virgin in any hymn of the church, we will always get a true statement.  If we translate it as maiden in any hymn of the church, we will never get a statement consistent with the facts which we accept, for she is not a girl, an unmarried young woman or a spinster. 

Two questions remain:  why is the word used at all in our hymns and what does our conclusion mean for translating our hymns?

As to the former, our hymnographers rely on synonymia heavily.  This word allows the hymnographer to invoke the saint twice in a troparion—as always—without using the same  name or title. However, this device translates badly into English—it really breaks up the flow of thought and creates syntactical nightmares.  I propose to simply omit the κόρη if both appear, as metrical convenience is not something we worry about in English and double invocations are a mere artifice.  Arguably the doubled and tripled invocations heighten the emotional intensity—at least in Greek, though no one has ever mentioned it—but such an expedient to intensify one’s emotions is not even on the map of an Anglophone hymnographer.  There is in the translations from the Slavonic a tendency to avoid this device—among others.  When κόρη appears alone, I translate it as virgin.

 

OBSERVATIONS ON ἄχραντος AND RELATED ADJECTIVES

“Pure” (ἄχραντε).

In this digression I aim to clear up some problems that arise when one translates hymnographical Greek into English.  The first point I wish to make is the modest one that privative adjectives need not be translated by privative adjectives.  The second is the less modest one that privative adjective translations can be problematic.

(1)  What are the possible definitions of ἄχραντος?

DGE reports that ἄχραντος means no manchado, puro, sagrado etc.  The first thing we notice is that ἄχραντος is a privative (or negated) adjective.  The DGE reports no tocado, no puesto en contacto, no manchado, puro, sagrado, no contaminado, intacto.  Of seven definitions, three are simple.  (The DGE also reports some specialized uses of ἄχραντος which are relevant to our hymns, to which we will return below.)  By contrast, Great Scott reports only privative adjectives: undefiled, immaculate.  Montie reports two privative adjectives (uncontaminated, intact) and one simple (pure, which is identified as a later definition to be found in Iamblichus [saec. iii-iv]), inter al.  Lampe reports that ἄχραντος means “undefiled by sin.”  While Anglophone translaters generally tend to use privative adjectives, it is apparent from just three lexica that we have a choice of privative or simple adjectives. 

Why are privative adjectives problematic in English?

(1)  The most important may be that negated adjectives in English tend to emphasize the absence of a quality and so lose sight of the positive quality intended by the author.  Let’s take adjectives like stainless and undefiled as our example here and in what follows.  They obviously describe what quality is lacking but do not denote what was undoubtedly intended, namely, purity. 

(2)  Privative adjectives can be distracting.  For example, stainless is commonly collocated with steel.  Again, undefiled does not even belong to the top 20,000 words of our language, according to Davis.  In the case of the much-used immaculate, its normal reference to tidiness does not well serve the purpose of our hymns (is the Mother of God tidy?) and otherwise may be thought to confirm the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

(3)  Privative adjectives can produce grossly inappropriate associations.  The rara avis who looks up undefiled in the COED will surmise that it means not made dirty, not polluted, not deprived of virginity.  Are these associations which we want believers to form with the Mother of God?

Let’s illustrate the problem of privative adjectives with an example.  We may refer to an authoritative translation of a hymn which informs us that the Mother of God “experienced no deflowerment” (μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα “having been pregnant without corruption”).  Such a barbaric translation is the outcome of a strict adherence to privative adjectives; the fact that no lexicon suggests that φθορά can be so crudely translated adds mystery to vulgarity. 

Must φθορά be translated even as corruption?  The COED defines it as “decomposition; moral deterioration; use of corrupt practices (bribery etc.); perversion (of language, text, etc.) from its original state; deformation (of words).”  None of these definitions seem to apply to the Mother of God or to the manner in which she gave birth.  There is no reason in English for φθορά to be taken as corruption.

What should corruption be replaced with?  The solution appears to be found in the Ἄξιόν ἐστιν, in which the birth of God the Word is described as ἀδιαφθόρως. 

Great Scott reports that ἀδιάφθορος means not affected by decay, chaste, incorruptible (of judges), imperishable.  DGE adds puro.  DGE also adds that ἀδιαφθόρως means de manera pura.  Puro and de manera pura seem much more relevant to the Mother of God than the privatives listed by Great Scott (“you gave birth to God the word without being affected by decay”? “you gave birth to God the Word incorruptibly”? “you gave birth to God the Word imperishably”?).  Puro and de manera allow us to say things that are indeed relevant to the Mother of God:  “you gave birth to God the word chastely,” “you gave birth to God the Word purely,” “you gave birth to God the Word in a pure manner.”  All of these seem applicable in one fashion or another, though they are awkward. 

In short, τὴν ἀδιαφθόρως Θεὸν Λόγον τεκοῦσαν can be translated literally as “you gave birth to God the Word in a pure manner.”

By contrast, the monstrous phrase, “you experienced no deflowerment,” reduces a divine conception to a vulgar comment on the maidenhead.  Can we fix the translation of μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα, too?  One way to do this is to take the entire phrase as an elaborate and crude paraphrase of τὴν ἀδιαφθόρως Θεὸν Λόγον τεκοῦσαν.  The hymnographers often reword commonplace expressions with non-Biblical words in order to introduce some variety or to meet metrical requirements.  So, then, we take μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ as a non-Biblical and crude paraphrase of ἀδιαφθόρως, while κυοφορήσασα is the non-Biblical equivalent of τεκοῦσαν.  Note that both τεκοῦσαν and κυοφορήσασα are aor. act. ptcs.  Note also that τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ is problematic, since we have already demonstrated that φθορά has no meaning in the lexica which is relevant to the Mother of God.  However, taken as a whole, μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ corresponds to another word in this hymn, ἀπείρανδρος (that has not known a man [Great Scott]) as well as to St. Athanasius’ expression, ἀνδρὸς ἄπειρος (“not knowing a man”; cf. St. Luke’s ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω), i.e., a virgin.  All three expressions rely on the root which is apparent in πεῖρα (trial, experience and of course temptation [Great Scott]).

In short, we can render μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς διαπείρᾳ κυοφορήσασα as “you carried [your Son in your womb] in a pure fashion.”  We can even say “you carried [your Son in your womb] as a virgin,” based on the St. Athanasius’ virtual definition of virgin.  It is interesting that Mr. K. defines κυοφορέω as to be pregnant in the family way.

Returning now to the general problem, it seems very advisable that translators use simple adjectives to render Greek’s innumerable simple and privative adjectives.