[Exo 6] [5] και εγω εισηκουσα τον στεναγμον των υιων ισραηλ ον οι αιγυπτιοι καταδουλουνται αυτους και εμνησθην της διαθηκης υμων
Why is "ον" singular if it refers to "των υιων ισραηλ"?
[Exo 6] [5] και εγω εισηκουσα τον στεναγμον των υιων ισραηλ ον οι αιγυπτιοι καταδουλουνται αυτους και εμνησθην της διαθηκης υμων
Ken M. Penner wrote:David Lim wrote:[Exo 6] [5] και εγω εισηκουσα τον στεναγμον των υιων ισραηλ ον οι αιγυπτιοι καταδουλουνται αυτους και εμνησθην της διαθηκης υμων
Why is "ον" singular if it refers to "των υιων ισραηλ"?
The ὃν refers to τὸν στεναγμόν.
David Lim wrote:Ken M. Penner wrote:The ὃν refers to τὸν στεναγμόν.
But if it does then it is not the object of any verb. Can I say that it is not "normal" Greek?
Ken M. Penner wrote:David Lim wrote:Ken M. Penner wrote:The ὃν refers to τὸν στεναγμόν.
But if it does then it is not the object of any verb. Can I say that it is not "normal" Greek?
You're right that it's not the direct object of a verb. Accusatives do much more than act as direct objects. Generally speaking, they "limit" the verb in some way, much as genitives "limit" nouns, performing a similar function to that of adverbs (qualifying verbs) and adjectives (qualifying nouns). They constrain or specify the extent of the verb. Sometimes this specification of the extent of the verb is called the "accusative of respect," "accusative of general reference," or "adverbial accusative." See, for example, Funk 1140.
1 Maccabees 8:18 has the same verb. One critical text has the accusative, καταδουλουμένους τὸν Ισραηλ δουλείαν (Kappler), another has the dative καταδουλουμένους τὸν Ισραηλ δουλείᾳ (Rahlfs). Would you be more comfortable with a dative here?
Ken M. Penner wrote:The Hebrew relative is not inflected, so it doesn't carry gender, number, or case information. The 3rd person masculine plural pronoun at the end of the relative clause resumes the relative, so the LXX translator should have chosen a plural masculine form.
Ken M. Penner wrote:I have to recant my claim that ὁν refers to τον στεναγμον. You're right; it's not easy to read στεναγμον in a way that qualifies the verb. Brenton takes the singular seriously by supplying "the affliction" as the antecedent. "And I hearkened to the groaning of the children of Israel (the affliction with which the Egyptians enslave them) and I remembered the covenant with you." I originally imagined something similar.
Perkins takes it as almost Alex suggests: "And I listened to the groaning of the sons of Israel, those whom the Egyptians are making into slaves, and I remembered your covenant."
So on second thought, I think Perkins is reading it the way most ancient readers would have read it, but perhaps with a wrinkled brow.
Return to Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest