Vinegar at the Cross

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Frank Kahney
Posts: 6
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:13 am

Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Frank Kahney »

In relating the scene at the Cross all four Gospels translate OXOS as vinegar. Liddell and Scott also define it a 'sour wine'. Is there anything to indicate why all [most?] translations use vinegar rather than sour wine?
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by cwconrad »

Frank Kahney wrote:In relating the scene at the Cross all four Gospels translate OXOS as vinegar. Liddell and Scott also define it a 'sour wine'. Is there anything to indicate why all [most?] translations use vinegar rather than sour wine?
It might help to have some illustrative texts here:
Matt. 27:48 καὶ εὐθέως δραμὼν εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ λαβὼν σπόγγον πλήσας τε ὄξους καὶ περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν.
Mark 15:36 δραμὼν δέ τις [καὶ] γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτόν λέγων· ἄφετε ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἠλίας καθελεῖν αὐτόν.
Luke 23:36 ἐνέπαιξαν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται προσερχόμενοι, ὄξος προσφέροντες αὐτῷ
John 19:29 σκεῦος ἔκειτο ὄξους μεστόν· σπόγγον οὖν μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους ὑσσώπῳ περιθέντες προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι. 30 ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος

What translators choose to do is their own hang-up; generally on B-Greek we don't try to read the translators' minds but we examine the Greek word or text itself. In this case I think that BDAG's entry on ὄξος is very instructive:

ὄξος, ους, τό (on relation to ὀξύς s. Schwyzer I 512, cp. 463; since Solon 26, 7 Diehl3, Aeschyl., Hippocr.; pap, LXX, ApcEsdr; Philo, Aet. M. 113; Mel., P. 80, 582 al.) sour wine, wine vinegar, it relieved thirst more effectively than water and, being cheaper than regular wine, it was a favorite beverage of the lower ranks of society and of those in moderate circumstances (Athen. 4, 173e; Plut., Cato Major 336 [1, 13]; Ruth 2:14), esp. of soldiers (PLond III, 1245, 9 p. 228 [357 AD]). Given to Jesus on the cross Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Lk 23:36; J 19:29f (the contrast to the wine of high quality J 2:40 is prob. designed). In 19:29 (s. vs. 28) scripture is fulfilled (prob. Ps 68:22 ἐπότισάν με ὄξος). This act is interpreted as being due to the malice of some Judeans who committed it, and it is expanded to an offering of gall and vinegar (cp. Ps 68:22; so also Mel., P. 80, 582f; 93, 706f) in GPt 5:16; B 7:5 (both ποτίζειν χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους), 3. Betw. 7:3 and 5 B quotes, as proof that vinegar was given, an otherwise unknown prophetic pass. that directs the priests to eat the goat’s ἔντερον ἄπλυτον μετὰ ὄξους (s. ἔντερον) 7:4. W. οἶνος (PLond 856, 28; 1159, 49; other exx. New Docs 1, 85) and mixed w. it Hm 10, 3, 3.—B. 383. Frisk s.v. ὄξο. DELG s.v. ὀξύ. M-M. TW.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Frank Kahney
Posts: 6
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:13 am

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Frank Kahney »

Thank you.

I have since noticed that the NKJV and the NRSV both translate it as 'sour wine'.
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Jason Hare »

Frank Kahney wrote:Thank you.

I have since noticed that the NKJV and the NRSV both translate it as 'sour wine'.
But, Frank, did you catch Carl's point about not comparing translations, but rather getting acquainted with the Greek itself? Our goal here isn't to compare translations and see who did a better job. Our goal is to encourage investigation into the Greek language itself, the language in which the text was written. Wouldn't you agree that this is a lofty and worthy goal? :)
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Frank Kahney
Posts: 6
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:13 am

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Frank Kahney »

Indeed, so, Jason. Unfortunately for me my knowledge of Greek is limited. :oops:

I have the same difficulty, for example, in trying to discern why in St John's Gospel 6: 26-59 the author uses FAGW apart from four occasions when he changes to TRWGW. There is no grammatical reason for this, if I may be so bold as to say so. (Dons steel helmet, enters trench and waits for incoming! ;) )

With reference to your particular point, ALL translators (that I'm aware of) translate both words as 'eat' but this does not throw any light on why the author used different words.

I am coming to the conclusion that a 21st century Westerner has no chance of 'getting into the mindset' of a 1st Century Jew; hence the very extensive discussions which take place on such issues on the iBiblioGreek list and here.

My apologies to those who, being experts in the field, will have a far better chance than I ever could aspire to and probably come very close to doing so on a daily basis.
MAubrey
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by MAubrey »

Frank Kahney wrote:I have the same difficulty, for example, in trying to discern why in St John's Gospel 6: 26-59 the author uses FAGW apart from four occasions when he changes to TRWGW. There is no grammatical reason for this, if I may be so bold as to say so. (Dons steel helmet, enters trench and waits for incoming! ;) )
Hi Frank. Do you own any sort of Greek dictionary or lexicon? If so you might find it worthwhile to look up these two words (note: the headword for φαγεῖν will be under ἐσθίω. This word has distinct aorist and present stems), but what you'll find in a lexicon is that ἐσθίω may refer to the consumption of either solid or liquid sustenance, while τρώγω is limited to the consumption of solid food.

So ἐσθίω can subsume both the English "eat" and "drink," but τρώγω is limited to "eat." If you look at the examples where τρώγω appears, e.g.:

6:54: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον
6:56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ.

τρώγω is used over and against πίνω "drink." While we really don't have think kind of lexical distinction for the consumption of food, there are plenty of places in English where we have a particularly specific word and a more general one: a monograph and a novel are both kinds of books, for example.

That's what BDAG and L&N say, though there might be some merit to the idea of LSJ that τρώγω has taken over the function of ἐσθίω as the present verb-form for φαγεῖν. If that's the case, then the difference is actually completely grammatical (contrary to your suggestion that there is no grammatical difference): φαγεῖν is aorist and τρώγω is present.

Now, which explanation is correct, that of BDAG and L&N or LSJ's, is another question that I unfortunately do not have time to dig into just now. But it's possible that someone whose knowledge of the language is more internal than mine might be able to provide some insight. It's also possible that both are correct: BDAG & L&N provide a description of the current state of Greek at the time of the NT, while LSJ provides a description of the diachronic change in the language from the Classical period into the Byzantine period. I don't know.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by cwconrad »

MAubrey wrote:
Frank Kahney wrote:I have the same difficulty, for example, in trying to discern why in St John's Gospel 6: 26-59 the author uses FAGW apart from four occasions when he changes to TRWGW. There is no grammatical reason for this, if I may be so bold as to say so. (Dons steel helmet, enters trench and waits for incoming! ;) )
Hi Frank. Do you own any sort of Greek dictionary or lexicon? If so you might find it worthwhile to look up these two words (note: the headword for φαγεῖν will be under ἐσθίω. This word has distinct aorist and present stems), but what you'll find in a lexicon is that ἐσθίω may refer to the consumption of either solid or liquid sustenance, while τρώγω is limited to the consumption of solid food.

So ἐσθίω can subsume both the English "eat" and "drink," but τρώγω is limited to "eat." If you look at the examples where τρώγω appears, e.g.:

6:54: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον
6:56 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ.

τρώγω is used over and against πίνω "drink." While we really don't have think kind of lexical distinction for the consumption of food, there are plenty of places in English where we have a particularly specific word and a more general one: a monograph and a novel are both kinds of books, for example.

That's what BDAG and L&N say, though there might be some merit to the idea of LSJ that τρώγω has taken over the function of ἐσθίω as the present verb-form for φαγεῖν. If that's the case, then the difference is actually completely grammatical (contrary to your suggestion that there is no grammatical difference): φαγεῖν is aorist and τρώγω is present.

Now, which explanation is correct, that of BDAG and L&N or LSJ's, is another question that I unfortunately do not have time to dig into just now. But it's possible that someone whose knowledge of the language is more internal than mine might be able to provide some insight. It's also possible that both are correct: BDAG & L&N provide a description of the current state of Greek at the time of the NT, while LSJ provides a description of the diachronic change in the language from the Classical period into the Byzantine period. I don't know.
βιβρώσκω also appears earlier in the chapter (6:13). I think that what's happened in the Koine is that τρώγω has become the standard colloquial verb for "eat" while ἐσθίω is a mroe formal word. For what it's worth, there's a parallel shift in Latin, where the etymological equivalent of ἐσθίω, edo, is replaced in Vulgar Latin by manducare, which, like τρώγω, originally meant "chew." The Romance language words are based on the Vulgar Latin manducare: French manger, Italian mangiare.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Jason Hare »

cwconrad wrote:βιβρώσκω also appears earlier in the chapter (6:13). I think that what's happened in the Koine is that τρώγω has become the standard colloquial verb for "eat" while ἐσθίω is a more formal word. For what it's worth, there's a parallel shift in Latin, where the etymological equivalent of ἐσθίω, edo, is replaced in Vulgar Latin by manducare, which, like τρώγω, originally meant "chew." The Romance language words are based on the Vulgar Latin manducare: French manger, Italian mangiare.
Makes you wonder where the Spanish comer and masticar came from. As a sidenote, the Hebrew word for "chewing gum" is mástik (מסטיק), apparently taken from the idea of mastication ("chewing"). :)
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Frank Kahney
Posts: 6
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:13 am

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Frank Kahney »

MAubrey wrote: Hi Frank. Do you own any sort of Greek dictionary or lexicon?

there might be some merit to the idea of LSJ that τρώγω has taken over the function of ἐσθίω as the present verb-form for φαγεῖν. If that's the case, then the difference is actually completely grammatical (contrary to your suggestion that there is no grammatical difference): φαγεῖν is aorist and τρώγω is present.
Thanks, Mike.

My version of the LSJ has: τρώγω "to gnaw, chew: of men, to eat raw vegetables, fruit, etc," opp. to eating 'dressed food'; esp. of dessert, to eat fruits" cf. τρωγαλια

You will have guessed my LSJ is the Abridged Version!
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Vinegar at the Cross

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Frank Kahney wrote:My version of the LSJ has: τρώγω "to gnaw, chew: of men, to eat raw vegetables, fruit, etc," opp. to eating 'dressed food'; esp. of dessert, to eat fruits" cf. τρωγαλια

You will have guessed my LSJ is the Abridged Version!
Did you know the unabridged LSJ is available, for free, online?

τρώγω:
III. later, simply eat, serving as pres. to ἔφαγον instead of “ἐσθίω, ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα” Ev.Jo.6.54 (cf. aor. φάγητε . . πίητε ib.53); “τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες” Ev.Matt.24.38; never in LXX (“ὁ ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου” LXX Ps.40(41).10 becomes ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν ἄρτον when cited in Ev.Jo.13.18); δύο τρώγομεν ἀδελφοί is dub. l. in Plb.31.23.9; “ἔδωκεν εὔζωμον νήστῃ τρώγειν” SIG1171.9 (Crete, perh. i B. C.); ἡ νὺξ τὴν ἡμέραν τ. (of a black man eating white bread) Diog.Cyn. ap. Sammelb.5730 (iv/v A. D.); “ψυχρὰ τρώγοντα κατακαίεσθαι” PMag.Lond.121.177; “ἔμοιγε, ὅσσα παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις, τρώγειν ἔθος” Batr.34; this usage is mentioned by AB114, censured by Phot.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”