The Caucasian Crossroads

How Early Georgian Translators Adapted Greek Terms for “Holiness”

Daniel J. Grace

Independent Researcher | August 2026

ORCID: 0000-0002-9259-8032

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21993384

Abstract

When Georgian-speaking Christians began translating Scripture, liturgy, and patristic writing, they inherited no single Greek word that could simply be carried across as “holiness.” Greek Christian texts drew upon a crowded semantic field: hagios named what belonged to God and, substantivally, the saints; hagiasmos referred to sanctification or consecrated life; hosios suggested piety or conduct fitting before God; hieros marked sacred persons, objects, and institutions; and katharos spoke of purity. Old Georgian translators answered this plurality chiefly through a native lexical family centred on ts’mida (წმიდა, later commonly წმინდა), together with related forms for holiness, purification, and sanctification. Their work was not mechanical substitution. It was theological judgment exercised across biblical recensions, liturgical practice, monastic reading, and changing standards of fidelity to Greek. This article traces that process from the earliest Georgian biblical tradition through the manuscript culture represented by the Adishi Gospels and into the Athonite and Black Mountain translation movements. It argues that Georgian translation preserved Greek distinctions unevenly while also gathering holiness, purity, saintliness, and consecration into a recognisably Georgian Christian vocabulary. The result was neither a copy of Greek nor a free invention. It was an ecclesial language formed at a Caucasian crossroads.

Keywords: Old Georgian; holiness; ts’mida; Greek Christianity; biblical translation; Georgian liturgy; Adishi Gospels; Euthymius the Athonite; Ephrem Mtsire; Kartvelian Christianity

Introduction: A Word Crosses a Mountain Range

Holiness looks simple until someone has to translate it. In an English Bible the word can appear so familiar that its difficulties almost disappear. A place is holy. God is holy. A person becomes holy. A community is called to holiness. Bread, oil, time, ground, speech, bodies, and memory may all be drawn into the same field. Greek Christian writing makes the matter more complicated, not less, because it does not depend upon one term. Several words stand near one another without becoming interchangeable.

Early Georgian translators met that complexity in a region where languages, churches, and empires pressed against one another. They worked in Kartli and in Georgian monastic centres beyond it, among routes that connected the South Caucasus with Armenia, Syria, Palestine, Constantinople, Antioch, Sinai, and eventually Mount Athos. “Crossroads” can become a lazy metaphor, especially when it reduces a people to a bridge between supposedly greater civilizations. That is not the claim here. Georgian-speaking Christians were not passive carriers of Greek theology. They made texts, selected equivalents, revised inherited versions, established schools, argued over accuracy, and helped create a literary tradition with its own authority.

Nor should their work be forced into modern national categories. The political map of late antiquity and the early Middle Ages was not the map of the present Republic of Georgia. Kartli, often called Iberia in Greek and Latin sources, lived between Roman or Byzantine and Iranian power, while western Georgian regions followed different political histories. Armenian and Syriac Christian cultures were neighbours, interlocutors, and at times likely intermediaries. Georgian monasteries flourished far from the Caucasus. A Georgian translation made near Jerusalem or Antioch still belonged to Georgian Christian literature, but its immediate setting could be multilingual.

Within that world, the translation of holiness offers an unusually revealing case. The ordinary Georgian word now encountered as ts’minda (წმინდა) and its older literary form ts’mida (წმიდა) came to name holiness, saints, sacred identity, and much else. Related forms expressed holiness as a quality and sanctification or purification as an action. Yet the Greek source vocabulary remained broader than this one Georgian family. Translation therefore required decisions. Should a Greek term be distinguished from its neighbour, or gathered into an established Georgian expression? Should a biblical quotation preserve wording already known in worship, even if a new Greek comparison suggested another phrasing? Should the translator sound natural to Georgian readers or display the structure of the Greek text more closely?

The answers changed over time. They also differed from text to text. For that reason, this article does not pretend to offer a critical concordance of every occurrence of “holy” in every Old Georgian witness. Such a project would require edition-by-edition comparison of the manuscripts. The purpose is narrower and, I think, more useful: to explain the theological and linguistic choices visible in the larger history of Georgian translation, and to show why the Georgian vocabulary of holiness became more than a dictionary equivalent for Greek hagios.

The Greek Field Was Never One Word

The best place to begin is with the problem the translators received. The most familiar Greek adjective is hagios (ἅγιος). In the Septuagint and New Testament it can describe God, the Spirit, angels, prophets, apostles, covenantal people, places, offerings, commandments, and things reserved for divine use. Used as a noun, especially in the plural, it can identify “the holy ones,” hence the saints. Its related verb hagiazō means to sanctify, consecrate, or treat as holy, while hagiasmos can designate sanctification, consecration, or the holiness of life. The family is broad because biblical holiness is broad. It concerns divine otherness, covenantal belonging, ritual dedication, moral transformation, and communal identity.

But Greek Christian authors had other resources. Hieros (ἱερός) often marked what was sacred in a cultic or institutional sense: a temple, sacred writings, priestly things, or objects attached to worship. Hosios (ὅσιος) could describe piety, devoutness, or conduct consonant with divine order. Katharos (καθαρός) meant clean or pure. Matthew’s “pure in heart” uses this last term, not hagios. The distinctions were never perfectly sealed. Biblical usage, classical inheritance, Jewish Greek, liturgical development, and patristic argument caused the fields to overlap.

This matters because translators do not carry isolated words across a border. They interpret relations. A translator who uses one Georgian root for both holiness and purity may allow readers to hear an association that Greek expresses through separate lexical families. Another translator may preserve a difference through context, syntax, or a second Georgian term. Neither outcome can be evaluated by counting apparent equivalents alone.

The Trisagion gives the problem an audible form: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal.” Here holiness is not an abstract quality discussed from a distance. It is an address sung by a body. Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8 intensify the same language through threefold repetition: “Holy, holy, holy.” A translation used in worship must work in the mouth and memory. It must be recognisable, repeatable, and capable of carrying the weight of prayer. Lexical precision cannot be separated from liturgical life.

Ethical passages exert a different pressure. First Peter 1:15–16 calls believers to become holy in all conduct because the one who called them is holy. Hebrews 12:14 urges pursuit of hagiasmos, without which no one will see the Lord. Paul can speak of sanctification as God’s will and as a life embodied in sexual discipline, justice, and communal fidelity. Here holiness is not primarily the status of a building or vessel. It names a transformed manner of existence.

Then there are passages where purity and holiness stand close together. Purification prepares for worship; clean hearts enable vision; baptismal and ascetic texts describe cleansing that belongs to sanctification. Greek can maintain a lexical distinction while building a theological connection. A receiving language may arrange that connection differently. Old Georgian did exactly that.

A Native Georgian Family for Christian Holiness

The central Georgian term is conventionally transliterated ts’mida. Its later and modern form, ts’minda, is immediately visible in church names, saints’ titles, place names, prayers, and ordinary religious speech. The abstract noun sits’mide or modern sits’minde expresses holiness or purity. Verbal and derived forms associated with cleansing and sanctifying belong to the same productive family. The exact historical morphology and the spelling of forms vary across periods, manuscripts, and modern transliteration systems, so one should resist making an entire theology depend upon an English gloss of a single form.

Still, the larger pattern is clear. Georgian translators did not ordinarily solve the problem of Greek holiness by importing the sound of hagios. They employed Georgian resources. That decision made the Christian concept speak in a native grammatical and semantic environment. The word could be declined, compounded, intensified, and used substantivally according to Georgian habits. It could describe God, name a saint, qualify a church, and form an abstract noun. Translation did not leave holiness as foreign terminology explained at the edge of the text. It brought holiness into Georgian speech.

This naturalisation had consequences. The Georgian family bears associations with purity and cleansing alongside sacredness. It therefore offered a meeting point for Greek terms that were related but not identical. In many contexts that was an advantage. Biblical holiness is not merely separation, and biblical purity is not merely hygiene. Both can describe the restoration of persons and communities for life before God. Georgian could let those meanings reinforce one another.

There was also a danger of compression. If hagios, hosios, hieros, and katharos are repeatedly represented through a narrower group of Georgian forms, some Greek contrasts become less audible. The difference between sacred office and moral purity, or between consecrated status and devout conduct, may depend more heavily upon context. Yet “loss” is not the whole story. Every translation compresses some relations and creates others. Georgian readers received a coherent root family that connected God’s holiness, the saint’s identity, purification, and consecrated life. That connection became productive within Georgian theology rather than remaining a defect measured against Greek.

It is better, then, to speak of adaptation than replacement. The translators found a Georgian centre of gravity for a Greek semantic field. Around that centre they arranged meanings through grammar, collocation, context, and genre. A saint’s name, a liturgical acclamation, an ethical command, and a description of a sacred object could share vocabulary without meaning the same thing.

The First Georgian Christian Texts and the Problem of Origins

Georgian literary culture appears in surviving evidence from the fifth century. The earliest inscriptions and manuscripts already belong to a Christian world. This does not mean Christianity created spoken Georgian, of course, nor does it mean every feature of the script or literary language arrived fully formed at conversion. It means that the earliest substantial record of written Georgian is inseparable from Scripture, worship, hagiography, and ecclesial memory.

The origins of the Georgian Bible are difficult to describe in one sentence. Greek was decisive, particularly as Georgian Christianity became more closely aligned with the Byzantine ecclesial world. Yet scholars have long examined Armenian and Syriac relationships in early textual layers, and particular books preserve different histories. The Old Georgian version cannot be treated as one translation made once from one exemplar. It is a library of books with recensions, revisions, and local textual inheritances.

The Adishi Gospels make this layered history tangible. The manuscript was copied in 897 at Shatberdi and is the oldest dated surviving Georgian Gospel codex. It preserves an ancient Georgian translation whose history extends earlier than the physical manuscript. Written in the monumental Asomtavruli script, it is not simply a museum object. It witnesses to a community that already possessed an established language for Gospel reading. By the ninth century, terms such as ts’mida were not fresh experiments proposed by an isolated translator. They belonged to a received Christian idiom.

That fact changes how we imagine the work. A translator or reviser did not sit before a blank page with a Greek lexicon. Existing Georgian Scripture could already carry authority. Liturgical phrases were lodged in memory. Readers expected familiar wording. A new rendering might be philologically attractive yet pastorally disruptive. Later Georgian scholars sometimes faced the same choice familiar to every translation tradition: retain the inherited expression, revise it toward the source, or allow two forms to coexist.

Research on Old Georgian biblical quotations makes this situation especially clear. Magda Mtchedlidze’s study of the Georgian translations of Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron shows that scriptural citations could be handled in more than one way. A translator might quote an established Georgian biblical version, render the Greek passage independently, or preserve a form related to a recension no longer otherwise accessible. Ilia Tsetskhladze has found a comparable duality in Ephrem Mtsire’s practice: direct biblical quotations could follow received Georgian wording, while paraphrased or authorially modified biblical language was translated anew.

Holiness vocabulary therefore travelled through two authorities at once. The Greek source mattered, but so did the Georgian Bible already heard by the church. Where the two aligned neatly, the translator’s task was quiet. Where they did not, every choice disclosed a theory of translation, whether stated or not.

Holiness in Scripture: Four Translation Pressures

Four recurring biblical situations show how the Georgian vocabulary had to work.

The first is divine acclamation. “Holy, holy, holy” must identify the God of Israel as incomparable while also sustaining the cadence of worship. Georgian repetition of ts’mida does this directly. The word gathers doctrinal and liturgical force from its position, not from etymology alone. Threefold utterance changes an adjective into praise. In later Christian hearing it also enters Trinitarian interpretation, although Isaiah’s historical setting should not be collapsed into later dogma.

The second is communal naming. The Greek plural “holy ones” can refer to believers, heavenly beings, or recognised saints according to context. Georgian use of the same core adjective substantivally allowed holiness to become a name for persons. This is theologically significant. A saint is not introduced as a different species of religious being. The name declares belonging to the Holy One and a life marked by that relation. Over time, ts’mida before a personal name became a normal honorific. The lexical movement from divine attribute to ecclesial title was not uniquely Georgian, but Georgian made it with its own syntax and sound.

The third pressure is ethical command. “Be holy” cannot mean only “be classified as sacred.” In First Peter it reaches conduct. Georgian holiness language therefore had to hold status and action together. The Christian is called, set apart, and expected to live accordingly. The same word that praises God becomes an imperative shaping bodies, speech, households, and relations. That movement is central to biblical theology: holiness received from God becomes holiness practised before others.

The fourth is purification and sanctification. Greek texts may distinguish katharismos, katharotēs, hagiasmos, and related verbs. Georgian cognate forms around ts’mida can bring cleansing and sanctifying closer. The result should not be caricatured as confusion. In biblical ritual, baptismal interpretation, monastic discipline, and penitential prayer, cleansing and consecration genuinely intersect. Yet critical reading must still ask whether a particular Georgian witness preserves or narrows the distinction found in its Greek source.

Matthew 5:8 is a useful control case because its Greek phrase is “the pure in heart,” not “the holy in heart.” The verse warns us against treating every Georgian form from the ts’mida family as a direct index of Greek hagios. Sometimes the Georgian lexical family may answer Greek purity language. At other times it answers Greek holiness language. What looks like one-to-one equivalence from the Georgian side may conceal two different Greek pathways.

Hebrews 12:14 creates the opposite challenge. Its hagiasmos can be translated “holiness” or “sanctification,” and English itself cannot decide without interpretation. Is the author naming a state, a process, a consecrated manner of life, or all three? Georgian derivational morphology can express both quality and action, but the translator still has to decide what the sentence foregrounds. The difficulty belongs to the Greek before it belongs to Georgian.

These examples demonstrate a larger point. A lexical study of holiness must not begin by searching an English concordance and then projecting its categories backward. One must compare the Greek term, the Georgian form, the manuscript recension, and the function of the passage. Translation is local before it becomes systematic.

Liturgy Made the Vocabulary Durable

If Scripture supplied the field, liturgy made it durable. Georgian Christianity received and developed lectionaries, hymnography, euchological material, saints’ commemorations, and monastic offices. The early Georgian Jerusalemite tradition is especially important. Texts associated with the liturgical life of Jerusalem preserve forms of worship whose Greek originals are sometimes lost or transformed. Georgian in such cases is not merely a secondary witness to someone else’s practice. It is one of the languages through which that practice survives.

Holiness saturates this material. God is addressed as holy. The Spirit is Holy. Gifts are sanctified. Churches and altars are consecrated. The faithful are called toward purification. Saints are commemorated as ts’mida. Liturgical repetition binds these uses together week after week. A word gains meaning not only from semantic contrast but from where it is heard: before the Gospel, at baptism, in a hymn, beside a grave, during the commemoration of a martyr.

The Trisagion is again decisive. Its Georgian form had to be concise, parallel, and singable. Here an established equivalent acquires a stability that prose translation alone seldom grants. Once congregations pray a phrase, later revisers face an authority greater than lexical fashion. The liturgical word becomes part of the church’s memory.

Hagiography extended the same vocabulary into narrative. The saint’s holiness appeared through imprisonment, hospitality, ascetic discipline, teaching, martyrdom, healing, or fidelity under political pressure. The title ts’mida could precede a name, but the story had to show what the title meant. Holiness became visible in action. Translation therefore moved from Greek adjective to Georgian social imagination.

Sacred geography followed. Names such as Mtatsminda, “Holy Mountain,” and Stepantsminda, associated with Saint Stephen, show the lexical family embedded in place. Such names are later witnesses to a long process, not transparent evidence for the vocabulary of the fifth century. Still, they reveal what the translation tradition eventually achieved. Holiness became speakable as landscape. Mountain, monastery, church, and settlement could be named through the same Georgian word heard in Scripture.

From Jerusalem to Athos and the Black Mountain

The history of Georgian Christian translation cannot be confined to the Caucasus. Georgian monasteries in Palestine, Sinai, Athos, and the Antiochene region became centres of copying, translation, and revision. These communities lived close to Greek manuscripts and Greek-speaking scholars. Their work intensified the comparison between inherited Georgian texts and Byzantine sources.

Euthymius the Athonite, who died in 1028, stands at the centre of the tenth- and eleventh-century translation movement. He translated extensively between Greek and Georgian and helped make the Iviron monastery on Athos a major intellectual centre. His practice cannot be reduced to literalism. Scholarship on Euthymius stresses his freedom as a metaphrastic writer and the complexity of his translation direction. He could reorganise, clarify, expand, or reshape material for an audience. Fidelity was not always measured by preserving Greek syntax.

Ephrem Mtsire, active in the eleventh century and associated with the Black Mountain near Antioch, is often linked to a more explicitly Hellenophile approach. He introduced scholarly aids, lexical explanation, and closer attention to Greek wording. Yet recent study complicates the neat story of a free translator followed by a literal one. Ephrem’s own work could be reader-oriented, and his technique changed over his career. He sometimes retained established Georgian biblical quotations while translating other scriptural material independently. He could also use Greek words when he judged that Georgian lacked an exact equivalent.

This last practice illuminates the success of ts’mida. Greek loanwords appear in Hellenophile Georgian translations, particularly for specialised concepts, names, ritual terms, flora, and fauna. Ephrem even defended the use of a Greek word when no precise Georgian equivalent could be found. Yet the fundamental vocabulary of holiness did not need to remain Greek. Georgian already possessed a mature and flexible family. The choice to retain it reveals not isolation from Greek but confidence in Georgian’s theological capacity.

At the same time, closer Greek comparison could expose distinctions that an inherited Georgian rendering had blurred. A Hellenophile reviser might seek consistency, introduce explanatory notes, or choose alternative phrasing when hosios, hieros, and hagios carried different arguments. We should not assume that every such revision displaced the older form, nor that greater formal similarity always produced greater theological accuracy. A translation can imitate grammar while missing force; it can depart from syntax while preserving the argument.

The Georgian schools of Athos and the Black Mountain thus represent more than a movement toward Greek. They show a church examining its own language in the presence of Greek. The translators inherited a vocabulary, tested it, refined it, and sometimes defended its limits.

What Was Gained, and What Was Compressed

The Georgian adaptation gained coherence. Through the ts’mida family, divine holiness, saintly identity, purification, and sanctification could be heard as relations within one theological world. God is holy; those who belong to God are called holy; sanctification makes life answer that calling; purification describes the removal of what contradicts it. The language does not prove a complete Georgian doctrine, but it makes such a doctrine easier to articulate.

It also gained accessibility. A native root can reach beyond specialists. It lives in prayer, names, stories, and places. The Christian proclamation does not remain dependent upon a foreign technical vocabulary. This is not the same as cultural purity. Georgian Christianity was formed through constant encounter, and its literary language was enriched by Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and other contacts. Accessibility here means that borrowed theology was not left untranslated.

Something could also be compressed. Greek’s distinction between hieros and hagios, for example, can separate cultic sacredness from the broader biblical field of holiness, though usage overlaps. If Georgian repeatedly draws both into related expressions, the reader may depend upon the object described to recover the nuance. A sacred book, a holy person, and a consecrated place share a field that Greek may distribute differently.

The relation between hosios and hagios presents another difficulty. Patristic authors may exploit their difference, especially in moral, liturgical, or Christological argument. A general Georgian holiness term can faithfully communicate the sentence while muting a verbal contrast. This is where scholia, glosses, and the philological discipline of later translators become important. The text may need help when the receiving language cannot reproduce the source’s architecture at the same point.

Yet Greek itself should not be romanticised as a perfectly ordered system. Christian authors used inherited words creatively. Septuagintal usage altered classical expectations. Biblical parallelism placed near-synonyms together. Liturgical formulas stabilised some meanings while sermons expanded others. Translators were not damaging a pristine code. They were entering an already living argument.

Nor was Georgian semantically empty before Christianity. The translators worked with a language whose speakers already distinguished cleanness and uncleanness, fitting and unfitting conduct, places set apart, social honour, and relations to divine power. We possess too little pre-Christian Georgian literature to reconstruct that world confidently. Still, it would be implausible to imagine that the Christian translators created every relevant category from nothing. They redirected and intensified available language within a biblical narrative.

The most accurate account therefore avoids two extremes. The first says Greek theology was simply copied into Georgian. The second says Georgian translators replaced Greek concepts with an entirely indigenous theology. The manuscripts point elsewhere. The process was reciprocal but asymmetrical: Greek texts supplied authoritative arguments, while Georgian grammar and usage determined how those arguments could live in a new language.

Translation as Ecclesial Judgment

Modern accounts often describe translation as the work of an individual author. Early Georgian translation was certainly carried out by identifiable people, some of whom left colophons or became renowned. Yet the enduring vocabulary of holiness was ecclesial before it was personal. It survived because communities copied it, prayed it, taught it, and revised it.

That communal setting did not remove conflict. Which Greek manuscript should govern? Which Georgian recension should be trusted? Was a familiar liturgical expression more authoritative than a fresh philological rendering? Could a translator borrow a Greek word, or would that make the text obscure? The history of Georgian versions shows that these questions produced different answers.

Calling the work “ecclesial judgment” does not mean church authorities dictated every word. It means the translation’s purpose and reception were shaped by the church’s life. A Gospel was made to be proclaimed. A lectionary ordered time. A saint’s life formed memory. A doctrinal treatise entered controversy. Holiness vocabulary had to serve each of these tasks.

This explains why a single modern English gloss cannot control the analysis. When ts’mida appears in an acclamation, it performs praise. Before a personal name, it confers or recognises a title. In an imperative, it commands conduct. In an abstract form, it may name a quality, condition, or process. In a verb of cleansing or sanctification, it describes change. The lexeme remains related across these uses, but genre activates different dimensions.

Theological translators always make such judgments, even when they deny doing so. To choose the “literal” word is already to decide which feature of the source is literal: sound, morphology, syntax, conceptual range, customary usage, or effect upon the hearer. Ephrem Mtsire’s scholarly method is valuable precisely because it makes parts of this decision visible. His glosses and attention to Greek do not abolish interpretation. They expose it.

Holiness, Language, and Georgian Christian Identity

The adaptation of holiness language contributed to Georgian Christian identity, but this claim needs care. It should not be turned into a story in which a timeless nation receives a timeless essence. Identities in the South Caucasus were political, regional, dynastic, ecclesiastical, linguistic, and local. Their boundaries shifted. Christian affiliation itself could connect communities across borders while disputes over doctrine and jurisdiction divided neighbours.

Language nevertheless mattered. The ability to read Scripture and worship in Georgian gave Georgian-speaking Christians a durable ecclesial space. Translation linked distant monasteries and local churches. It allowed theological debate to occur without abandoning the vernacular. When holiness was named through ts’mida, Georgian speech became capable of bearing one of Christianity’s central claims: the transcendent God shares holy life with a people.

That claim also resisted simple political ownership. Empires could patronise churches, appoint officials, destroy monasteries, or redirect routes of learning. They could not make Greek the only possible language of sanctity. Georgian translation received an authoritative tradition without conceding that authority belonged exclusively to the source language.

This is one reason the term “adaptation” should not suggest dilution. The Georgian version was not Christianity made approximate for a provincial audience. It became a textual tradition that can preserve readings important for reconstructing lost or variant Greek sources. The Old Georgian Tobit, for example, bears complex relations to multiple Greek textual forms and preserves distinctive readings. Georgian translations of patristic works may likewise witness to source texts otherwise unavailable. The receiving language became an archive.

Holiness language belongs to that archive. Its value is theological and textual. It tells us how Georgian Christians understood inherited Greek expressions, but it may also help us see where the Greek tradition itself was diverse. Translation is evidence of reception, and sometimes evidence of a source no longer extant.

A Caution about Etymology

There is a temptation in theological writing to make etymology do too much. If a Georgian root is associated with purity, one may conclude that Georgian Christianity “understood holiness as purity.” The statement is attractive and only partly safe. Words are not bound forever to their oldest recoverable sense. Usage builds new meanings. A term spoken of God in the Trisagion does not merely mean physical cleanliness, whatever associations its root may carry.

The same caution applies to Greek. Hagios cannot be reduced to an etymological formula such as “separate.” Its biblical force comes from stories, commandments, worship, and God’s relation to Israel and the church. Etymology may illuminate a word’s history; it does not replace exegesis.

The better argument is contextual. Georgian forms related to ts’mida operate across passages that Greek distributes among holiness and purity terms. This creates a semantic association visible in actual translation practice. The theological importance lies in the pattern of use, not in a speculative claim about an original root meaning.

That distinction is especially important for readers who do not know Georgian. Transliteration can produce false confidence. A form printed in Latin letters looks stable while hiding case endings, historical spelling, phonological change, and manuscript variation. Serious study should return to the Georgian text and, where possible, to a critical edition. English glosses are guides, not evidence by themselves.

The Larger Theological Lesson

The early Georgian case reveals something about Christian doctrine in every language. Theology is never transferred without remainder. Even the earliest Christian Greek was already translating Hebrew and Aramaic Scripture, Jewish practice, and the proclamation of Jesus into new conceptual settings. Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, and later languages continued that work. No receiving language was simply a container.

Holiness is particularly suited to showing this. It joins what modern thought often separates: being and action, worship and ethics, person and community, body and spirit, place and presence. A translator must decide whether these relations will be expressed through one family of words or several. The decision shapes what later readers perceive as obvious.

Georgian’s concentration of several meanings around ts’mida made holiness sound internally connected. The saint, the sanctified person, the pure heart, the holy place, and the holy God did not become identical. They became linguistically adjacent. That adjacency invited theological reflection: holiness originates in God, marks what belongs to God, cleanses what has been disordered, and becomes visible in a form of life.

Greek distinctions continued to matter, especially in scholarly revision and close doctrinal argument. The strongest Georgian translators did not choose between vernacular intelligibility and fidelity as if only one could survive. They negotiated the two. Sometimes they preserved inherited language. Sometimes they translated afresh. Sometimes they borrowed Greek. Sometimes they explained.

Their example unsettles a common modern assumption that a “more literal” translation is necessarily less interpretive. Literalism merely relocates interpretation. It may preserve the order of Greek words while leaving their force opaque. A freer Georgian rendering may clarify the theological action of a sentence. The responsible question is not whether interpretation occurred, but whether it was disciplined by the text, the language, and the community for whom the text was made.

Conclusion

Early Georgian translators did not discover a single Greek object called “holiness” and assign it a Georgian label. They encountered a network of Greek terms whose meanings overlapped across Scripture, worship, ethics, ritual, and doctrine. They answered chiefly through a Georgian lexical family centred on ts’mida. In doing so, they gave Georgian Christianity a durable language for God’s holiness, the communion of saints, sacred places, purification, and sanctified life.

The achievement was neither exact replication nor cultural independence. Greek distinctions were sometimes preserved, sometimes compressed, and sometimes recovered through later philological work. Existing Georgian biblical and liturgical forms carried their own authority. The Adishi Gospels witness to an already mature tradition by 897; Athonite and Black Mountain scholars later tested that inheritance against Greek manuscripts with new intensity. Euthymius displayed the creative possibilities of translation, while Ephrem Mtsire showed how close comparison, glossing, and selective borrowing could refine Georgian theological prose.

The history is therefore best understood as a long ecclesial negotiation. Holiness crossed languages because communities needed to praise, read, baptise, commemorate, teach, and live. The Georgian word did not merely point back to Greek. It accumulated scriptural cadence, liturgical memory, saints’ names, monastic discipline, and sacred geography of its own.

At the Caucasian crossroads, translation did more than move doctrine. It made a world in which holiness could be heard in Georgian.

References

Childers, Jeffrey Wayne. “The Acts of the Apostles in the Old Georgian Version.” PhD diss., Abilene Christian University, 1992.

Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Dundua, Natela, and Tamar Kalkhitashvili. “Multilingual Annotated Electronic Parallel Corpus-Based Edition of the Old Georgian Translation of the Book of Tobit.” Le Muséon 136, no. 3–4 (2023). https://doi.org/10.2143/MUS.136.3.3292532.

Fähnrich, Heinz. Kartwelisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Høgel, Christian. “Euthymios the Athonite, Greek-Georgian and Georgian-Greek Translator—and Metaphrast?” The Kartvelologist 29 (2022): 11–49.

Khachidze, Lela. “For the History of Georgian Christian Culture.” The Kartvelologist 22 (2016).

Khintibidze, Elguja. “Great News about the Translation Work of Euthymius the Athonite.” The Kartvelologist 29 (2022): 49–99.

Lampe, G. W. H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Mtchedlidze, Magda. “The Biblical Quotations in the Old Georgian Translations of the Hexaemeron of Basil of Caesarea.” Phasis 23 (2020): 54–73. https://doi.org/10.48614/phasis.23.2020.54-73.

Papuashvili, Nugzar. Review of Old Georgian Hagiographical Texts, edited by Eka Kochlamazashvili. Kadmos 4 (2012): 475–85. https://doi.org/10.32859/kadmos/4/475-485.

Rayfield, Donald. The Literature of Georgia: A History. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000.

Tarchnischvili, Michel. Le Grand Lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle). 4 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 188–89, 204–5. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959–60.

Tsetskhladze, Ilia. “Ephrem Mtsire’s Translation Technique Based on the Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria’s Homily ‘Sermo de descriptione Deiparae.’” Online Journal of Humanities ETAGTSU 9 (2025). https://doi.org/10.55804/jtsu2346-8149.2025.09.12.

Tuite, Kevin. “Early Georgian.” In The Ancient Languages of Asia Minor, edited by Roger D. Woodard, 145–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Copyright

© 2026 Daniel J. Grace. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

How to Cite

Grace, Daniel J. The Caucasian Crossroads: How Early Georgian Translators Adapted Greek Terms for “Holiness.” Zenodo, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21993384.