Page 1 of 1

Eph. 5:2 ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας

Posted: February 5th, 2015, 2:02 am
by Stephen Hughes
I can understand to some degree how a tangible material, the τὸ μύρον, emits (ἐκπέμπει) a scent (ὀσμήν), and it fills the house.
John 12:3 wrote:ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου.
I can also see how something like the τὸ μύρον could be described as εὔωδες, (or κόπρος could be δυσώδης) when it is described adjectivally in itself, not in terms of the effect it can have (i.e. the smell it gives off). But, however, how does an abstract noun like εὐωδία (or δυσωδία) give off a smell? It has come up in Ephesians 5:2, (also in Philippians 4:18 and the LXX)
Ephesians 5:2 wrote:ὁ χριστὸς ... παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας.
It doesn't seem to fit the previous paraphrase pattern, because it is the θυσία that has the smell, i.e. θυσία ἐκπέμπει ὀσμήν, and the ὀσμή has the quality of εὐωδία (ἡ ὀσμὴ ἔχει (/ ... ἔχουσαν) τὴν ἰδιότητα τῆς εὐωδίας). Why is that constructed with a genitive?

———

Another thing... Do I understand correctly that as a general tendency in meaning patterns verbs like εὐωδεῖν (or δυσωδεῖν) mean have a sweet (or foul, bad) smell - like when you put your nose to them (i.e. like σκόρδον δύσωδες ἐστιν), while a verb like εὐωδιάζειν means the thing causes a sweet smell in the area around them (i.e. like κεκαρυκευμένον ὀπτὸν ἄρνειον κρέας ὀριγάνῳ καὶ δενδρολιβάνῳ καὶ κυμίνῳ καὶ σελίνῳ καὶ πιπέριδι κοκκίνῳ καὶ πιπέριδι καὶ κρομύῳ καὶ σκόρδῳ καὶ ἡδυόσμῳ καὶ πιπερορίζῃ ἐκπέμπει ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας)? Or is that too simple a delineation?

[BTW: On a (slightly) related point, in the Modern idiom at least, words related to / derived from βρῶμος (cf. Job 6:7) are in more everyday usage than a literary word like ὀσμή. Is that a register distinction that can be traced to the Hellenistic period?]

Re: Eph. 5:2 ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας

Posted: February 5th, 2015, 7:32 am
by cwconrad
Stephen Hughes wrote:I can understand to some degree how a tangible material, the τὸ μύρον, emits (ἐκπέμπει) a scent (ὀσμήν), and it fills the house.
John 12:3 wrote:ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου.
I can also see how something like the τὸ μύρον could be described as εὔωδες, (or κόπρος could be δυσώδης) when it is described adjectivally in itself, not in terms of the effect it can have (i.e. the smell it gives off). But, however, how does an abstract noun like εὐωδία (or δυσωδία) give off a smell? It has come up in Ephesians 5:2, (also in Philippians 4:18 and the LXX)
Ephesians 5:2 wrote:ὁ χριστὸς ... παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ θεῷ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας.
It doesn't seem to fit the previous paraphrase pattern, because it is the θυσία that has the smell, i.e. θυσία ἐκπέμπει ὀσμήν, and the ὀσμή has the quality of εὐωδία (ἡ ὀσμὴ ἔχει (/ ... ἔχουσαν) τὴν ἰδιότητα τῆς εὐωδίας). Why is that constructed with a genitive?
Isn't this the not uncommon (perhaps Semitizing?) use of the genitive noun like an adjectival modifier, i.e. like an attributive adjective? On the other hand, I hesitate to bring up a silly parallel in English such as "a whiff of fragrance", but I've heard such a phrase, and Stephen in a PM has just reminded me of traveling in buses in rural Greece and stopping at roadside vendors roasting lamb on spits over a small fire: that might qualify as an ὀσμὴ εῦωδίας, the sort of thing that explains something about the nature of burnt offerings as food to be consumed by anthropomorphic deities (Aristophanes in the Birds describes how the birds brought the gods to their figurative "knees" by intercepting the flow of sacrificial smoke from earthly altars to the bright heights of Olympus).