[B-Greek] ENQUMHMA in Ezek. 23:37
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Mon Nov 24 11:31:27 EST 2003
Dear Ken,
Your note made me realize that my reply mistakenly went to Jeff alone.
Sorry about that. Here it is:
On Saturday, November 22, 2003, at 03:50 PM, Jeff Smelser wrote:
> Ezek. 23:37 (LXX)
> 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.
Yet AUTOIS causes the biggest problem, it seems to me, (see further
below).
> 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...
The parallelism is, however, more apparent than real. Since EMOICWNTO
medio-passive in form but likely intransitive in function, TA
ENQUMHMATA functions adverbially: "They were committing adultery in
their thoughts/ with their inventions"
>
>
> 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"?
Well, ENQUMA does have a range of meaning but within that range
"thoughts/ imaginings/inventions" seems to suit best. That is, of
course, not what Hebrew GLWL ("idols") means, but it is G's regular
gloss for it. [Note that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion plus the
Syro-Hexaplar correct to TA EIDWLA.]
Needless to say, in this passage G's gloss creates a problem, which he
could have avoided if he had been prepared to ignore MT's LHM. We would
then have had: "they were committing adultery in their imaginings/with
their inventions, and their children, whom they had borne to me, they
passed through burnings/fiery offerings."
Instead G insists on representing all the grammatical elements of his
source text: ". . . and their children . . . they passed through
burnings/fiery offerings BY THEM (i.e. inventions/ imaginings). It is,
of course, quite possible that in reception history AUTOIS < LHM (i.e.
GLWLYM) was construed as a reflexive. Had G read EIDWLA as "the three"
AUTOIS could then have been glossed as "for them."
Al
> 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.
>
> Jeff Smelser
> www.ntgreek.net
> www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 10:59 AM, Ken Penner wrote:
> 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.
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
—
Albert Pietersma
Professor of Septuagint and Hellenistic Greek
Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto
Home: 21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list