In the comments to my last post it was pointed out that the syntax of the sentence of Beatitudines aliae capita xx is poetic, rather than prose; and the word order is accordingly weird.
The first two “chapters” – or rather sentences – are both in a similar form. The first clause consists of:
- Μακάριος ὃς (“Blessed is he who”), then:
- A verb in participle form, meaning “having been/done/hated/whatever”. This expects an object, but the object is displaced to the end of the clause. Instead:
- A verb or two in the simple indicative, past or present – I am avoiding too much jargin here – meaning “he does/feels/whatever”.
- The object.
So in section 1, we had “Blessed is he who, having hated | the human life, abandoned [it]”. But “the human life” was at the end of the clause.
Section 2 is as follows.
β’. Μακάριος ὃς μισήσας βδελύσσεται τὴν κακίστην ἁμαρτίαν, Θεὸν μόνον ἀγαπήσας τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον.
Modern Greek translation, printed by Phrantzolas:
2. Μακάριος αυτός πού μίσησε καί άποστρέφεται την απαί σια αμαρτία, επειδή αγάπησε μόνο τόν αγαθό καί φιλάνθρωπο Θεό.
Traversari’s Latin translation, printed by Assemani:
Beatus, qui odit ac detestatur pessimum peccatum, Deumque solum bonum atque hominum amatorem diligit.
This as before gives a general sense rather than an accurate one.
A kind correspondent pointed out last time that the syntax of the first clause is in a poetic order, so needs to be rearranged for translation purposes. We have
Μακάριος, ὃς | μισήσας βδελύσσεται | τὴν κακίστην ἁμαρτίαν,
Blessed is he, who | having hated the worst sin | loathes [it].
Where βδελύσσεται (normal meaning = loathe) is the active verb (3rd person present indicative middle/passive), and the object is “τὴν κακίστην ἁμαρτίαν” (= the worst sin), which we must pull forward after the participle, μισήσας.
A mistake I made last time was in not checking Lampe’s Lexicon of Patristic Greek. This pays dividends again, for on p.294 I find βδελλύσσομαι given as “abhor”, which is better than loathe.
So far so good. Now the rest of the clause, which I read as:
Θεὸν μόνον | ἀγαπήσας | τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον
having loved | only God | [who is] good and loves mankind.
Here I move the aorist active singular masculine participle ἀγαπήσας (“having loved”) to the front, as all the rest are in agreement with “God”.
But this is still not right, I think. Clearly there is something about the syntax of the second clause that I don’t know, about that aorist participle. It feels wrong.
Googling I find that an aorist participle should mean a past event, except where the main verb is also aorist, when it can mean a contemporary event. (It can even mean a subsequent event, rarely! Aargh!)[1] In our context, that does make sense.
Traversari cheerfully changes the participle into an indicative, and the aorist into the present tense. He treats it as meaning “loves / values / esteems / aspires to”, which seems about right. But even here “loving only God…” would be closer.
Putting it together, we get:
2. Blessed is he, who having hated the worst sin, abhors [it], loving only God [who is] good and loves mankind.
Is that right? Criticisms welcomed below!
- [1]See Daniel B. Wallace, here: “The aorist participle, for example, usually denotes antecedent time to that of the controlling verb.[1] But if the main verb is also aorist, this participle may indicate contemporaneous time.[2]” References: “[1] We are speaking here principally with reference to adverbial (or circumstantial) participles. [2] Cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1112-13. From my cursory examination of the data, the aorist participle is more frequently contemporaneous in the epistles than in narrative literature. There is also such a thing as an aorist participle of subsequent action, though quite rare.”↩
I like what you have done here, and the way you spell out your thinking step by step. These Beatitudes seem to be very carefully balanced – the negative renunciation leading to positive action.
And such irony to begin with “Blessed … hated”- not what the ear expects.
I work on translating Byzantine hymnody, so am used to poetic shifts of word order, and Lampe lies open on a separate desk….
I’m sure that you encounter this all the time! Is there any sort of guide to the sort of syntax changes one should expect?
I see that there is a course at Upsala university in Sweden. Syllabus for Ancient Greek and Byzantine Poetry. I’ve written and asked for their reading list.
The hymnody is sung to one of the 8 Tones, so making the words fit the given tone is the primary determinant of word order. But I presume these Beatitudes are read, spoken, or chanted rather than sung, so it will be the emphases of the intended meaning that control word order – with the preference always for ending on a positive rather than negative note.
Mm. Thank you. I would assume chanted too.
Instead of “hated” it, I believe “committed” it makes sense. This fits with the “done” translation and gives the sense of repentance. Thus:
2. Blessed is he, who having committed the worst sin, abhors [it], loving only God [who is] good and loves mankind.
Does the Greek word carry that sense tho?
I don’t know Greek, but from your research the word can mean done or does. To me “did” the sin ie: committed it.
“A verb in participle form, meaning “having been/done/hated/whatever”. This expects an object, but the object is displaced to the end of the clause. Instead:
A verb or two in the simple indicative, past or present – I am avoiding too much jargin here – meaning “he does/feels/whatever”.”