ἢ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων (Euripides)

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I hope it’s OK if I repost a question I asked on B-Greek last week, and to which I haven’t received any replies.

συγγνώμονάς τοι τοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι δόκει,
ὅταν τις ὅρκῳ θάνατον ἐκφυγεῖν θέλῃ
ἢ δεσμὸν ἢ βίαια πολεμίων κακά,
ἢ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων.

[Euripides, Fragment 645 in Nauck]

I came across a claim in a paper by Leland Wilshire [The TLG .. and αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2.12, NTS Jan 88, p134] that the last clause means ‘sharing the house with murdered children’, and was wondering if αὐθένταισι could really mean ‘murdered’. The passive sense looks impossible to me, but I might be wrong..

Elsewhere, αὐθέντης is used adjectivally on a couple of occasions in connection with φόνος or θάνατος to mean something like ‘of same kin’. Although there is a connection with murder the force of it seems to be more on the kinship side, to define what sort of murder it is. Admittedly, in connection with θάνατος, maybe it also conveys that it was a murderous death, as well as that it was kin on kin, I am not sure - the two cases are both in Liddell and Scott.

It is beyond my ability to translate the above sentence, but here is my best shot:

‘It seems the gods are in agreement with you
when anyone wants, by an oath, to escape from death
or chain or the violent evil of war,
or to share homes with [..] children’

That doesn’t make great sense, but it occurs to me that αὐθένταισι might just mean something like ‘their own’ - somebody wants to run away from war and stay at home. Can it really mean ‘murdered’?

Thanks for your help with this,

Andrew

2

συγγνώμων seems to mean “forgiving” here.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dsuggnw%2Fmwn

αὐθέντης generally does mean “murderer,” not passive “murdered.” The perpetrator of murder, not the victim. Here is the LSJ entry:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dau)qe%2Fnths

I would translate this:

Consider the gods to be forgiving
when someone wishes, by an oath, to flee death
or prison [δεσμὸν] or the violent evil deeds of enemies at war [not ‘evils of war’ which would be πολέμων]
or shares a household with offspring who are murderers.

The last line could possibly be: “or is together with [κοινωνῇ] offspring who are murderers of one’s family [δόμων].”

Don’t forget: this is Greek tragedy, not the New Testament. In Greek tragedy, it’s normal for offspring to kill parents, and vice versa.

3

I checked the Loeb Euripides Fragments vol. II. This is actually a question. “Do you think . . . ?” and ὅρκῳ is translated as “perjury” (a false oath). There are some differences in the text as printed (which the editors ascribe to Valckenaer (1767)):

δοκεῖς for δόκει Paroxytone δόκει could only be 2d pers. act. imperative present.

τοῖσιν for παισὶν

The editors write: “Text and interpretation must be insecure when context and speaker are unknown.”

Their translation (with the rest of the fragment):

“Do you think the gods show pardon when someone chooses through perjury to escape death, or bonds, or violent harm from enemies, or when he shares his house with murderers? In that case, truly they are less intelligent than mortal men, if they consider that fairness comes before justice.”

This is attributed to a tragedy called Polyidus. There’s a summary in Hyginus. Polyidus was a seer whose powers of divination allowed him to locate Minos’ lost son Glaucus and bring him back to life. Apparently Minos forced Polyidus to teach Glaucus the art of divination. When Polyidus was about to sail home to Argos, Minos ordered Glaucus to spit into Polyidus’ mouth, and when Glaucus did this, Polyidus lost his power of divination.

Really, that’s what it says. Go figure. Maybe this is one of those tragedies that didn’t survive for a good reason.

Hope this helps!

4

It certainly does, thanks a lot. By way of explanation, the question has arisen in relation to the reconstruction of σὺν αὐθεντ[οῦ]σιν ἄν[αξιν] in a Philodemus fragment [Philodemus, Rhet. 2.133, S. Sudhaus (ed) Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica (Leipzig 1896) pp. 133-4]. It was suggested by some that it should read σὺν αὐθέντ[αι]σιν ἄν[αξιν], but no-one had really explained what αὐθέντ[αι]σιν could mean in this context. I had thought that it would have to be adjectival, although now you’ve got me wondering if it could be ‘with rulers (who are) murderers.’

Here’s the fragment: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3myvzj5H9WVNVN5UWo1dUtDNlU/edit

Here’s an attempt by Jay Shanor (from a footnote in Wilshire’s paper) at translating the relevant sentence:

Strangely, or so it seems to me, he has a passive sense here again: ‘authorized rulers’. Any thoughts? ‘Governing masters’ or ‘ruling lords’ looks more plausible to me.

Andrew

5

Andrew,

Sorry, no time to weigh in on this. But don’t you want to make it clear that your target passage is 1 Tim. 2:12, as in the other thread?

Incidentally, congratulations on eliciting from Isaac Newton the statement that “a relative clause is an adjectival clause,” which after 200-odd posts finally explains his misunderstanding of 1 Jn. 1-3.

Michael

6

In the Euripides fragment, I think, the word clearly means “murderer,” as it does in other passages from tragedy. However, you can see that in other authors (there’s actually another cite from Euripides for this), it can also mean “authoritative” or perhaps “sovereign.”

If you root around in LSJ, you’ll find αὐθεντία, meaning “absolute sway” or “authority.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dau)qenti%2Fa

Also, αὐθεντικός - “authoritative” or, coming closer to the English derivative, “authentic.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dau)qentiko%2Fs

And of course αὐθεντέω which appears in the passage from 1 Timothy that you’re interested in.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dau)qente%2Fw

In the Philodemus fragment, if we read αὐθένταισιν rather than αὐθεντοῦσιν, could αὐθένταισιν ἄναξιν mean something like “sovereign kings”? Admittedly, I don’t fully understand the Philodemus passage.

I don’t think the Euripides fragment sheds any light at all on either the passage from 1 Timothy or the Philodemus fragment. It looks as if there are two distinct meanings for αὐθέντης, which is apparently composed of αὐτός and ἵημι. The two meanings seem totally different, with no overlap.

7

http://heml.mta.ca/lace/sidebysideview2/4148651

Συγγνώμονάς τοι τοὺς θεοὺς εἶναι δοκεῖς,
ὅταν τις ὅρκῳ θάνατον ἐφυγεῖν θέλῃ
ἤ δεσμὸν ἤ βίαια πολεμίων κακά,
ἤ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων;
ἤ τἄρα θνητῶν εἰσιν ἀσυνετώτεροι,
ἤ τἀπιεικῆ πρόσθεν ἡγοῦνται δίκης.

I like the feel of the Loeb translation mostly, but I’m I’m not sure how they get “perjury” from “ὅταν τις ὅρκῳ”, which I’d think would make the line something like “whenever one would escape death by an oath.”

I guess that I’m reading this as something like:

Do the Gods appear forgiving to you, when one would through an oath escape death, or bonds, or slavery to enemies, or from a brood of murderers? Are they more foolish than mortals, leading fairness before justice?

8

I’m not sure how they get “perjury” from “ὅταν τις ὅρκῳ”,

Whatever else is going on here, ὅρκῳ clearly stands for a forsworn oath–this sort of metonomy is common in tragedy. You swear by the gods and they visit punishments on you if you break your oath, regardless whether your perjury might be justified in some way. The implication here is that the oath ὅρκῳ used to escape death, etc., is a false oath, and the gods won’t forgive but instead will inflict punishment even though you were trying to save your skin by the false oath.

τοι is a particle, not 2d pers. dat. sing.

“slavery to enemies” – “the evil [deeds] of enemies”, not “slavery”

ἤ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων – this isn’t a direct object of ἐφυγεῖν θέλῃ. It’s a parallel situation, introduced by ὅταν, where someone might use a false oath justifiably. κοινωνῇ is a verb, “share” + partitive genitive δόμων + παισὶν αὐθένταισι, dative obj. of κοινωνῇ, English “with”.

ἡγοῦνται - here, “consider,” “deem”.

9

Qimmik, thanks for all the comments.

Yes I agree that the way that you would escape death through an oath would be to forswear the oath. I think that is implied though, rather than stated.

τοι is a particle, not 2d pers. dat. sing.

Yes, it comes across as something like the colloquial “you know,” right?

“slavery to enemies” – “the evil [deeds] of enemies”, not “slavery”

But those deeds are βίαια with its connotations of force as well as violence. So I felt that slavery or captivity might be intended. Especially in the context of escaping something through oathbreaking (ie., violating a parole).

this isn’t a direct object of ἐφυγεῖν θέλῃ

Ah, yes, I was wondering about that. That makes sense, though I’m afraid I’m not a sentence diagrammer, so I didn’t really go over all the grammar you supplied. But something like “or if he would be in common board with the house of a murderous brood.”

ἡγοῦνται - here, “consider,” “deem”.

Thanks, I hadn’t run into it being used like that before. It always seems to be “lead” in Xenophon.

10

Hi Michael, I did mention where I found the reference to this text:

I came across a claim in a paper by Leland Wilshire [The TLG .. and αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2.12, NTS Jan 88, p134]

And thanks for the encouragement.

Andrew

11

αὐθέντης can certainly mean ‘master’ as a noun. But I am not sure I am familiar with just placing two nouns side by side like that, especially in what looks like a prepositional phrase: something like: ‘with rulers (that is) kings’ or ‘rulers, kings’ or ‘rulers (who are) kings’?

So I was thinking it had to be like an adjective. But would we not then need some support for thinking that it could mean ‘sovereign’ as an adjective?

I don’t think the Euripides fragment sheds any light at all on either the passage from 1 Timothy or the Philodemus fragment. It looks as if there are two distinct meanings for αὐθέντης, which is apparently composed of αὐτός and ἵημι. The two meanings seem totally different, with no overlap.

The Euripides fragment - the version with παισὶν αὐθένταισι - is the closest I know of to σὺν αὐθέντ[αι]σιν ἄν[αξιν]. The noun form placed side by side with another noun of person. I was trying to find out if this can be eliminated as a possibility in the Philodemus fragment. If it can, then we have a genuine case of αὐθεντέω. These are so rare that each one is of value to ascertaining what the word means.

Wolters (Semantic Study) argues for two very distinct ‘registers’. I have a page with some or most of the papers on the subject http://womeninthechurch.co.uk/αὐθεντέω-resources/. Some have argued for two etymologies, eg Moulton and Milligan, s.v.:

Thanks for your help with this,

Andrew

12

Sorry I wasn’t able to be of more help–I’m not sure my inquiry into the origin of the Euripides fragment was particularly germane to your interest in this word.

I’m not sure you’ve seen this translation of Philodemus:

http://www1.union.edu/wareht/books/Philodemi%20Rhetorica%20(trans.%20Hubbell).pdf

On p. 305, the relevant words are translated as “powerful rulers.” This is based on the Sudhaus reading σὺν αὐθεντοῦσιν ἄναξιν. If I’m not mistaken, another edition of this text with translation and notes is the works (along with much other material from the Herculaneum scrolls–and who knows what else is waiting to be found in Piso’s library, if only the Italian government would allow excavations to go forward?). You may have to wait to see what the editor concludes.

But in the end I suspect that there’s not much to be made of the Philodemus fragment for your purposes, given that the two letters of the text that are crucial are apparently not clearly legible, especially since the identification of the following word, ἄναξιν, doesn’t seem to be entirely secure, either.

13

Incidentally, in both Euripides (παισὶν αὐθένταισι) and Philodemus (if αὐθένταισιν ἄναξιν is right), αὐθένταισιν would not be an adjective–it would just be a noun in apposition to παισὶν or ἄναξιν.

One more point–and this is maybe more germane to your interest: if αὐθένταισιν ἄναξιν is right, it sounds like a quotation from the end of a hexameter, which it would fit metrically. αὐθένταισιν is a Homeric form–Attic and Hellenistic Greek would have αὐθένταις. The participle αὐθεντοῦσιν would work as an Attic or Hellenistic form (and it could also fit the end of a hexameter in the same metrical slot as αὐθένταισιν). But ἄναξ for “ruler,” except as a quote from a poetic source, sounds (to me, at least) quite striking and bizarre in a first-century BCE prose context: I would expect βασιλεύς. (In fact, even in the archaic period when the Homeric poems emerged, ἄναξ must have already had an archaic resonance evocative of a still earlier age of heroes.) Hexameter verse continued to be written in more or less Homeric language through the end of antiquity and beyond, so the use of Homeric language doesn’t necessarily date the quote, if it is one, to the archaic period. But I think the poetic character of the phrase, with the archaic, highly poetically colored word ἄναξιν (if that word is right), makes it difficult to choose between αὐθένταισιν and αὐθεντοῦσιν.

Addendum: I see now that Sudhaus recognizes that συν αὐθεντοῦσιν ἄναξιν (as he reads it) is a quote, setting it off in quotation marks. He probably conjectured αὐθεντοῦσιν because -σιν would not be expected if the word were from αὐθέντης. But if this is a quote from a poetic source, as I think it must be (and Sudhaus apparently thinks so, too), αὐθένταισιν would seem acceptable.

In the end, αὐθεντοῦσιν in Philodemus is just a conjecture of an obscure word which is primarily attested in the passage from 1 Timothy, so it would seem somewhat circular to rely on the Philodemus passage to elucidate Timothy.

14

On the contrary, you have been very helpful. In particular, I hadn’t realised that one could have two nouns in apposition like that. I can’t remember seeing anything quite like that in the New Testament, but there may well be.

Also, I have learned to check the accents, confusing δόκει - which I now understand to be 2nd person imperative - with δοκεῖ. And I didn’t realise it was in Loeb. (etc).

I’m not sure you’ve seen this translation of Philodemus: > http://www1.union.edu/wareht/books/Philodemi%20Rhetorica%20(trans.%20Hubbell).pdf > On p. 305, the relevant words are translated as “powerful rulers.”

He described it as a paraphrase, and you will see that it is much shorter than the original. In George Knight’s 1984 paper, he claimed that ‘those in authority’ was Hubbell’s rendition of αὐθεντοῦσιν (!). As far as I can see ‘those in authority’ might correspond to τοῖς σεμνῶς βιοῦσιν (line 29-30) - or rather, τοὺς δὲ τοῖς σεμνῶς βιοῦσιν ἐχθρεύοντας, looks tolerably close to Hubbell’s ‘men who incur the enmity of those in authority’, so far as I can see. This mistake of Knight’s is still to be found in ‘Women in the Church’ (2nd ed 2005), p. 203, by Kostenberger and Schreiner:

with ‘the ones in authority’ underlined.

Andrew

15

This is very helpful. If ἄναξιν is Homeric in feel, then that weighs against αὐθεντοῦσιν, since the verb isn’t attested at all before the 1st century BC. I suppose he could be writing partly in Homeric style and throw in a koine word, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems to me that Sudhaus might have been inconsistent in putting in quotes on the one hand, but choosing αὐθεντοῦσιν on the other.

But isn’t there still one problem, that αὐθέντης consistently means murderer in the classical period. Apart curiously, from one disputed instance in Euripides, Suppl. 442.

In the end, αὐθεντοῦσιν in Philodemus is just a conjecture of an obscure word which is primarily attested in the passage from 1 Timothy,

It’s not quite as bad as that. There is BGU 1208, Aristonicus On the Signs of the Iliad 9.694, and the Methodus Mystica, all early. I hope you weren’t misled by my page - it’s in progress. I had better add a note to say so.

Andrew

16

Kostenberger and Schreiner (or their printers) have badly garbled the Greek text offered by Sudhaus. Do they even know Greek?

I hadn’t realised that one could have two nouns in apposition like that.

I don’t think it’s necessarily impossible where the two nouns form a kind of unit – “sovereign rulers” or “murderer rulers.” I could be wrong.

If ἄναξιν is Homeric in feel, then that weighs against αὐθεντοῦσιν, since the verb isn’t attested at all before the 1st century BC.

Not necessarily: it’s possible that earlier attestations haven’t survived, and in a later poem the Homeric diction might not have been consistently observed.

τοῖς σεμνῶς βιοῦσιν – “those who live decently”

Taking another look at the Sudhaus text, I’m even more puzzled. First, there’s what Sudhaus takes to be a quote from another Euripides fragment before σὺν αὐθεντ[οῦ]σιν ἄν[αξιν]. The line from Euripides says something like “Tyranny (perhaps this is metonymy for “the tyrant”) is aimed at from all sides with terrible erotic desires.” Philodemus writes something like “Orators (public speakers) harm many great men about those who are aimed at with terrible erotic desires.” This sounds strange, but we don’t have much of the context. Does he mean tyrants or despots? There’s nothing in the translation about erotic desires, which makes one wonder whether the translator was merely using his imagination in an effort to make sense out of some very fragmentary prose.

It’s also worth noting again that the conjectural reconstruction ἄναξιν is far from certain–a lot of Greek words begin with αν- – and it’s possible that a closer look at αὐθεντ. . σιν, especially with modern technology, would reveal something entirely different. If αὐθεντ. . σιν is right, one would expect the participle αὐθεντοῦσιν rather than αὐθένταισιν, unless we do have a quotation from or allusion to a line of poetry. But I, at least, can’t tell what Philodemus is talking about (and the paraphrase doesn’t help much because, as I’ve noted, it doesn’t seem to hew very closely to the text), and therefore it’s difficult to draw any conclusions. Maybe he is talking about murderer kings – I can’t tell. And a more modern transcription of the papyrus might provide a more cautious reconstruction of the text.

This cries out for mwh’s thoughts.

17

Here’s a very crude translation of the page from the Sudhaus text of Philodemus. It only makes partial sense, but it’s the best I can do, and I’m not sure why I’m doing it at all. Maybe someone can correct this. Or you may just have to wait until David Blank publishes this in the new Philodemus Project.

. . . as some of those differing in other respects. But to tell the truth and [to say] what really happened, the orators have also greatly harmed many great men, and about those who are “aimed at with arrows by fierce erotic passions,” they always fight against the most eminent and “with the sovereign rulers [or ruling kings]”, and likewise on behalf of similar men [or over similar matters?]. So just as the orators make them most inimical to themselves by the tricks with which they practice deception, so the philosophers, by setting them free from evils have those who hold public office most grateful not as enemies but as friends and in that way they [the philosophers?] benefit from the powerful [?] being their friends in many important respects . . . and those differing with us or disposed in the least friendly way. [I really don’t understand how this fits together.] Isn’t it necessary, that men who are inimically disposed to those who lead a decent life are evil and present themselves as such, are therefore hated not only by men, but by the gods? So that I think few undertake things from which they might wail . . .

αὐθεντ . . σιν must mean “ruling” or “sovereign” or something like that, not “murderer,” and ἄναξιν is a good conjecture for ἄν . . . .

http://www.classics.ucla.edu/index.php/philodemus

18

A recent translation (which I don’t have access to) has apparently been published:

C. Chandler, Philodemus On Rhetoric Books 1 and 2: Translation and Exegetical Essays (London, 2006)

Tempted as I am to spring for this, I’m saving my money for Hornblower’s forthcoming edition of Lycophron:

http://global.oup.com/academic/product/lykophron-alexandra-9780199576708?q=hornblower&lang=en&cc=us

See this, too:

http://www.herculaneum.ox.ac.uk/?q=books

Some of the Philodemus papyrus rolls from Herculaneum were destroyed in the process of unwrapping them, and the text exists today only in transcriptions made around 1810 as the rolls were unwrapped. So we have to rely on a transcription made in the infancy of papyrology from a charred manuscript. It strikes me that that is another reason to be cautious about using an only partly legible word in Philodemus to elucidate an obscure and rarely attested word in 1 Timothy.

19

I hadn’t noticed that - only that they didn’t have all the lines that Hubbell had paraphrased. )Hubbell seems to have missed out those middle lines about which you say ‘I really don’t understand how this fits together.’) μαγάλους, ἐπιθανεστάτους, σὺυ spring out..

Thank you so much for attempting a translation. And thanks for the Chandler reference! It’s on the shelves here - I will go and have a look later today if possible. And thanks for the info about the Herculaneum papyri, it’s all new to me. Looks like some of the experts are here in Oxford.

αὐθεντ . . σιν must mean “ruling” or “sovereign” or something like that, not “murderer,” and ἄναξιν is a good conjecture for ἄν . . . .

If it looks like a hexameter, and it’s a quotation of poetry, the perhaps that would favour αὐθένταισιν because the word is older, from what we know, and because - is this true to say? - two nouns are more likely to appear in apposition in this way in poetry.

If it’s not poetry, then αὐθεντοῦσιν seems more natural, but then there’s more of a question mark over ἄναξιν, since it looks Homeric. I agree with you that with only the first two letters, it can hardly be more than a reasonable conjecture.

The only evidence for αὐθέντης meaning ruler or somesuch in earlier times is in Euripides:

Euripides Suppliants 442:

καὶ μὴν ὅπου γε δῆμος αὐθέντης χθονός,
ὑποῦσιν ἀστοῖς ἥδεται νεανίαις:

Again, where the people are absolute rulers of the land, they rejoice in having a reserve of youthful citizens, [Perseus]

But it has been suggested that this is part of later interpolation.

You have convinced me that there is too much uncertainty about the text for it to be of more than marginal value re 1 Timothy 2.12.

Andrew

20

“two nouns are more likely to appear in apposition in this way in poetry.”

I’m not certain that is necessarily the case where the two nouns form a unit. But if ἄναξιν is right, and there’s a very good chance it is even if it may not be absolutely certain, then I would guess this is a quotation from a poetic text.

As for Euripides Suppl. 442, David Kovacs has proposed bracketing this passage, and does so in his Loeb edition (vol. II). He apparently discusses it in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 23 (1982) 36-9.

Diggle in the Oxford edition prints Markham’s conjecture δῆμος εὐθυντὴς χθονός, a word that is attested in Plato and means something like “corrector” or “judge.” Diggle’s apparatus also lists another conjecture εὐθυντὴρ by Paley, attested in Theognis and Aeschylus. This suggests that those editors who think the passage is genuine are nevertheless troubled by the word αὐθέντης here. Incidentally, here we have two nouns in apposition, whichever reading you choose.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Deu)qunth%2Fs

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Deu)qunth%2Fr


If it’s not too much trouble, I wonder whether you could post Chandler’s translation of the Philodemus passage in question, if you’re able to get your hands on it, just for my edification. Thanks!

Bill