# Biblical & Liturgical Greek: ἡ κλητὴ - adjective or substantive, in context



## metaphrastes

Kali imera, adelphoi!

The context is the Paschal Canon of St. John Damascene, Eight Ode, Hirmos (the main Troparion), whose text is this:
«Αὕτη *ἡ κλητὴ* καὶ ἁγία ἡμέρα, *ἡ μία τῶν Σαββάτων*, ἡ βασιλὶς καὶ κυρία, ἑορτῶν ἑορτή, καὶ πανήγυρις ἐστὶ πανηγύρεων, ἐν ᾗ εὐλογοῦμεν, Χριστὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας».

Now, most English translations read *κλητὴ* as an adjective, that might be rendered _called out, invited, welcome, summoned, &c _but, in context (since it is qualifying a very special day, the day of Pascha or Easter) the preferred word is _chosen _or _elected. _Thus, they read something as _"This is the chosen and holy day, the first [_or, _the One] among Sabbaths, &c...".
_
Now, in Old Testament, *κλητὴ* very often is used as a substantive, always qualified as holy: *κλητὴ ἁγία*. Traditionally, this is rendered in English as the _Holy Convocation_, as a day when no one should work, to assemble together and to worship the Lord. The very Sabbath is called a *κλητὴ ἁγία*. I will give a few quotes to put it in context.

καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη κληθήσεται ἁγία καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἑβδόμη *κλητὴ ἁγία* ἔσται ὑμῖν πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε ἐν αὐταῖς πλὴν ὅσα ποιηθήσεται πάσῃ ψυχῇ τοῦτο μόνον ποιηθήσεται ὑμῖν* (Ex 12:16 Rahlfs).*
And the first day shall be called holy, and the seventh day shall be *a holy* *convocation* to you: ye shall do no servile work on them, only as many things as will _necessarily_ be done by every soul, this only shall be done by you.* (Ex 12:16 Brenton).
*
ἓξ ἡμέρας ποιήσεις ἔργα καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ σάββατα ἀνάπαυσις *κλητὴ ἁγία* τῷ κυρίῳ πᾶν ἔργον οὐ ποιήσεις σάββατά ἐστιν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐν πάσῃ κατοικίᾳ ὑμῶν *(Lv 23:3 Rahlfs).*
Six days shalt thou do works, but on the seventh day is the sabbath; a rest, *a holy convocation* to the Lord: thou shalt not do any work, it is a sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings. *(Lv 23:3 Brenton)*.

Then, theologically, there are dozens of good reasons to suppose that this _Holy Convocation _of the Old Testament (being the very Sabbath one Holy Convocation, too) is taken by the Ode as a type or figure of Pascha (and all Byzantine Canons of Odes are built upon Old Testament types fulfilled in the New Testament and paraphrased through the hymns). 

My question, however, is whether the syntax of the hymn (specially the position of the articles) would allow such reading of *κλητὴ* as a noun, that would result in something as this: _"This [is] the [holy] convocation and [the] holy day, the first [_lit. _the one] among the Sabbaths, &c...".
_
Otherwise said, according the syntax, is the adjective *ἁγία* qualifying both *κλητὴ* (as a noun) as well *ἡμέρα*, or are both *κλητὴ* and *ἁγία* (as adjectives) qualifying *ἡμέρα*?

Thank you very much for any enlightenment, eucharisto!


----------



## sotos

To the unwary greek speaker, sounds like *κλητὴ* and *ἁγία* are adjectives qualifying *ἡμέρα. * This  is not a case that "κλητός" functions as  a noun.


----------



## metaphrastes

sotos said:


> To the unwary greek speaker, sounds like *κλητὴ* and *ἁγία* are adjectives qualifying *ἡμέρα*


Thank you, sotos, yes I see this simply seem the more natural reading (that most translations follow, by the way) and the typology, if it actually was meant, would be more allusive and implicit than expressly declared.

Yes, a literal quote of the verses regarding the Holy Convocation would explicitly say *κλητὴ ἁγία, *probably preceded by the definite article.

Now I just found a noted translation of the Paschal Canon, by Fr Ephrem Lash of blessed memory, who in a footnote quotes an even more strong Old Testament type (Leviticus 23:36), with mention to the Eight Day (of the Tabernacle Feast) as a Sabbath, as a day of rest and assembling, thus, a Convocation. However, in the translation itself he reads _"chosen"_, as most translations do.

Thus, I rest my case and take it as an adjective, most probably allusive to the Old Testament - and the allusion itself as untranslatable in most languages, but rather as a matter to footnotes. Unless, sure, if someone has any solid linguistic clue on the opposite direction.

Thank you, eucharistw.


----------



## Scholiast

Χαίρετε

Now I am far from being an expert on either patristic Greek or the LXX scriptures. But for what it is worth, we have to remember that the Paschal Canon is hymnody, that is, a kind of verse, though of course it's metrical "rules" are very different from those by which we scan Homer or Euripides: by the time it was written, Greek as spoken and therefore sung had gone a long way in the direction of being a stress- based, rather than a quantity-based tongue.

Which is slightly beside the main point I would make here: given the scriptural background (specifically, the other texts  metaphrases quotes), and the general facility with which adjectives can be substantived in Greek ancient and modern, I am not (yet) convinced that any native speaker, or even possibly the author himself, would have been aware of such a fine distinction as metaphrases is asking us to make, especially as verse can be more liberal than prose with some forms of syntax.

Σ


----------



## metaphrastes

Χαῖρε, φίλε. 
Thank you very much for putting things in a broader perspective.

I understand fully how a text meant to be read mentally (not aloud) and logically analyzed works differently from a text meant to be sung hymnodically, with all musical resources of emphasis as well with the need of fleshing out ideas, concepts and poetic images in sentences with a length within the scope of human breathing, when singing. Any sentence or at least any meaningful clause should be able to be sung in one breath, and if well worked out, musical rhythm, stresses and breaths may add full clarity to a text that would be fleshed out in a very different way, if meant to be read, say, in the morning newspaper or in a theological treatise or manual.

But then (hoping to find a conclusion able to act as a work tool), when you says:


Scholiast said:


> I am not (yet) convinced that any native speaker, or even possibly the author himself, would have been aware of such a fine distinction as metaphrases is asking us to make, especially as verse can be more liberal than prose with some forms of syntax


, may I understand that this fragment of the hymn shares the poetical character, say, of polysemy, or rather, amphibology (*ἀμφιβολογία*), so that it may be understood both ways (and both are good and true and beautiful)? And the way it was fleshed out, then, by St John of Damascus expressed, so to speak, what we call today _poetic freedom_, maybe due to some cogent metrical reason? _(that as a fact may be strongly cogent when one deals with sung word) _And, as corollary, when dealing with such text, it would be permissible to use some poetical freedom in order to express (if possible) both meanings, without betraying the objective meaning of the sacred text and incurring in the eternal blame upon all translators: _traduttore traditore_?

I hope such corollary may be held true both now and ever


----------



## ireney

I'm quite convinced that κλητή here is used as an adjective.
 Reason #1. In all the circumstances I've ever encountered this form (Η Χ και Υ z), x and y refer to z. The use of the article makes things quite clear here
Reason # 2. The author, uses a similar coupling just after this one, « ἡ βασιλὶς καὶ κυρία, ἑορτῶν ἑορτή,».

Now this is from a purely syntactical standpoint . It could very well be, that, since the κλητή αγία is used differently (and often) with a different meaning/syntactical relation in the Old Testament, the author had sort of both in mind: He may use it as an adjective in his writing but knows fully well that it will evoke the memory of the more common usage (if that makes any sense).


----------



## metaphrastes

@ireney: thank you very much for your very clear explanation and distinction between the syntax and the semantics (say, by evocation). You fleshed out and summed up some hypotheses I had in mind but was not able to express so clearly.

Now,


ireney said:


> Reason #1. In all the circumstances I've ever encountered this form (Η Χ και Υ z), x and y refer to z. The use of the article makes things quite clear here


, it could be taken as a universal rule that a definite article "gives" an attributive character not only to the first adjective that follows it, but also to the second adjective, so far it is linked to the first adjective by the conjunction *και*? _(yes, it is certainly a basic question but syntax is actually my weak point or Achilles' heel)_



ireney said:


> the author had sort of both in mind: He may use it as an adjective in his writing but knows fully well that it will evoke the memory of the more common usage (if that makes any sense)


As for me, it makes all sense! From the explanations I got here, I am tending to see it as a sort of amphibology by way of evocation, or evocative amphibology (because the syntax itself does not give two meanings, but the very adjective evokes another meaning, as substantive in a defined context).

If this is true, the amphibology, being subtle in Greek, is *very *hard to be gotten in other languages, because as adjective it would be rendered as _chosen, elected _and maybe _welcome, desired, _while as substantive it has to be rendered as _convocation. _As an adjective, in English, a cognate adjective as _called out _or _convoked _would not work too well: _"this is the convoked and holy day" _does not make too much sense. Otherwise said, it is hard to find an English adjective that works well here, while being cognate to _convocation _or _assembly.
_
Thank you again


----------



## sotos

I had a feeling that this use of κλητή must have a cultural background, either in hebrew or greek cultures. And then I thought that the "chosen" has some  connotations of "special, ex-cellent (i.e. distinguished), after recalling the old-fashioned (medieval)  Greek name Διαλεχτή (female) and Διαλεχτός (male) = selected, chosen. And also the κλήρος for clergy, which actually means "chosen", from the same root κλη-.


----------



## metaphrastes

sotos said:


> And then I thought that the "chosen" has some connotations of "special, ex-cellent (i.e. distinguished), after recalling the old-fashioned (medieval) Greek name Διαλεχτή (female) and Διαλεχτός (male) = selected, chosen


Yes, it makes all sense, all these terms seem to share a common semantic field, being synonymous in a broad sense.

However, the first thing that made me hesitating in taking *κλητός*, in the context of the Ode, just as _chosen, elected_, was the fact that the Lord makes a very sharp distinction, in the Gospel, between the *κλητοὶ *and the *ἐκλεκτοί*: "Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι, πρῶτοι· καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι, ἔσχατοι. πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσι *κλητοὶ*, ὀλίγοι δὲ *ἐκλεκτοί*" (Mt 20:16). "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be *called*, but few *chosen*" (Mt 20:16 kj). In this light, the former is seen as a "step" for the latter, but not definitively in the same degree of perfection or fulfillment. The latter would be rather the τέλος of the former, that remains unfulfilled without the latter.

But now, if the distinction is sharpened by the Lord in this specific context, probably this means that in a broad usage the words are synonymous in some measure - and, in a laudatory context, with the main purpose of saying that Pascha is a very special, unique, excellent, distinguished day, it makes sense that the word be used without taking in account such sharp distinctions that are necessary in another context.

Does it make any sense to a Greek native speaker/reader/writer? 

PS: Regarding *Διαλεχτός*, it must be actually a rare and dated word, since it does not appear neither in the "Great Scott" (Scott-Liddell-Jones) nor in Lampe's Patristic Lexicon.  Has it any relation with the Latin *dēlectus *or *dīlectus *(as per Lewis-Short, _a choosing or picking out, a selecting; a selection, choice, distinction, _coming from the verb *deligo *- _to chose, to select_)?


----------



## Perseas

metaphrastes said:


> PS: Regarding *Διαλεχτός*, it must be actually a rare and dated word, since it does not appear neither in the "Great Scott" (Scott-Liddell-Jones) nor in Lampe's Patristic Lexicon.  Has it any relation with the Latin *dēlectus *or *dīlectus *(as per Lewis-Short, _a choosing or picking out, a selecting; a selection, choice, distinction, _coming from the verb *deligo *- _to chose, to select_)?


This adjective or nominalized adjective, especially when written with capital Δ,  comes from the verb *διαλέγω* (the verb appears in Scott-Liddell-Jones). The adjective appeared in Medieval Greek and today is a very common word.


----------



## ireney

Well I cannot in any way contribute to the rest of the discussion that seems to have taken a weird turn (in other words I cannot see where the whole connection with "διαλέγω" came from and how it is relevant).

Re what you asked me: Yes, when two words of the same kind are connected with a coordinating conjuction (like και) the article stands for both words.


----------



## sotos

Oops! I just opened not one but Bibles that made me to rethink my initial opinion about κλητή. The one (I think it's the London Biblical Society edition, but the title page is missing) in Ex. 12.16 instead of κλητή,  says σύναξις (gathering, convocation). . The other one is a modern edition, translated directly from hebrew to new greek by a team of Greek academic theologists. Again its says ιερή σύναξις, instead of κλητή αγία. Thus, in this case κλητή is a noun!  I don't know, though, if this σύναξις is a result of interpretation or a literal translation from the hebrew. 
This is the reason why the Greeks do not read much the Bible


----------



## ireney

Sotos how did you come to this conclusion?  I  don't get it. Syntactically it cannot be a noun. What made you think it's a noun now?


----------



## metaphrastes

sotos said:


> This is the reason why the Greeks do not read much the Bible


I do ask your permission to use Internet jargon and saying LOL, because I do not know better in Greek! 

Now, coming back to the word in study, yes, as a noun it may be contextually rendered as "assembly", because the people was convoked exactly to assemble together (and to worship, offer sacrifices, read Scriptures, communally). *ιερή σύναξις*, then, seems me a fine reading, so far we consider semantics. The shortcoming is that, departing from LXX usage, it departs also from the vocabulary used in hymnography and then people hears the hymns in Church but do not associate them with familiar passages in Scriptures. Otherwise said, a lot is lost in evocative force, to those who know Scriptures & Hymnography.

The Hebrew word behind *κλητή *in this substantive usage was _*miqrâ’*_, that Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Biblical dictionary defines as:
1) convocation, convoking, reading, a calling together
1a) convocation, sacred assembly
1b) convoking
1c) reading​Now, the point remains that, as ireney remarked above, that in the Paschal Canon, the word, syntactically, *is *an adjective. Then, at best, it _evokes _the noun, as suggested above by ireney, too.

@ireney: oops, crossed comments


----------



## sotos

So, we can conclude that "klete" is normally an adjective, but in the case of Ex.12.16 it functions as a noun (the O' translators know why) , while in hymnography may still function as an adjective. In religious context we have also other adjectives that are used as nouns. e.g. Λαμπρή (glorious) instead of Pascha.


----------



## Scholiast

Ωριστοι

Begging of course pardon for treading again in waters that may be too deep for my meagre scholarship, and pedantically referring back to my earlier contribution (# 4), but mercifully in harmony, though not entire agreement, with Sotos' remarks (# 15), I still find the question a little pointless.

Or rather, in a poetic/hymnodic context, who can, or will, want or demand exact syntactical analysis? There is a great hymn in English, "Immortal, Invisible, God only wise...", wherein it is syntactically unclear whether "immortal" is an attribute or an address. For singers and worshippers it does not matter.

_LDS
_
Σ


----------



## sotos

Very true for the Greeks, who don't  pay any attention to the wording of hymnodies or the Bible.


----------



## metaphrastes

sotos said:


> Very true for the Greeks, who don't pay any attention to the wording of hymnodies or the Bible.


Sadly, this is very true for all countries where the Biblical and Liturgical language, throughout centuries, became very distant from the daily written or spoken language, even from cult and elevated language of the time. As a side note, this holds true also for most Russian, Ukrainian or Serbians who do not understand Old Church Slavonic, as well Georgians who do not understand Old Georgian (nor the old alphabet used in Church books!).

But now, as any generalization, this is not _absolutely _true: there was for example Saint Porphyrios the Kapsokalivite who, being a simple, unlettered man, learned to read and understand _Koine _Greek vocabulary and syntax by comparing the wording used through the LXX, the Greek NT and the hymnography. And he was able not only to understand but also to explain and to teach from Scriptures, with deep thoughts on that.

And he was (and is) Greek  I do believe many, though not most Greeks, pay attention to the wording of Scriptures and Hymns, so far they are able to. It is hard, but it is not superhuman.


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: Interesting as the discussion about how much Greeks read religious books, it is outside the scope of this forum. Any further messages will be deleted or moved.


----------



## metaphrastes




----------



## Perseas

Scholiast said:


> Or rather, in a poetic/hymnodic context, who can, or will, want or demand exact syntactical analysis? There is a great hymn in English, "Immortal, Invisible, God only wise...", wherein it is syntactically unclear whether "immortal" is an attribute or an address. For singers and worshippers it does not matter.


In contrast with the English sentence, Ι believe this is not the case at least in this context, things here are more clear and "κλητή" is adjective. Regarding both syntax and content, the core of the sentence is the day of Easter. It's not like in LXX Ex.12.16: "ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ ἑβδόμη κλητὴ ἁγία ἔσται" > "the seventh day shall be a holy convocation" (here it is a noun).
II. Subst. κλητή (sc. ἐκκλησία), ἡ, convocation, LXX Ex.12.16


----------

