[Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

[Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Alison Rowan »

It may seem rather audacious of me to question the work of such auspicious scholars as Strong, Thayer, Liddell, Scott. Jones, MacKenzie, Vine et.al., yet what they have provided has not always aided a straightforward or semantically homogenous understanding of the uses and meanings of these words. In fact, the semantic family with the authent- stem have become notoriously difficult to rationalise across the range of literature which contain them.

Most lexica are honest enough to admit the origin of the words is uncertain. The choice is to have auto (self) with either entea (arms/amour) or with hentes (an obsolete word probably meaning worker). But there is a strong preference towards the hentes (worker) cognate option. This bias may be the result of Thayer's and Strong’s definition of authentein which included the phrase "by his own hand" - obviously implying being a doer or worker, "by hand," even when the “doing” is murder or suicide in its earlier uses.

This is from Middle Liddell of 1889

αὐθέντης
The part -έντης is of uncertain deriv. contr. for αὐθοέντης
1.One who does anything with his own hand, an actual murderer, Hdt., Eur., etc.:—more loosely, one of a murderer's family, id=Eur.
2.an absolute master, autocrat, id=Eur.
IIas adj., αὐθέντης φόνος, αὐθένται θάνατοι murder by one of the same family, Aesch.

Thayer's expanded edition of 1890, using Strong’s entry, also includes:

a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself."

Is this phrase, "with his own hand" meant to signify the “auto” cognate … or is it directly taken from the Douay Rheims translation of Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, describing the murderous parents as authentas? Can its inclusion be justified? Does any other ancient version do this, as well?

LXX_WH(i) 6καὶ αὐθέντας γονεῖς ψυχῶν ἀβοηθήτων ἐβουλήθης ἀπολέσαι διὰ χειρῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν

Clementine_Vulgate(i) 6et auctores parentes animarum inauxiliatarum, perdere voluisti per manus parentum nostrorum:

Wycliffe(i) 6and deuowreris of blood; and bi the hondis of oure fadris thou woldist leese fro thi myddil sacrament fadris and modris, autours of soulis vnhelpid;

Geneva(i) 6And the fathers were the chiefe murtherers of the soules, destitute of all helpe, whome thou wouldest destroy by the hands of our fathers,

Bishops(i) 6And the fathers were the chiefe murderers of the soules destitute of helpe, [these doers] thou wouldest destroy by the handes of our fathers:

Douay Rheims(i) 6And those parents sacrificing WITH THEIR OWN HANDS helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents.

As, can be seen, it is merely a literary invention of the Douay Rheims Bible to insert that phrase, “with their own hands” as a sort of poetic irony. But it is NOT in the text! Yet for some unknown reason, it is the Douay Rheims version which Strong, Thayer Scott and Liddell use for their lexicon entries for authentein.

Semantic progression also seems somewhat contrived in order to steer the route to a presumably unquestioned established later meaning from the given earlier definitions. For instance, the semantic route into a later definition of authentein as an exercise of an ecclesiastical or domestic authority - some say aggressively - appears to be mere guesswork. Some use the "own hands" connotation from the hentes cognate: others from the entea. The rationale is typified by the HelpsBible.com commentary on authentein.

831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, "self" and entea, "arms, armor") – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).

Although superficially logical, it actually is not at all supported from the extra-Biblical literature of around the first century either BC or AD.

Something does not compute!

Are we encountering, here, a not entirely successful attempt to unify the ideas of slaying, working, dominating and originating - the latter being the strong connotation of the adjective, authentikos from which or word “authentic" comes? Where the context clearly indicates something other than murder, does this inclusion of “own hand" in these definitions from the favoured lexica of most researchers and translators, explain why there has been this emphasis of self-action or self-authorisation or self-origination in much of their translation work. Is it the right approach?

Is the traditional endeavor to unify all the words actually being confirmed by the cultural, historical and lexical contexts, through a detailed analysis of the translation of the literature in which they are found? Has this attempt to create a single semantic family across two nouns, a verb and an adjective, actually contributed a clear and unambiguous route to accurate translation … or added to the confusion? I am interested to know if others have had the same struggles when trying to rationalise these words and how they fit - or don't - into the texts.

However, I will also address this further in my next post where I offer an alternative approach of etymology to understanding the authent- words. I will follow this by further posts of my own detailed analysis of several texts, highlighting many serious anomalies when attempting to use the current definitions.

I am not "an authority" in Greek, so I would greatly value the input and appraisal of textkit expertise as I go along.
Last edited by Alison Rowan on Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by jeidsath »

Two earlier textkit threads that you may find interesting:

αὐθέντης in Alexander Rhetor.
ἢ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων (Euripides)

You'll see from my comments in the one thread that I knew very little Greek in 2013 -- I had just started a month previously. I should add something to my signature to warn people off my old posts.

I take it that much of the excitement about this word is due to διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ?
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by Alison Rowan »

Yes, you guessed right!

I have unearthed a lot of relevant historical cultural evidence of Roman Law, practices of the Megabyzoi prists of Artemis Ephesia, the incursion of ascetic Gnosticism, the type of meetings they held on the public forum of the Hall of Tyrannus, which all contribute to an understanding far removed from the ecclesial patriarchy that has been assumed.

The contemporary use of authentes by Diodurus Siculus and Josephus all make perfect sense of what I believe was the highly specific context for Paul's writing to Timothy.

I'd like to save my thoughts on all that for later, though, if you don't mind. I'm just laying a more coherent foundation before untangling the whole authentein debacle!! :-)

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by Alison Rowan »

Btw, it was being linked to Andrews post about authentai in Alexander Rhetor which first drew my attention to the existence of textkit. In my next post, I will make my own offering on the understanding of authentai in this piece.

I had not encountered the other reference before, so shall read on and investigate it myself.

Thanks for the heads up

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by jeidsath »

If you're interested in lexicographical practice, I'd recommend Chadwick's Lexicographica Graeca. The new Cambridge Lexicon (2018) claims to be based on his methodology.

You may also be interested in Frisk:
αὐθέντης, -ου m. 'Urheber, Ausführer, Selbstherr', auch 'Mörder', vgl. unten (Hdt., Trag., Antipho, Thuk., Plb. usw.). -- Ableitungen, alle nachklass. und spät: Fem. αὐθέντρια = κυρία (Lydien; zur Bildung Chantraine Formation 106); αὐθεντία 'Machtvollkommenheit, Selbstherrschaft' (LXX, Pap. usw.); αὐθεντικός 'zuverlässig, richtig, authentisch' (Pap. u.a.). Denominativa: 1. αὐθεντέω 'Herr sein über etwas, zu etw. berechtigt sein' (Pap., NT) mit αὐθέντημα· auctoramentum (Gloss.); 2. αὐθεντίζω trans. 'etw. in seinem Machtbereich haben' (BGU 103, 3).

Die Nebenform αὐτο-ἐντης (S. OT 107, nach den Sch. auch El. 272) ebenso wie das gleichgebildete συνέντης· συνεργός H. lassen auf ein Hinterglied *ἕντης schließen, das die Vollstufe der in ἁνύω 'zustande bringen, vollbringen' vorliegenden Wurzel enthalten kann; αὐθέντης wäre somit eine Zusammenbildung von αὐτός und dem betreffenden Verb mittels des Suffixes -της = 'der selbst etw. vollbringt'. Die Bedeutung 'Mörder' kann entweder als Euphemismus erklärt werden oder durch Assoziation mit θείνω entstanden sein, s. Fraenkel Nom. ag. 1, 237ff., wo ausführlich über Bedeutungsgeschichte und Verbreitung. -- Anders Kretschmer Glotta 3, 289ff. (s. auch 4, 340): in αὐθέντης seien zwei Wörter zusammengefallen, *αὐτο-θέντης zu θείνω (durch Haplologie) und *αὐτ-ἕντης mit unklarem Hinterglied. -- Zur Geschichte von αὐθέντης im Neugr. und Türkischen s. auch Maidhof Glotta 10, 10 m. Lit.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Semantic progression also seems somewhat contrived in order to steer the route to a presumably unquestioned established later meaning from the given earlier definitions. For instance, the semantic route into a later definition of authentein as an exercise of an ecclesiastical or domestic authority - some say aggressively - appears to be mere guesswork.
Agenda driven lexical semantics is generally bad. People who get some respect at SBL meetings by reading papers year after year, when they get embroiled in exegetical battles over contemporary social issues, the quality of the scholarship suffers.

Lexical semantics is a complex discipline and as with all branches of linguistics you need to first identify the different frameworks and do your research within one of those frameworks. The kind of lexical semantics you find in the discussions of hot topics is often chaotically eclectic with no evidence of adherence to any known system of semantics.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Agenda driven lexical semantics is generally bad.
Take for example the papers and books written in the last 25 years about ἀρσενοκοῖται.

1Cor. 6:9 Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by Alison Rowan »

Yes, agreed the "Ecclesiastical scholars" invariably have some sort of axe to grind and an agenda to prove. That is why I MUCH prefer the independent and theologically disinterested witness of the writings of the common Greek merchant or orator, etc, form which to follow the semantics.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by Timothée »

You don’t refer to any etymological dictionaries in your post, nor to the 9th edition of LS (with additions and corrections in the ’96 supplement). I suggest you read the entry αὐθέντης in Chantraine’s etymological dictionary. Note that of this word-family the word αὐθέντης is clearly the oldest (attested since Herodotus). Everything else, including αὐθεντεῖν, is “post-classical and late”, as Frisk writes above (quoted by Joel). They are all derived from αὐθέντης.

Citing translations will only help you to understand how the word was understood later, not what it meant in the original text.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by jeidsath »

Here is the Chantraine entry for αὐθέντης.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 1: Questions over the definitions of the authent- w

Post by Alison Rowan »

Thanks Timothée and Jaidseth,

The Chantraine entry is very thorough - my French is more fluent than my Greek although both leave much to be desired!

I am more familiar with the TLG which omits all the papyri entries. Is there not also a difference in the colloquial and the Literary Greek of that period - just to complicate things a lot more?

I will be opening up some original texts later on. However, this is me just putting out feelers and noting that because the definitions seem somewhat hazy and to be an odd mixture of different semantic domains, I am merely raising questions.

I am unsure at this point to put up my second post where I make a proposal which attempts to answer many of these questions ... or to wait on further comments on this one? I'm sure all your greater experience will help point out all the holes and flaws in my proposition .. but it's still worth an airing, I guess before it hits the bin.

I don't know how the forum traffic flows ... and I'm a mere beginner, here - not with the magnetism of the established members to attract a lot of interest!


Thanks for yours, though - much appreciated :-)

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by Alison Rowan »

From my own observations - which are bound to have covered insufficient material, it is becoming my suspicion that the attempts to unify all the possible αὐθέντ- words into one family is the cause of the failure to make consistent results. Two cognate pairs are proposed - so why can’t they BOTH be correct? In other words, might we actually be considering here, TWO ENTIRELY UNRELATED SEMANTIC FAMILIES? Just maybe, it is an unfortunate, lexically sabotaging coincidence that they both give rise to the same spelling!

A. THE HENTES FAMILY

Perhaps it is most justifiable only for the adjective αὐθέντικός to have had its derivation from έντης, since it effortlessly becomes “authentic” - “self-worked” - αὐτο-ἑνττικός.

How about a noun? We know that the noun, αὐθέντης is a murderer or instigator to violence or murder - not a ”worker.” Why should a noun, an “αὐθέντης” be needed to “make something authentic” as a “self-worker,” when ἐργάτης, τεχνίτης, δημιουργός, etc mean exactly that? However, an adjective that distinguishes something as genuinely authentic, as claimed, is indeed necessary.

Nevertheless, in the colloquial Greek of the papyri, there is the use of the noun, αὐθέντια to mean a “certificate of authentication,” regarding various wares for sale. Invariably, it appears in an easily distinguishable context and application, entirely different to the literary Greek descriptions using αὐθέντια … which I will discuss below.

Could there be a verb, “to authenticate,” describing the process of granting an αὐθέντια? If there were one in use verbally, it has not, so far, appeared in any papyri.

However, the words which I suggest can be verified as members of the αὐτο-ἑντης family, can be summarised in the following way:

αὐθέντικός, adj. authentic, genuine, original

αὐθέντια, n. f. Certificate of authentication


B. THE ENTEA FAMILY

Admittedly before much attention had been given to the papyri, in his 1879 7th edition of his Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Robert Young wrote his definition of αυθεντείν as simply “to use one's own armour.” His was a derivation clearly from ἔντεα alone, but which has rather inexplicably, never been considered as a self-contained semantic family. My growing belief is that because of their connection to violence or killing, every reference with the two nouns, αὐθέντης and αὐθέντια (when αὐθέντια is not in the obvious “authentic” context) and the verb, αὐθεντέω should be derived exclusively with the cognate, ἔντεα, arms/amour/fighting equipment.

From this, if ALL Douay-Rheims Bible idea (see Post 1) of “by his own hand” is eliminated from the family derived from the ἔντεα cognates, also, the semantic domain kept in the arena of violence, murder or execution, and no connection attempted whatsoever with “authentic” or “original,” then does it not make a lot more sense in the passages where these words are used? YES IT DOES!!

To summarise, I propose that the verb and two different nouns can be simplified into a single stem meaning of "slay," in the following way:

αὐθέντης n. m. "slayer" of oneself or of another, by one's own action or through another (suitably persuaded or authorised). It can be through a criminal action (murder, suicide), or a judicial action (execution), because it is by an individual invested with ...

αὐθέντια n. f. the "authorisation to slay" - through oneself, or another (judicial authority of execution). There is surely no more appropriate starting point for the semantic shift to “absolute sway or authority,” than to have the power of life or death over another!

αὐθεντέω v. to slay oneself or another, or to slay by means of another (suitably persuaded or authorised).

Does this seem feasible?

I have tested this approach on several of the anomalous texts where current translations seem to give no connection with violence and murder, and actually have found this approach gives consistent interpretations, especially when research reveals the associated historical and cultural context. Very often, a more semantically, lexically, grammatically and contextually correct translation is easily possible, and often far more so than the “official" translation.

For instance “οὔτε αὐθέντας ἔχει οὔτε κριτάς” in Alexander Rhetor appear in the same phrase, strongly implying that they are distinguished from each other. Two paragraphs above we have, ταῖς συμβουλαῖς αὐθένται, and readily translated as judges. May I suggest that the κριται are more like the barristers and prosecutors doing the cross examination and that the αὐθένται are those who “deliberate” and give the verdict - whether it is acquittal or punishment. They are thus named because they are authorised to hand out the DEATH PENALTY - because they have αὐθέντια - the “license to kill”?

Likewise, a papyrus fragment of Rhetorica, by Philodemus ca. 110 - 40/35 BC criticised the rhetors, maligning their audacity in that they will also pick arguments "syn authent(ou)sin an(axin)." This has been translated “with powerful dignitaries.” But would their impudence and brazenness, take on even more significance if that adjectival use of αὐθεντέω were describing the dignitaries as “having authority to put to death"? This seems a perfectly viable translation, in its context.

There are several more texts which I will look at in more detail - especially αὐθέντια in 3 Macc 2:29. In my view, both the Brenton translation and the NRSV have glaring anomalies, but the application of this new approach brings a simple, unforced and completely grammatically and textually valid solution to the text. But I will save that for later posts.

I welcome your comments, guys.
Last edited by Alison Rowan on Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Post 2: Proposing two semantic αὐθέντ- families

Post by mwh »

Alison, New ideas are always welcome, but I’m afraid this one won’t wash. If I understand you aright, you propose to deal with the semantic problems—which are undeniably real—by postulating two different etymologies, one of them involving ἐντεα. For this you rely on an off-the-wall 19th-century definition of αυθεντεῖν as “to use one’s own armour.” This is quite untenable, on multiple counts, and it’s no wonder that no-one has ever taken it seriously. It flies in the face of morphological behavior, as any philologist would tell you.

So I’m sorry, but this is a non-starter. I know that’s not the response you were hoping for, but it’s the truth.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by Alison Rowan »

Thanks for your interest, but I'm wondering if you had read my first post at all? I am relying on the majority of the lexical scholarship which proposes entea as a likely cognate. I know from them, that entea is armour/arms/fighting equipment.

For instance, one version of the birth of Athena is that she sprang from Zeus's head with her complete entea. In another piece, the harness of horses is discussed and only that of chariot horses is described with entea. It is this connection with weaponry that the undeniable meaning of slay/murder/suicide is derived from the cognates of authentes. I merely quoted Robert Young HERE, because I had omitted him in my previous post which looks at many more lexica.

Please bear with me, since I wish to follow this thought through with dissecting and reconstructing several of the "problem passages". It honestly will make a lot of very clear sense!

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by jeidsath »

I am relying on the majority of the lexical scholarship which proposes entea as a likely cognate.
I don't think that you can support this statement. Certainly you didn't in the other post, where you only cited Strong's concordance. That was published in 1890, and does not represent "the majority of the lexical scholarship" in any way.
For instance, one version of the birth of Athena is that she sprang from Zeus's head with her complete entea. In another piece, the harness of horses is discussed and only that of chariot horses is described with entea. It is this connection with weaponry that the undeniable meaning of slay/murder/suicide is derived from the cognates of authentes.
"Armor is like weapon is like murder" isn't a very scientific argument.
Please bear with me
If you want to contribute to our understanding of these words, maybe begin with the LSJ or Brill, and post all of their citations for this group of words. In Greek, not English. Translations would only produce garbage. You certainly couldn't discuss the finer shades of meaning of a French word using English translations, could you? Greek is the same as any other language. It's impossible to contribute without knowing the language.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by Alison Rowan »

Hi Jeidsath,

When I go to the LSJ for "meanings" of the words, it references the attempts of ENGLISH translations to interpret the Greek. In many instances, I recognise the attempt to squeeze into the text one or both of the predetermined definitions given by Strong. The whole is circular!

Nevertheless, two possible cognates are in play: entea - with its association with "violence/murder" and hentes with its association with "working". Surely it is far too much of a semantic stretch to say that entea is to do with "working" and hentes with "violence"? What seems a desperation of fancy, to me, is that translators try to make a mixed marriage and also try to throw into the mix, Strong's and Thayers' refs to the Douay Rheims's version of Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 ... "own hand." I believe it just simply is not justified and only complicates matters.

I am nearly finished preparing a third post, where I do go into the Greek in detail, and highlight how trying to force an odd hybrid definition in, contorts the text.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

In Post 1, I made the observation over the uncertainty expressed in most lexica over the likely cognates and meanings of the αὐθέντης family of words. I followed this in Post 2, with a proposition for the recognition of two entirely separate semantic families and offered my own simplified definitions. In this post, I will begin to illustrate in a number of passages, why this simplification produces grammatically viable and consistent clarity.

A typical example of the confusion caused by “a mixed marriage" of the two families, is the translation of Cassius Dio Cocceianus, 155-235 AD whose single use of αὐθεντίᾳ is in his Historiae Romanae Book 30-35, Chap 102:

This is the text which is linked in the LSJ for a meaning of αὐθεντίᾳ as “with his own hand”. But DOES it mean that?

ὁ υἱὸς Μαρίου δήμαρχόν τινα αὐθεντίᾳ ἀποκτείνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ τοῖς ὑπάτοις ἔπεμψε, καὶ ἄλλον ἀπὸ τοῦ Καπιτωλίου κατεκρήμνισεν.

Surprisingly, the “official” translation is also a clear example of how strong is the power of a predetermined definition (“slay with one’s own hand”) to force a violation of the text in order to make it fit. It reads:

“the son of Marius slew a tribune with his own hands and sent his head to the consuls, hurled another from the Capitol …”

Please note how many alterations to the grammar have been made to accomodate this “definition.” Here, αὐθεντίᾳ, a noun in the dative has been changed to a verb, “slew with his own hands”. Also, δήμαρχόν, “of the tribunes,” pl. gen. is changed to sg. acc. and also essential words are omitted (τινα, a “certain one" and ἀποκτείνας, the participle describing Marius’ son - “having put to death”). The only verb in this phrase is ἔπεμψε, “he sent”; there is no “he slew.”

Two illogicalities ensue:

First, if the aorist participle, ἀποκτείνας is not being used as the verb, but being ignored as superfluous, then αὐθεντίᾳ, although a noun, is wrongly being used as the verb: “he slew with his own hands.”

Secondly, if ἀποκτείνας is being used as the verb, then the only contribution from αὐθεντίᾳ is “with his own hands" - hence its entry as such in the LSJ. But, I drew attention in my Post 1 to the fact that it is a fabrication of the Douay Rheims Bible and does not belong! If Cassius had wanted to emphasise that the deed - slew (from the participle “having put to death") was done “with his own hands”, why use αὐθεντίᾳ, rather than a phrase such as ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν?

It seems the translator prefered to massacre the text, breaking many rules in order to force into it, Thayer's/Strong's Definition using both entea and hentes with the addition from the poetic invention of the Douay Rheims of WoS 12:6. Can this be really justified? Rather, should not the established definitions of the authent- family be urgently revised and separated out?

Working from my new approach, I offer this as an alternative translation:

"The son of Marius, by his authority to execute, (αὐθεντίᾳ, n.dat.f.sg.) having put to death a certain one of the tribunes, sent his head to the consuls, and another he hurled down from the Capitol ..."

I have not omitted any words, all nouns are nouns, participles are participles, all cases are intact, the active verb is still in force, and all words fit the context. I believe αὐθεντίᾳ (n. dat. f. sg.) here should keep its lexical and grammatic integrity as “by authority,” but since the word chosen by Cassius is not the customary ἐξουσία, but a word from a semantic family which means “to slay,” it is entirely reasonable to say that this ἐξουσία is a very specific, highest judicial authority with the right of execution … a “license to kill"! In other words, when a person's ἐξουσία is an investiture of the “absolute authority” of life and death, then it is known as αὐθεντία.

It's use in this specific context eloquently supports this, to my mind. But does it seem plausible to anyone else?.

I believe the beginnings of the semantic shift towards “absolute power,” is discernible in an epistula by Basil of Caesarea.

He is discussing the merits and factors important in choosing “servants of the assembly” - deacons, but quite surprisingly, speaking of them in exactly the same way in which a householder would choose his domestic servants, both male and female. Commenting to his friend on choosing athletic girls to his own liking, he reminds him that he has BOTH ἐξουσίαν καὶ αὐθεντίαν. This surely means that they are not equivalent “rights” or “authorities”? What difference is there likely to be?

My suggestion that as the master, he has the ἐξουσία to expect obedience and the αὐθεντία, the “right to punish” disobedience. (By that time, it was illegal to kill the slaves who were displeasing, but having the right to punish brutally, was permitted.

Papyrus 9239,8 from AD 548 describes a woman who was dominated, cast aside, and suffered a lifethreatening blow as “αὐθεντίᾳ κ(αὶ) τυραννικ(ῷ). This again confirms the use of violence with αὐθεντία.

Some awkwardly translated attempts with αὐθεντία are found in 3 Maccabees 2:29. But I will look at both Brenton’s and the NRSV’s in subsequent posts, and also the interpretation by Freisen.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by Timothée »

Joel didn’t suggest that. You can use large dictionaries like the LS for collecting loci.

Did you read the Chantraine entry? He explains (or at the very least proposes a plausible explanation) how the differring senses developed. Only after you’ve read it are you free to disagree with it as long as you give some grounds for it.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: Post 2: BREAKTHROUGH!!! TWO αὐθέντης SEMANTIC FAMILIES

Post by Alison Rowan »

ThanksTimothée,

I will reread as best I can in my reasonable knowledge of French ...

I know I'm no "expert", just working through a hunch and bringing it for your consideration. I'm aware I am coming from a different perspective, but which actually WORKS effortlessy in all the texts I've managed to work through, so far.

Thanks for your engagement, though.

polemistes
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by polemistes »

It's clear that the word αὐθεντία to some degree is troublesome for translation, which it has in common with a lot of Greek words. I would agree with you that it is a stretch to translate αὐθεντίᾳ as "with his own hand", if there are no other examples where it is clearer that the word is used in that sense. I have skimmed through a lemma search on TLG of the word, and so far I have not seen any examples where the word needs to mean anything else than "authority", "power", "self determination" or "status". Of course, I have only looked at a few of the 1888 examples, so there is a fair chance that the example needed exists somewhere.

You should really read Frisk's etymology on αὐθέντης, since I think he gives a very credible account of it, and he also thinks the meanings of the word comes from more than one source, but his theory is quite different from yours.

You should also consider that the people who write Greek dictionaries have devoted their whole lives to the Greek language and its texts, and that their decisions on which definitions to give to words are based on a background which is far beyond what even most scholars can ever attain. Therefore you need a very good reason to doubt the validity of their work. Never is it justified to use terms as "predetermined", "massacre", "violation of the text", or "breaking many rules", even if you think you have found a new and interesting way of explaining a word. I'm saying this because I think we owe a certain degree of humility and gratitude to the people who have brought such useful gifts into the world. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be critical and question everything, and to try and test any statement no matter how obvious it seems, and I commend you for doing that.

There is also the problem with dictionary entries, that they only take you so far when it comes to understanding a text. Every word has to be understood in its context, and there is no end to contexts. You also need to have a deep feeling for the language, something which takes a lot of time and effort for a language with no native speakers. If you want to discuss alternative understandings of specific Greek words, you have to know Greek first if you expect anyone to want to participate in the discussion. With a few years of hard work, keeping your critical approach, and adding some humility, you will be able to discuss the matters with some weight.

I will comment on a short paragraph you have written, since I find it bewildering, and I think you will understand why I suggest you must learn the language before attacking dictionary entries.
Alison Rowan wrote: Please note how many alterations to the grammar have been made to accomodate this “definition.”
The translation is fine. Even if we agree that "with his own hands" is a stretch, none of the alterations you suggest would have accommodated that meaning.
Alison Rowan wrote: Here, αὐθεντίᾳ, a noun in the dative has been changed to a verb, “slew with his own hands”.
When you translate from Greek to English, you have to use idiomatic English. Further down you seem to have understood the construction of the sentence with the aorist participle. If you translate every participle into an English participle, you get unreadable English, as your translation exemplifies. It is absurd to think the translator has mistaken a noun for a verb and then missed the verb. A participle still functions as a verb, just not a finite one. It is translated as a finite verb because that makes it readable in English. This is something you will learn during the first weeks of any proper Greek course.
Alison Rowan wrote: Also, δήμαρχόν, “of the tribunes,” pl. gen. is changed to sg. acc.
I am very puzzled about this. Is it possible that you think δήμαρχον is pl.gen? That would mean that you know no Greek at all. δήμαρχον is sg.acc. The pl. gen. is δημάρχων. I must only suppose that you suggest that the text has been emended through textual criticism in order to support the proposed translation. The problem is that this wouldn't change the sense of the sentence much at all, and doesn't affect the meaning of αὐθεντίᾳ in any way.
Alison Rowan wrote: and also essential words are omitted (τινα, a “certain one" and ἀποκτείνας, the participle describing Marius’ son - “having put to death”). The only verb in this phrase is ἔπεμψε, “he sent”; there is no “he slew.”
τις is one of those words which you have to translate according to context. Here the translator has chosen to translate it into an English indefinite article, since including "a certain" doesn't make sense here, or at least it doesn't contribute anything meaningful. The translator can do this because he/she knows Greek, and therefore understands the actual sense of the whole, and not only the grammatical function of the words by themselves. You can guess what my comment to the rest of the last quote would be.

I have written these comments, not to put you down, but to encourage you to study Greek even more eagerly, although with somewhat more humility. Without the people who did all the work before us, it would have been impossible to understand anything.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

Thank you, Polemistes,

I do need reminding that my relative inexperience in the language should be accompanied with a lot more humility. I gratefully receive the correction and take note. Unfortunately, communicating with an appropriate social nuance is not my forte, being high functioning autist (Aspergers). I do agree and am indeed grateful for the lives devoted to bringing their exhaustive research and knowledge to us. They certainly deserve far more respect than my inappropriate language credited to them. Sorry for any justified offence.

I am also a bit of a sociologist and have often encountered a lack of reception to different ideas when they jar with the perceptions in the listeners who interpret through their own long-established cognitive lens. It is virtually impossible for anyone to disassociate themselves from what they are familiar with in order to not end up eisegeting their personal understanding, when interpreting either what they hear or read. I also tend to be an independent and lateral thinker, with perhaps a rash audacity to strip right back and start building from the basics, trying not to be influenced by the customary flow of thought, until I see that there is no alternative to the one that everyone else has used. In the case of αὐθέντης, I do see a clear and logical alternative, which I am attempting to bring for your appraisal.

Thank you, also for expressing some support over my questioning of the viability of "with his own hands". This might help illustrate my method of stripping back to basics and rebuilding. I suspect that there will not be in existence an actual text in which it CAN be contextually justified. I am asking whether or not its inclusion by the translator is there because he has come to the text, having in mind Thayer's/Strong's lexicon entry which includes that phrase. Unfortunately, I cannot compare Little Liddell of 1834, since I do not know how to access it. My observation is that at the time, (1890) the papyri had not been thoroughly researched, so the definition was based on the TLG, but more specifically the Biblical passages - eg WoS 12:6. Looking at the translations available to them at that time, on which they are likely to have made decisions, I list a good selection in my first post. I also highlight the fact that "with their own hands" is only found in the Douay Rheims Bible as a literary device of poetic irony. It CANNOT be justified from the Greek text. Nevertheless - it is this which was included in the lexica - and I suspect was the reason why the translator of D.C. tried to squeeze it in there. Do you follow my logic? That's why I said "pre-determined" and in this case, I think it quite justified to think so - don't you?

From a sociological point of view, I also wonder if insufficient attention has been paid at times by lexicologists to the existing social perceptions and beliefs of the writers and the particular historical context critical to the time in which they were writing? Surely this omission can lead to misinterpretation - or even mistranslation? I fear none more so than when attempting to make 1 Tim 2:12 mean the exercise of some sort of ecclesiastical or domestic authority. All contempoary usage of the αὐθέντ- words cannot unequivocally support this interpretation/translation. Again there are STRONG socio-cultural reasons for what I believe is a retrospective patriarchy into the text which became fixed by Jerome's choice of dominari.

In my experience, those who focus on meanings given in those lexica such as "self-worker" or "doer of an action" are working with a cognitive bias. Albert Wolters, for example, provides two examples of αὐθέντης as "doer of an action" in his influential study. The examples he shares refer to Cassander, the "doer" of the "Massacre at Moronea," and the accomplices of Gauis Gracchus, who storm the Roman Senate and murder the Senate guard. For some reason, Wolters removes these instances from the list of examples of αὐθέντας as perpetrators or accomplices of violence/murder. Truly, that baffles me.

Leland Wilshire examines the philology connected to the "αὐτο-έντης" argument briefly in his book entitled, "Insight into Two Biblical Passages." He cites Pierre Chantraine to express doubt with regard to its validity (see pages 12-13).

It was through going through the text and its various translations of 3 Macc 2:29, that I came to the interpretation of αὐθεντίᾳ as an "authorisation to slay" - there it was strictly conditional and a slaying of animals in sacrifice ... or in later years "to punish" (including the giving of the death sentence). Here, indeed, I very much let the context bring the definition to the word, rather than bring an assumed definition and then to work the translation around to accommodate it. I hope I will be adequately able in subsequent posts to demonstrate my reappraisal of the translations and to offer my own. My own suggested definitions I give in Post 2, are of course flexible within their context, but I am testing out the simple rule to always keep the same semantic association within their own ἔντεα family with a very clear separation from the other, έντης - viz αὐθέντικός and αὐθεντίᾳ where the context very clearly associates them with "genuine, original and authentic" - and a certificate, αὐθεντίᾳ, attesting to it.

So far, from what material I have had access to, I have observed a level of confusion by the hybridization of both families into the definitions and translations, yet my approach yields consistent and viable readings - including in 1 Tim 2:12 (but a LOT of historical context of culture and existing laws and beliefs and cult practices need establishing first - I may get round to doing that here, eventually).

I freely acknowledge that I have much yet to learn and material to cover and other scholars to read up on. Where might I be able to access Frisk's etymology, please?

Whether or not, I currently have the capacity in the language to argue my case more convincingly and with sufficient "weight", I offer my approach for you to at least test it out, yourselves, in the texts, with your own superior experience in Greek.

polemistes
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by polemistes »

I think your apporach is quite excellent, but as I have mentioned, your arguments don't make much sense, because you argue from ideas of the Greek language which are not valid, as I have tried to show you. I think I have much more experience with Greek than you have, but I do not consider myself proficient enough to argue against the dictionary definition of any word. Still, if I had to have an opinion about your suggestion that αὐθεντία could mean "licence to kill", I would say that this might very well be a possible meaning in a certrain context, since the word clearly has the meaning "authority" in several other contexts, but there is no reason I have seen, including your arguments, to think that the word has been used as a technical term in this way.

As for the Frisk etymology, jeidsath gave the definition in your first post:

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... 00#p188911

Here you have the whole dictionary in one web page:

http://ieed.ullet.net/friskL.html

If you don't read German, I would be happy to translate the αὐθέντης entry for you.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

Ahhhh thank you Polemistes,

I had read Jeidsath's reference, but not remembered that it was Frisk's. I don't know any German apart from jah und nein, so a translation would be extremely helpful, thank you - if that is not too much bother.

I do understand that the semantic range widened for αὐθεντία into a broader sense of authority, but at which point in time, I do not know - certainly later than the first or second century AD, as far as I've managed to find. It appears to have the sense of jurisdiction, too. A 14th C inscription to the harbour entrance of Theodoro in Crimea reads Αὐθεντία πόλεως Θεοδωροῦς καὶ παραθαλασσίας, meaning "Lordship (or Jurisdiction) of the city of Theodoro and the Maritime Region".

:oops: BTW, my jumbled post on Basil and the servants was a regrettable hasty addition at the end of that post, rather late that night - from memory, since I had mislaid my notes and the original text that I was working from. Nevertheless, the question still remains: why are there the two DISTINCT words, both apparently meaning "authority"? In the context of serving girls being attentive and running to you, (and in the previous sentence about undesirable characteristics of male servants), would not the "right to punish" be a significant element in Master/servant relationships? Why should it not be given a specific name - αὐθεντία?

Thank you for your time :)

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

Following through my proposition that αὐθεντία means "authority to slay," I remembered Jn 18:31:

εἶπον αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, Ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα·

Were the Jews perhaps saying to Pilate, in effect, "we don't have your αὐθεντία," but because it is phrased as it is, it is not possible to use the word αὐθεντία in this sentence? It would have to have been a SPECIAL "authority" which they no longer possessed under ROMAN LAW, even though under MOSAIC Law, they did. Do you agree that this is a unique judicial authorisation? Why should it not have its own name?

Just putting it out for consideration - nothing adamant, guys :?

polemistes
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by polemistes »

Here's my attempt on the article by Frisk. My German is quite rusty, so there might be some embarrassing mistakes, but I think the essence is clear:
αὐθέντες, -ου m. 'author, perpetrator, master', also 'murderer', comp. below (Hdt., Trag., Antipho, Thuc., Plb. etc.). -- Derivatives, all post classical and late: Fem. αὐθέντρια = κυρία (Lydien; zur Bildung Chantraine Formation 106); αὐθεντία 'absolute power, self determination' (LXX, Pap. etc.); αὐθεντικός 'reliable, correct, authentic' (Pap. et al.). Denominativa: 1. αὐθεντέω 'Be master of something, be entitled to something' (Pap., NT) with αὐθεντημα· auctoramentum (Gloss.); 2. αὐθεντίζω trans. 'have influence over something' (BGU 103,3).

The side-form αὐτο-ἐντης (S. OT 107, according to the scholia also El. 272) just as συνέντης· συνεργός Hsch. which is constructed in the same way opens up for inferring a rear component *ἕντης, which can contain the full grade of the root of the attested ἁνύω 'bring about, accomplish'; αὐθέντης would then be a hyphenation of αὐτος and the mentioned verb in the middle of the suffix -της = 'one who accomplishes something himself'. The meaning 'murderer' could either be explained as an euphemism or that it has come to be through association with θείνω, see Fraenkel Nom. ag. 1, 237ff., where there is a detailed account of the history of meanings and dissemination. -- Anders Kretschmer Glotta 3, 289ff. (see also 4, 340): in αὐθέντης two words have fallen together, *αὐτο-θέντης for θείνω (by haplology) and *αὐτ-ἕντης with unclear rear component. -- For the history of αὐθέντης in Modern Greek and Turkish, see also Maidhof Glotta 10, 10 m. Lit.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by jeidsath »

Here is block of entries in the LSJ beginning with αὐθεντέω, I've added in the additions from the supplement:
αὐθεντ-έω, to have full power or authority over, τινός 1 Ep.Ti.2.12; πρός τινα BGU1208.37 (i B. C.): c. inf., Lyd.Mag.3.42. 2. commit a murder, Sch.A.Eu.42. -ημα· auctoramentum, Gloss. -ης, ου, ὁ, (cf. αὐτοέντης) perpetrator, author, πράξεως Plb.22.14.2; ἱεροσυλίας D.S.16.61: generally, doer, Alex.Rh.p.2S.; master, δῆμος αὐθέντης χθονός E.Supp.442; voc. αὐθέντα ἥλιε PMag.Leid.W.6.46; condemned by Phryn.96. 2. perpetrator of a murder or death, Hdt.1.117, E.Rh.873, Th.3.58; τινός E.HF1359, A.R.2.754; Antipho 3.3.4, D.C.37.13: more loosely, one of a murderer's family, E.Andr.172. 3. as Adj., ὅμαιμος αὐ. φόνος, αὐ. θάνατοι, murder by one of the same family, A.Eu.212, Ag.1572 (lyr.). (For αὐτο-ἕντης, cf. συν-έντης, ἁνύω; root sen-, sn̥-.) -ία, ἡ, absolute sway, authority, CIG2701.9 (Mylasa), PLips.37.7 (iv A. D.), Corp.Herm.1.2, Zos.2.33. b as honorary appellation (of praetorian prefect), Just.Nov. 111 epilogus. 2. restriction, LXX 3 Ma.2.29. 3. αὐθεντίᾳ ἀποκτείνας with his own hand, D.C.Fr.102.12. -ίζω, take in hand, BGU103.3. -ικός, ή, όν, principal, ἄνεμοι Gp.1.11.1. 2. warranted, authentic, χειρογραφία, ἀποχή, διαθήκη, POxy.260.20 (i A. D.), Ostr.1010, BGU326ii 23 (ii A. D.); original, ἐπιστολαί PHamb.18ii6 (iii A. D.); ἐπιθύματα PMag.Leid.W.9.15; ὄνομα ib.14.25; authoritative, Ptol.Tetr.182. σπουδή IMylasa 134.2, 6 (ii BC) 3. subst., αὐ. τό, original copy, PFam.Teb. 31.13 (ii AD), v. ἔκβασος. Adv. αὐθεντι-κῶς, loqui make an authoritative statement, Cic.Att.9.14.2; αὐ. nuntiabatur ib.10.9.1: Comp. -ώτερον with higher authority, Ptol. Tetr.177. -ρια, ἡ, fem. of αὐθέντης, = κυρία, Keil-Premerstein Zweiter Bericht142.
Words added to the supplement:
αὐθεντεύω, = αὐθεντέω, Cat.Cod.Astr. 8(3).196.12.
αὐθεντόπωλος, ὁ, son (slave) of the master, Sch.Aristid. p. 54.10 D.
I'll break out the entry for αὐθεντία from the middle of the above block to make it clearer.
αὐθεντία, ἡ,

1. a. absolute sway, authority, CIG2701.9 (Mylasa), PLips.37.7 (iv A. D.), Corp.Herm.1.2, Zos.2.33.
1. b. as honorary appellation (of praetorian prefect), Just.Nov. 111 epilogus.
2. restriction, LXX 3 Ma.2.29.
3. αὐθεντίᾳ ἀποκτείνας with his own hand, D.C.Fr.102.12.
Here are the sources for αὐθεντία

CIG2701.9 is here (in Greek and Latin!): http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/261329

The 1970 edition of PLips. is here. Instead of 37.7, look at 33.7 (also 6, 28): https://archive.org/stream/griechischeu ... 8/mode/2up

Corp.Herm.1.2 is here: http://www.w66.eu/elib/html/poimandres.html

Zos.2.33 (see line 4 on page 91): https://archive.org/stream/historianova ... 0/mode/2up

Just.Nov.111 (perhaps the most interesting, and only added in the supplement) is here (see the top left of page 523): https://archive.org/stream/corpusiurisc ... 4/mode/2up

3 Maccabees 2:29: https://books.google.com/books?id=Mf5iAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA255

D.C.Fr.102.12.: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ction%3D12

EDIT: Added in the not unimportant for the purposes of this discussion 3rd meaning of αὐθεντία in my breakout.

I notice that the idea of restriction in the 3 Maccabees reference seems to come from προσυνεσταλμένη rather than αὐθεντία. αὐθεντία seems to refer to their civic rights.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

Thank you so much guys, for your time and efforts on my behalf. I will take more time on all of these to absorb and chase up the refs. I have already done a few and found my interpretation is indeed viable, but not yet done all. Most of the connotations I am already familiar with.

What puzzles me is why the entea cognate as an option has gone out of favour. Does anyone have any information on that? I did know the semantic range widened to include the mastermind or instigator behind someone else's murderous or criminal action. I am preparing for your appraisal, my own review of the 3 Macc 2:29 occurrence, since it was through close historical cultural and logical analysis of the context which first led me to the alternative definition I propose. It may have to be divided into 2 posts, though.

As I said, I will go look some more and thanks again for your trouble.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by jeidsath »

I believe that mwh commented fairly conclusively on ἔντεα in thread 2.

Please don't post more threads, three is more than enough. Future posts can go into these. In fact, I'm actually thinking of collating them into a single thread.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: POST 3: αὐθέντια as “Licence to Kill”

Post by Alison Rowan »

OK Jeidsath, thanks.

Even when I had access only to the 19th century attempts to derive the words, Frisk has still produced two possible cognate combinations, again with the same basic difference: one is "to accomplish": the other is "to slay." My proposition that there may be two semantic fields rendering the same spelling, STILL carries possibility. I know a lot of further work is required to test it on those texts you kindly supplied.

I apologise if I had taken rather too literally, the textkit rule of not putting up excessively long posts. Nevertheless, I do have a LOT of material on 3 Maccabees 2:29. I am attempting to abridge and adjust for this more scholarly audience, a document I'd done in January. I have seen fresh, significantly supporting evidence for understanding the context and import of Ptolemy's edict, only yesterday, so it's all still in draft form while I reorganize.

If you're Ok, to add around five or six googledoc pages worth to the end of this thread, then I will. Otherwise 3 Macc could easily be a stand alone ... a critique of NRSV and Brenton's translations (I agree, "restriction" refers to prosunestalmenen), an appraisal of Freisen's interpretation through a logical, historical "cult"ural review for context. The logical outcome of the analysis, leaves little option but to support why I think authentia means "authority to slay" ... but here it is a "conditional permission to sacrifice."

I feel it needs laying out reasonably thoroughly and fairly to give you plenty of scope to find flaws in my findings and proposition. I can promise you, I did not embark on this with any preconceptions of its meaning and even changed my mind over two previous conclusions until further evidence emerged ... The full context defined the word for me.

Your call, but it won't be ready for posting for another 24 hrs, or so.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by jeidsath »

I don't think that we have a rule about length. You should post whatever is necessary to facilitate a decent discussion. However, you may find that a brief and careful summary of your points will get more thoughtful replies than a wall of text.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by mwh »

Alison, You’re confusing semantics with etymology. One and the same word may mean different things: dictionaries such as LSJ subdivide meanings. Chantraine (like you, in a way) recognizes two semantic fields for the word αυθέντης—but a single etymology. Whether or not that’s right (and it seems pretty reasonable), ἔντεα doesn’t come into the picture at all. It’s morphologically untenable, as I said in my earlier post.

So forget ἐντεα.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Alison Rowan »

Dont worry, Jeidsath, I have discarded ἔντεα now that I have a translation of Frisk's lexicon ... θείνω is FAR the correct word ... (I did mention that, btw and will adjust my future writing to say this).

I was saying "Semantic Family" meaning a "different Etymology" ... knew there was an "official" word I was missing, and yes, BOTH are in play, I believe. It is bizarre that the possibility of different etymologies for authentes has not been investigated ... yet in many of the worthy lexica it is there in black and white ... so why the continued insistence in trying to hybridise them???

This is what I'm doing ... an etymological separation and the initial testing, in my amateur way, IS WORKING! I lack the knowledge and experience of you guys to do this by myself ... so I'm asking for help ... If you think it a viable exercise.

I will show you, I hope, why the NRSV's attempt to use the wrong etymology for authentia, makes a hash of the text and context. Brenton’s is closer by using the LATER connotation of authentia as a general, but very powerful authority. BUT, the context precludes this. Using θείνω ... and more literally at this point of its semantic development, meaning wound, slay, instead of ἁνύω, WORKS. Or more truthfully, I battled away with getting the context right and it then led me to this definition which works effortlessly ... and in later texts, I believe, such as the D. C. on the son of Marius.

The problem I'm facing with getting this taken seriously, is that the lexica are now "closed". If I were doing this a century ago, published it and Jones or MacKenzie had agreed, it would now be in the LSJ, for others to use. Because it's NOT found in a lexicon, no-one is wanting to consider it! It's such an unforgiving, closed and circular system: the compilers of lexica search the existing literature for what appears to be a contextually valid connotation and promote it. Others take what is ALREADY promoted to try inserting in new translation work, but often with difficulty. Don't you agree the authent- words are notoriously problematic? I'm offering a simplification and clarification by investigating the possibility of confused etymologies being the cause.

I'll work at trimming down to the bare essentials of what I want to say about 3 Maccabees and get it up later this evening (for me in the UK). However, not having a personal library, but relying only upon online resource, I can only get Brenton’s in full. I have found another article which quotes the pertinent ending part of verse 29 from the NRSV, but really would like to see their translation of the whole of Ptolemy 's inscription which runs from v 28 through 30. Likewise, I have no access to the related NET version, but again would love to see if they have modified the NRS version of this text. Can anyone help me, here?

Thanks once again for your attention and forbearance with me ... an inadequately self-taught amateur with an aspie eye for detail and lateral thinking. I NEED your help!

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Timothée »

Alison Rowan wrote:Dont worry, Jeidsath, I have discarded ἔντεα
You’d seem to be mixing up commentators here.

But notice also Chantraine’s take in his entry:
Une influence de θείνω qui aurait facilité la spécification au sens de meurtrier (Fraenkel, Nom. agentis 1,237 sqq.) n’est pas impossible, mais peu vraisemblable. Moins vraisemblable encore est l’idée de Kretschmer selon qui deux mots *αὐτο-θέντης (de θείνω) et αὐτ-ἕντης se seraient confondus (Gl. 3, 1912, 289—293).
Alison Rowan wrote:It is bizarre that the possibility of different etymologies for authentes has not been investigated
It has been put forth at least, as you see from Frisk and Chantraine. As you see, Chantraine doesn’t warm to the idea.
Alison Rowan wrote:Because it's NOT found in a lexicon, no-one is wanting to consider it!
While it’s true that every scholar cannot delve into every single detail himself but have to rely, to some extent, on the work of others, I don’t think your claim holds water in any general fashion. Scholars worth their salt are able to see through the entries in dictionaries. Joel mentioned Chadwick’s Lexicographica Graeca, which expressly sets out to point flaws in the LS. Michael Silk wrote in the 1980’s an excellent article (brought earlier to the attention of Textkit by mwh) on words the meaning of which had been forgotten when the ancient authors like Homer and Sophocles used them, resulting in difficulties in writing dictionary entries, again showing shortcomings of the LS. As scholarship will never be completed, there are stones to be turned at the very moment.
Alison Rowan wrote:an inadequately self-taught amateur
Your style of writing alternates between disparaging yourself and belittling others. We all have our personal styles and everyone becomes agitated now and then, but it would be good if you could tone it down a little—on yourself, too.

Timothée
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 564
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Timothée »

I’m still not sure whether you’ve read the Chantraine entry or not. You really ought to, even if you took a stand against what he says. If the French troubles you, you should tell and we might be able to provide a translation. But read it carefully, it has a lot of information. For what it’s worth, I typed its core out here (as a picture earlier in the thread, in toto):
Pierre Chantraine wrote:αὐθέντης -ου : « auteur responsable », notamment auteur responsable d’un meurtre (Antiphon 3,3,4, 3,4,4, etc. où il s’agit de la victime! Hdt.). Le mot est attesté chez Th. 3,58 παρὰ τοῖς αὐθένταις. Dans la tragédie, toujours avec une valeur expressive : E. Andr. 614 Pélée voit dans Ménélas la « cause » de la mort d’Achille, et αὐθέντης est employé avec le génitif Ἀχιλλέως. Emploi au sens de « meurtrier » (S. OT 107, El. 272 [noter dans les deux cas la graphie analytique αὐτοέντης]; E., etc.). Tel peut être également le sens dans deux passages d’A., Eu. 212, A. 1577, où le terme est épithète de φόνος, ou de θάνατοι, que l’on entend généralement « meurtres domestique », ce qui seraient une déformation littéraire du sens propre. Autre déformation du sens propre dans la glose des An. Ox. 4, 180 αὐθέντης· ὁ ἑαυτὸν ἀναίρων. Le sens propre du terme est « cause d’un meurtre, donc meurtrier ». Du point de vue de la forme, on observe que les deux ex. de S. présentent le terme sous la forme αὐτοέντης.

Αὐθέντης s’observe d’autre part à date généralement plus tardive au sens de « qui est cause », d’où « maître ». Premier ex. E. Supp. 442 : δῆμος αὐθέντης χθονός (on a corrigé à tort εὐθυντής). Plus tard « auteur de, cause de » (Plb. 22,14,2, D.S., etc.), qui a donné naissance au sens de « maître », peut-être attesté chez E., fréquent en tout cas dans le grec byzantin mais qui se trouve condamné par Phrynichos 96: Αὐθέντης μηδέποτε χρήσῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσπότου ὡς οἱ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια ῥήτορες. C’est au sens de « maître » que αὐθέντης a fourni des dérivés, tous tardifs. — —

À l’origine de cette histoire se trouve un vocable αὐθέντης qui signifie à la fois « meurtrier », et à partir d’une certaine époque, « qui est cause de, qui est le maître ». À moins d’admettre qu’il y ait eu deux termes, ou accident par étymologie populaire, il faut supposer que le terme originel sert de lieu géométrique à ces deux emplois, évidemment composé de αὐτός, signifie : « celui qui réalise par lui-même », donc : 1) par un détour d’euphémisme ou par une spécification juridique : « cause d’un meurtre, meurtrier ». Les emplois d’Antiphon, malgré les glossateurs, ne déterminent pas du tout le sens de « suicidé », mais celui de : « qui est cause du meurtre ». L’emploi occasionnel chez les tragiques pour les meurtres commis à l’intérieur d’une famille ne concerne pas le sens essentiel du mot; 2) D’autre par, le composé a pris, surtout à partir de l’époque hellénistique, le sens de chef ayant autorité, etc. — —
EDIT: mwh notes below that Chantraine’s mention on E. Supp. 442 (now highlighted) is probably to be forsaken.
Last edited by Timothée on Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Alison Rowan »

Yes, I had not noticed it was mwh who had told me to forget entea - sorry Jeidsath.

Timothee,

You have been so helpful - thank you, since I had tried to go back again to the link you gave me earlier and it did not load for me. That must have taken a while to type ... I'm humbled that you've made such a great effort for me.

I was attempting to follow through on the Greek for the quote from Phrynichos 96: Αὐθέντης μηδέποτε χρήσῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσπότου ὡς οἱ περὶ τὰ δικαστήρια ῥήτορες. I was wondering where the verb was for the second phrase with the rhetor, but read up in Perseus that the conjunction, ὡς suppresses the verb. Which would you recommend, here?

So far I have "The Judge (the one who decides the verdict) never pronounced upon the slave owner while(?) the pleader (spoke?) to those all around the courtroom." Is that reasonable?

The point of me doing that was to ascertain that, as I suggested earlier, the αὐθέντης is the one who has the judicial authority to punish with a level right up to passing the death sentence i.e. the one with what I believe is a valid definition of αὐθεντία - "the authority to slay"- the one with the power of life and death. This still keeps the SAME probable cognate, θείνω, as I suggest is for αὐθέντης. I gave earlier, my definition as "a slayer of oneself or others by your own action (suicide, murder) or through others (suitably persuaded or authorised - as a judge)." To my mind, that definition covers all bases and can be applied within its context wherever it occurs, but "slay" may be reduced in severity to "commit a violent crime" or "brutally punish," since θείνω means "to strike a blow" or "wound". Especially applicable when it is talking of slave owners' authority over their slaves.

This is why I suggest that Basil could use exousia and authentia in the same phrase because authentia has quite a different purpose than exousia. It is not logical to suggest that authentia is defined as "absolute sway" or "absolute authority" when he's just said exousia, - he has "authority" and "absolute authority" ??- is it? I propose that authentia is a "LEGAL RIGHT TO PUNISH" when his exousia is not obeyed, yes?

I'll leave you to deliberate on that while I get back to preparing my 3 Macc post.
Last edited by Alison Rowan on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by mwh »

Timothée, A small FYI on the Chantraine entry: at Eur.Suppl.442, on the basis of usage elsewhere, David Kovacs argues forcefully against ευθέντης being Euripidean, and Diggle opts for ευθυντής. Set this instance aside and you get a consistently later date for this later use of the word.

Alison, You’ve now abandoned ἔντεα (of which until today you were so sure) and leapt to embrace θείνειν instead. Don’t expect that to command assent either, however well you think it “WORKS.”

Your attempted translation of the Phrynichus entry is way off. As a prescriptive Atticist he’s condemning contemporary usage of the word ευθεντης in favoυr of the use found in Athenian tragedy (i.e. “murderer,” αυτοχειρ φονευς, someone who murders with his own hands). He says “Never use αυθεντης in the sense of ‘master’.”

Incidentally, I googled the 3 Maccabees reference and found that you’d already written a long post about it elsewhere.

From now on I’ll leave you to your own devices.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by jeidsath »

Since Alison mentions St. Basil, let me just point out that that these later αὐθεντ– words are extremely well attested in Patristic literature, and the entries about them in Lampe cover from 262-264, compared to the modest paragraph in the LSJ.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Alison Rowan »

Mwh,

I appreciate you filling me in with the background to the piece, thank you. I bow to your superior knowledge and expertise. I had written up some preliminary thoughts about 3 Macc in a Googledoc for some others to review. None of them have enough expertise, so I came here to you. I had forgotten that I had "published" it and should have turned off the "publish to the web" setting. Since then, I have found out about and reviewed Freisen's interpretation and with your excellent advice, I need to go through and edit out references to entea and hentes. They had been the only options I knew were in existence in English and freely available online. You have educated me well, since then, thank you all. It is information from that doc, which I'm STILL in process of rewriting and abridging for your review, (I only get a couple of free hours in the evening and a lunch break like now.)

I am aware of the shift in semantics in the patristic writings and would rather keep to writings before 200 AD, as well, but was merely illustrating from Basil's Epistulae, that the association of authentia in regard to being a "master", I.e. a slave-owner, could still be a justification for the theinein cognate.

Thanks for all the links to the occurrences of authentia, but I have not been able to read all of the pdfs since I could not make them legible enough on my smaller screen devices. So, from what I have been able to review and read elsewhere, it appears that uses of authentia predominate in the context of

1) judicial action (courtroom eg. Alex Rhetor, Basil's description of a Bishop presiding as an arbiter in church-goers disputes) or legally sanctioned execution eg. son of Marius

2) relationships between masters and slaves ... and I suggest the pertinent point is that they are allowed to chastise them physically as part of their "absolute sway."

I recall reading a commentary on a papyrus with an astrological piece by 2nd C Dorotheus stating "if Jupiter aspects the moon from trine ... It makes them (souls to be born) leaders and chiefs, some of civilians, others of soldiers, especially if the moon is increasing: but if the moon decreases, it does not make them authentas but hyperetoumenous."

The translator suggests dominant and subservient for those two words. I have found hypērétēs (from 5259 /hypó, "under" and ēressō, "to row") – properly, a rower (a crewman on a boat), an "under-rower" who mans the oars on a lower deck; (figuratively) a subordinate executing official orders, i.e. operating under direct (specific) orders. But is the "dominant" one not the one giving orders and also invested with the authentia "power of life and death" (either as supreme judge/decision maker in civilian affairs, or a general sending soldiers to their potential death), over the others who are expected to serve their cause ... the hyperetoumenous?

I need to search it out again, but I remember a piece in English talking about a text where it described with an authentes derivative, the state of a woman who had been turned out of the house without food and had "received a single life-threatening blow." Does that ring any bells with anyone? I will see if I can locate it again, myself. If it can be confirmed, then does that not massively support the theinein etymology? Sorry mwh, I am, therefore, reluctant to agree with you since it can still be maintained that theinein yields consistent results as the likely cognate, for the violent and murderous earlier use and then into the patristic writings where the semantic field widened further.

I suspect you all have knowledge of far more examples that can potentially dispute this, but I can only work with what I already have found. All I ask is that you test out the possibility of this etymology in those examples, it may still be applicable, even if others have defined them differently, to date.

The most "obvious" apparent exception is of course 1 Tim 2:12. I say it is NOT an exception... Paul used it exactly as it was used at that time ... to instigate murder! I will have to bring all the contemporary historical and cultural context of Roman law, anthropological beliefs, cult practices, public teaching practices and Gnostic teachings to the table to justify that. Also the endemic patriarchy of Graeco-Roman society was highly influential in the anachronistic translating into Latin by Jerome 350 years after Paul, which then fixed its meaning to be associated with ecclesiastical or domestic authority. Hoping to do that later on.

Alison Rowan
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by Alison Rowan »

Apologies for both the long wait and the long weight for this document, but here it is ...

Aὐθεντία in 3 Maccabees 2:29 - analysing the NRSV and LDL Brenton translations


The Text in Greek (ca. 100 BC) - thought to have been written after the reign of Ptolemy VIII. This is the inscription upon the pillar erected in the tower porch of Jerusalem's Temple.

28μηδένα τῶν μὴ θυόντων εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν εἰσιέναι, πάντας δὲ τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους εἰς λαογραφίαν καὶ οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν ἀχθῆναι, τοὺς δὲ ἀντιλέγοντας βίᾳ φερομένους τοῦ ζῆν μεταστῆσαι, 29τούς τε ἀπογραφομένους χαράσσεσθαι καὶ διὰ πυρὸς εἰς τὸ σῶμα παρασήμῳ Διονύσου κισσοφύλλῳ, οὓς καὶ καταχωρίσαι εἰς τὴν προσυνεσταλμένην αὐθεντίαν. 30ἵνα δὲ μὴ τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀπεχθόμενος φαίνηται, ὑπέγραψεν· ἐὰν δέ τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν προαιρῶνται ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὰς τελετὰς μεμυημένοις ἀναστρέφεσθαι, τούτους ἰσοπολίτας ᾿Αλεξανδρεῦσιν εἶναι.

Translation by LDL Brenton (1844)

28That entrance to their own temple was to be refused to all those who would not sacrifice; that all the Jews were to be registered among the common people; that those who resisted were to be forcibly seized and put to death; 29that those who were thus registered, were to be marked on their persons by the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus, and to be set apart with these limited rights. 30To do away with the appearance of hating them all, he had it written underneath, that if any of them should elect to enter the community of those initiated in the rites, these should have equal rights with the Alexandrians.

Translation by NRSV (2004) - the pertinent section around αὐθεντία

28… All Jews shall be subjected to registration involving poll tax and to the status of slaves 29those who are registered are to be branded on their bodies by fire with the ivy-leaf symbol of Dionysus and to register in accordance with their origin of record.

The Back Story and Context

First, the nature of Ptolemy Philopater's prohibition in the opening phrase of v 28, needs to be established

μηδένα τῶν μὴ θυόντων εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν εἰσιέναι

Why the μὴ, in this position? It would seem that it implies it should be read as “those NOT making sacrifices” are to be denied entrance to their own temple. This is somewhat bizarre, since it makes no sense. It reads that Ptolemy prohibits those who do not want to sacrifice and welcomes those who do! The Jews wished to sacrifice to YHWH, so why is Ptolemy stipulating a prohibition which is exempted if they do what they wish to do, anyway? This is not a punitive measure at all!

It could be understood as “those who will not make the following sacrifices of themselves”, but here, Τῶν μὴ θυόντων should be literally translated as "those not offering by burning." In other words, “those not making burnt offerings.”

Freisen suggests that Ptolemy is saying that they have to make sacrifices to Dionysus and then they can go into their own Temple in Jerusalem.There are many reasons why this fails.

1) No Jew would DARE try to come before YHWH having just broken the FIRST of the ten commandments - “You shall have no other gods before/besides me.”

2) Ptolemy’s edict can be divided into two sections: v 28-29 and v 30. Initiation into the Mysteries is in the second “carrot” section offering a reward of full Alexandrian citizenship INSTEAD of slavery, which is the condition stipulated for entrance to the temple in the “stick” side of the edict. They are not a combined condition for entrance, but an alternative route.

3) The proof of the above is borne out in v 31-32, which in short says that some politically ambitious Jews did get initiated and become Alexandrian citizens, esteeming entrance to the Temple abhorrent in comparison. Their choice was evidence of their apostasy so they were immediately excommunicated from their own people. Therefore, they could not enter the Temple to sacrifice, even if they had wanted to.

4) Finally, reading up on the Dionysian mysteries reveals that burnt offerings were NEVER made to Dionysus.

This is eloquently stated in an Orphic Hymn

"I call upon loud-roaring and revelling Dionysus,
primeval, double-natured, thrice-born, Bacchic lord,
wild, ineffable, secretive, two-horned and two-shaped.
Ivy-covered, bull-faced, warlike, howling, pure,
You take raw flesh, you have feasts, wrapt in foliage, decked with grape clusters.
Resourceful Eubouleus, immortal god sired by Zeus
When he mated with Persephone in unspeakable union.
Hearken to my voice, O blessed one,
and with your fair-girdled nymphs breathe on me in a spirit of perfect agape".

So, we have a problem of both logic and translation … since it all points to the edict being a prohibition of entrance to those wishing to burn sacrifices to YHWH.

All I might suggest is that perhaps Ptolemy was deliberately using a double negative in order to be exceptionally emphatic. He has already written μηδένα, which in itself is strict enough as "not even one" or "no-one, without exception." However, in addition to this, could it be possible that the following μη is there to strengthen εἰσιέναι, to "come into," "enter" and should not, therefore, be understood to apply to "those offering by burning"?

Grammatically, this would be unusual, but perhaps not unheard of … I observe that there is a double negative in Acts 19:40, where the town clerk in Ephesus says “μηδενὸς αἰτίου ὑπάρχοντος, περὶ οὗ οὐ δυνησόμεθα ἀποδοῦναι λόγον ...”

Perhaps 28a should simply read "Absolutely no persons may enter their own temple to make burnt offerings.” In other words, he was registering all Jews as slaves and allowing entrance for prayer, but for those who did not also get branded he was BANNING ALL BURNT OFFERINGS - the whole of Judaism’s ethos of atonement by substitution! To me, it is catastrophically more serious than it first appears from the current translation!

Surely, restoration of this “right to sacrifice” could alone be a motivation strong enough to endure the depth of the humiliation which Ptolemy was exacting in revenge upon them. He was not only demanding, on pain of death to forego their freedoms to become his slaves, but also to bear the humiliating branding mark of a god whose priests were castrated. This was perhaps a deliberate choice by Ptolemy as a huge insult to their covenantal circumcision. It was also a malicious slur on their modest lifestyles since Dionysus’s followers indulged in taking potioned wine in trance inducing orgiastic rites and self-flagellation in order to become euphorically “possessed” by the god.

This is the logic within its context stated earlier in the chapter:

The whole purpose of Ptolemy's edict was to pay back in greater measure, the humiliation he had received by being denied access by the priests to the Holy Place in Jerusalem's Temple to sacrifice to YHWH. He had been immediately struck to the ground, paralysed and speechless in front of his officials. Instead of repenting he planned to bring humiliation in revenge upon the Jewish race. Since he himself had been denied access to make an offering to YHWH and publicly humiliated, then surely it is tit for tat that they should now be denied access for sacrificing and even more publicly and permanently humiliated?

Now, if the Jews want to regain his αὐθεντία - "permission to slay" by sacrifice, it would be under his stipulated conditions, restricted to only those now enslaved, who would themselves be publicly humiliated to bear the branding mark of a despised foreign god. Since it was the withdrawal of permission to sacrifice which warranted the implementations of the conditions, surely it must be the restoration of the “right to sacrifice” (αὐθέντα) which is the paramount consideration and the reward for fulfilling the conditions, stipulated in the writ? Hence its position at the end of this section of the edict, as the ultimate goal.

Use of αὐθεντία

I will comment first on the NRSV, which rather unusually, renders αὐθεντία as “origin,” regarding their place of birth, but I am not aware of this being a typical translation, elsewhere. Moreover, there already exist perfectly adequate Greek words, with this meaning of origin - both ρίζα a root, along with γένεσίς, beginning, birth or nativity are used in Ezek 16:3.

Translating αὐθεντία as “origin,” although logically within the semantic range of the customarily used cognates, is nevertheless, not well supported by any viable semantic progression, into its unquestioned later meaning of absolute sway or authority. Nor does it have any affiliation to the other more common, related noun, αὐθέντης, which possessed a meaning before, during and after 100 BC as murderer, nor with the verb αὐθεντέω very often translated with a similar meaning. However, it does bear relation to the adjective, αὐθέντικός, which invariably has the meaning of authentic, genuine or original in all texts - especially the papyri - throughout all periods.

Is it possible that these entirely different meanings for αὐθέντης may have come about because the word arises from two separate etymologies? Frisk suggests that one could be the combination of αὐτο with ἁνύω, to “bring about, accomplish,” coupled with the suffix, -της. The other etymology is proposed from θείνω, to “strike, wound.” If the NRSV chose to incorporate a meaning from the ἁνύω-της cognate, here, it runs directly against the contemporary use IN THE SAME DOCUMENT (at Wisdom of Solomon 12:6) of αὐθέντας to mean slayers, which logic suggests ought to arise from the θείνω cognate.

Aὐθεντία does have a later semantic progression into a denotation of autocracy, an “absolute sway” - surely meaning a power of life and death over another … what is more “absolute" than that? Is that more likely to have arisen from ἁνύω-της or from θείνω? Frisk suggests that if the correct cognate is ἁνύω-της, the association with death could be merely a euphemism from “one who accomplishes something himself.” This, to my mind, is a rather weak argument.

However, if αὐθεντία arises from θείνω, simultaneously allied to the common denotation of αὐθέντης as “murderer” or later as an “instigator of a violent crime/murder” or “judge with the authority to put to death,” could that progression have originated from an earlier meaning, possibly used here, of “authority to kill," but in this context, “permission to sacrifice”?

Analysing the Translations

I will look more closely, now, at several anomalies generated by the NRSV’s attempt to use the other etymological derivation, ἁνύω-της of αὐθέντης. It is not only over the choice of “origin" for αὐθέντία, but there are also further lexical concerns in the NRSV translation of these two verses in order to make that definition “fit”. The final phrase of v 29b is highly questionable.

“and to register in accordance with their origin of record."

οὓς καὶ καταχωρίσαι εἰς τὴν προσυνεσταλμένην αὐθεντίαν.

In v 28, λαογραφία is a rare word found in a few Egyptian papyri meaning the registration of common people (of lower class or slave status) and has been correctly translated. Also in v 29a, ἀπογραφομένους, “those being registered” is correct, but in 29b, the NRSV chooses to translate as “to register,” yet another word, καταχωρίσαι, but this invariably means “to separate,” “to set apart” and not “to register.”

The verse proceeds with “in accordance with,” which can only be translated from κατα, but the only preposition is εἰς. How can this be justified?

The use of “origin” for αὐθεντίαν has already been questioned, but the worst contortion of the text is surely how they have been forced to render προσυνεσταλμένην as “of record”! Dissecting its etymology, we have a perfect participle taken from the verb, προσυσταλλο itself consisting of σταλλο with two prefixing prepositions, προσ and συν. Σταλλο is primarily “to gather up,” but can be used reflexively with the sense of “withdraw, avoid.” Prefixed with συν it becomes “gather together, wrap up, shorten, restrain.” That prefixed with προσ, brings in the idea of “leading to restraint", ie being conditional upon or limited by something. This word is aptly translated by Brenton as “limited,” but it appears to be far outside of the word’s etymology, to say that προσυνεσταλμένην can have the translation given by the NRSV as “of record." Even if that makes less clumsy reading than the participle, “having been recorded,” it cannot be justified, semantically.

A note on Brenton’s translation as “limited rights.” If we are using the lexicon definition of αὐθέντία, it generally has a meaning of absolute power, so surely for a subjugated people, a different word is needed to indicate a degree of limited self-determination or permission … such as “rights.” However, “rights” is an unlikely meaning since it should be noted that in the very next verse, “equal rights” is translated from ἰσοπολίτας, not ἰσοαὐθέντίας.

Πολίτας has the connotation of rights of citizenship. A more generalised “right" is usually translated from ἐξουσία, (e.g. Jn 1:12 the right to become God's children). It is usually translated as “authority," so why employ another word here unless there is an intended nuance which modifies it? But knowing the later autocratic authority connoted by αὐθέντία, it would surely intensify its meaning, not diminish it to have a connotation of a conquered people's “rights”?

In v 28, Brenton has completely omitted any mention of slavery - he has no phrase translating καὶ οἰκετικὴν διάθεσιν - it is completely absent! So, with no reference to slavery and a probable misunderstanding over the nature of Ptolemy’s prohibition, it could be merely implying that they would be returned to their previous measure of “limited autonomy” in their enclave and continue making their trips to Jerusalem for the feasts, provided they were registered and branded.

However, the perfect tense in the participle, could be best expressed as "now, having been limited" in some way. The perfect tense always defines that a change has happened.

As it reads in Brenton’s translation, using a perfect participle, it would be more logical, that "these rights" ought to be "now reinstated,” not "now restricted/limited." It cannot be saying that they are to be returned to their limited original rights, because the perfect participle defines that they are “now limited rights" - they have changed! The “rights” cannot be simultaneously further limited and original: αὐθέντία if it were to connote “original rights" simply does not apply. Through fulfilling the conditions, Brenton’s translation says that there would have been actually no change in the already existing limitations - a “limited autonomy" - as a conquered people. One would expect, therefore, that a simple adjective, acc. fem. sg would have been employed for “limited" (e.g. προσυσταλλικην?), rather than the perfect participle that has been used. In truth, the edict changes their rights considerably ... either into slavery or into full citizenship.

I don't think I have been unfair in any way, but perhaps not completely informed in every nuance of Greek, which raises questions over both existing translations. The main objection is how in the NRSV, the text has been altered to fit a predetermined definition, rather than letting the text define the word. However, the logical analysis of the context alone drives the definition of αὐθέντία towards being the restoration of an “authorisation to slay" animals in sacrifice.

My own translation would be:

“Furthermore, those who are thus registered, are to be branded with the ivy leaf symbol of Dionysus, and to be separated for this conditional permission to sacrifice.”

I am eager to hear your appraisal, everyone.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: [Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Post by jeidsath »

Your NRSV quote appears to be in error.

I think that we may be past the end of useful discussion on this topic, and I'll be locking the thread in the next day or two.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Locked