[B-Greek] ENQUMHMA in Ezek. 23:37
Ken Penner
pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Mon Nov 24 10:59:48 EST 2003
Hi Jeff,
Usually Al Pietersma answers these Septuagint questions, but I imagine he's
at SBL right now.
Your questions, if I understand them correctly, are:
(1) Is AUTOIS used reflexively?
(2) Is ENQUMHMATA the direct object of EMOICWNTO?
(3) What could ENQUMHMATA mean as an object of EMOICWNTO? ("Thoughts"
doesn't fit, unless EMOICWNTO is metaphorical.)
First, note that the Hebrew behind TA ENQUMHMATA is W)T GLWLYHN. The
translator of Ezekiel tended to render GLWLYM in an unusual way. Often he
used the normal meaning (idols) EIDWLA (13x), but also ENQUMHMATA (15x),
EPITHDEUMATA (7x), DIANOHMATA (2x), DIANOIA (1x), and possibly EPIQUMHMA
(1x).
(1) Yes, in the Greek, I think AUTOIS refers to the parents, but in the
Hebrew, it refers to the GLWLYM. The Hebrew behind AUTOIS has the "dative"
preposition L on the normal personal pronoun (Hebrew doesn't have a separate
reflexive pronoun). When (BR, the verb behind DIHGAGON, has a direct object
and a prepositional phrase with L, it refers to devoting something to a
deity. Note that the reading AUTOIS occurs only in Vaticanus; others have
accusative neuter or nominative masculine.
(2) & (3) The LSJ entry on MOIXAW actually references Ezekiel 23:27: "to be
unfaithful to God". Yes, TA ENQUMHMATA is accusative (if it were nominative,
the verb should be singular), but it's hard to take it as the direct object.
The translator probably made it accusative because in the Hebrew, GLWLYM has
a "direct object marker" )T (which also happens to be the spelling of the
preposition "with"). So I'd take it as an accusative of reference, I guess,
though this is a vague term. I've heard it said that Accusatives limit verbs
the way Genitives limit nouns: What kind of being-unfaithful? Thoughts-type
unfaithfulness. In other words, being unfaithful with one's thoughts.
How about:
"With their thoughts they were unfaithful, and their children, whom they
bore for me, they sent through the fire, for their (own) benefit!"
Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
pennerkm at mcmaster.ca
Flash! Pro: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/westerholm/flash or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join or
http://sensoft.nav.to
> TA ENQUMHMATA AUTWN EMOICWNTO KAI TA TEKNA AUTWN, hA
> EGENNHSAN MOI, DIHGAGON AUTOIS DI' EMPURWN
> The second clause is plain enough to me: "their children,
> which they bore to
> me, they passed for them(selves?) through fires." I'm puzzled
> by the dative
> AUTOIS, and wonder if it is used in place of a reflexive
> pronoun. Or is its
> antecedent ENQUMHMATA? But that's not my main concern. My
> main problem is
> ENQUMHMATA as the object of EMOICWNTO. I'm very much inclined
> to regard TA
> ENQUMHMATA as accus. and as the object of EMOICWNTO, thus
> maintaining the
> parallel in the structure:
>
> TA ENQUMHMATA AUTWN EMOICWNTO
> KAI
> TA TEKNA AUTWN...DIGAGON...
>
> This same pattern is carried out again in vs. 38:
>
> TA hAGIA MOU EMIAINON
> KAI
> TA SABBATA MOU EBEBHLOUN
>
> "My holy things they defiled,
> My sabbaths they profaned"
>
> My difficulty (or at least the one I know about) is the word
> ENQUMHMATA. I
> don't believe the expression is equivalent to EMOICWNTO EN
> TOIS ENQUMHMASI
> AUTWN = "they committed adultery in their thoughts." But then did they
> debauch/adulterate their thoughts? Is this just another
> metaphorical use of
> MOICAW, equivalent to "they defiled their thoughts," or is
> ENQUMHMATA used
> in some sense other than "thoughts"?
>
> For verses 36-37,
> KAI EIPEN KURIOS PROS ME, hUIE ANQRWPOU, OU KRINEIS THN OOLAN KAI THN
> OOLIBAN; KAI APAGGELEIS AUTAIS TAS ANOMIAS AUTWN hOTI
> EMOICWNTO, KAI hAIMA
> EN CERSIN AUTWN. TA ENQUMHMATA AUTWN EMOICWNTO KAI TA TEKNA AUTWN, hA
> EGENNHSAN MOI, DIHGAGON AUTOIS DI' EMPURWN
> I guess I would end up with something like the following, taking the
> sacrificing of the children as the explanation or
> illustration of their
> defiled thoughts:
>
> "And the Lord said to me, Son of Man, will you not judge Oholah and
> Oholibah? And you will proclaim to them their lawlessness,
> because they were
> committing adultery, and blood is on their hands. Their reasoning they
> debauched, and their children, whom they bore to me, they passed for
> themselves through fires."
>
> But I would appreciate some help with TA ENQUMHMATA AUTWN EMOICWNTO in
> particular. And any help concerning the dative AUTOIS would also be
> appreciated.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list