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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
