Matthew 14:7

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h3 { margin-top: 1.2em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; padding-left: 1em; margin: 1em 0; color: #555; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }

Syntactic Ambiguity of the Dative in Matthew 14:7: An Exegetical Inquiry into ὁμολογεῖν and δοῦναι

This exegetical study of Syntactic Ambiguity of the Dative in Matthew 14:7 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 17th, 2017. The initial query highlights a potential syntactic ambiguity regarding the dative indirect object in Matthew 14:7. Specifically, it questions whether the dative pronoun αὐτῇ explicitly attaches to the main verb ὡμολόγησεν (“he promised”) or to the infinitive δοῦναι (“to give”), or if its referent remains contextually fluid.

The central exegetical issue concerns the precise grammatical and semantic relationship of the dative pronoun αὐτῇ to the verbs ὡμολόγησεν and δοῦναι within the clause ὅθεν μεθ’ ὅρκου ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται. Understanding this relationship is crucial for accurately translating Herod’s declaration and appreciating the nuances of the narrative. The ambiguity arises because the dative could logically serve as the indirect object for either the verb of promising (promising *to her*) or the verb of giving (to give *to her*), potentially influencing the perceived recipient of the direct promise itself versus the object of the promised action.

ὅθεν μεθ’ ὅρκου ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• No significant textual differences are observed for Matthew 14:7 between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) edition. Both present the identical reading: ὅθεν μεθ’ ὅρκου ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

Regarding textual criticism, the NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition) for Matthew 14:7 likewise confirms the reading ὅθεν μεθ’ ὅρκου ὡμολόγησεν αὐτῇ δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται. There are no notable variants affecting the dative pronoun αὐτῇ or the verbs ὡμολόγησεν or δοῦναι in the major manuscript traditions, indicating a high degree of textual stability for this passage.

Lexical analysis provides further insight into the verbs involved:

• ὁμολογέω (aorist active indicative, ὡμολόγησεν): BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) defines ὁμολογέω with several primary meanings including “to say the same thing as another,” “to agree,” “to confess,” “to acknowledge,” and importantly in this context, “to promise” (BDAG, 706). KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 199ff) elaborates on the concept of ‘confession’ and ‘declaration,’ indicating a public or solemn utterance. In this passage, with μεθ’ ὅρκου (“with an oath”), the sense of making a solemn declaration or promise is highly emphasized.
• δίδωμι (aorist active infinitive, δοῦναι): BDAG provides the fundamental meaning “to give” (BDAG, 246-248). In this context, it refers to the act of bestowing or granting something, serving as the content of Herod’s promise.
• αὐτῇ: This is the dative singular feminine pronoun, meaning “to her” or “for her.” Its function as an indirect object is clear, but its precise attachment to ὡμολόγησεν or δοῦναι is the crux of the ambiguity.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of the dative pronoun αὐτῇ presents a classic instance of syntactic flexibility in Koine Greek. The pronoun could theoretically attach to either the main verb ὡμολόγησεν or the complementary infinitive δοῦναι. Each interpretation yields a subtly different emphasis:

• Interpretation 1: αὐτῇ as the indirect object of ὡμολόγησεν.

  Under this reading, Herod “promised *to her*” (i.e., made the promise directly to her) that he would then give whatever she asked. The dative specifies the recipient of the promise itself. The grammatical structure would be: ὡμολόγησεν [αὐτῇ] [δοῦναι ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται]. This places emphasis on the directness of the solemn declaration to the girl.

• Interpretation 2: αὐτῇ as the indirect object of δοῦναι.

  In this construction, Herod “promised [to give *to her*] whatever she asked.” The dative specifies the recipient of the *giving*, while the promise itself might be seen as a more general declaration, with the recipient of the gift specified by the infinitive phrase. The grammatical structure would be: ὡμολόγησεν [δοῦναι αὐτῇ ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσηται]. This interpretation might suggest Herod made a general oath, and the *object* of that oath was giving to her.

• Interpretation 3: Ambiguous or dual function.

  It is also plausible that the dative functions in a way that relates to both verbs, or that the Greek allows for this ambiguity to remain. The close proximity of αὐτῇ to δοῦναι might naturally incline a reader to associate it with the infinitive, but the nature of ὁμολογέω as a verb of speaking or promising often takes an indirect object specifying to whom the promise is made. Therefore, the dative could be understood as specifying both the recipient of the promise and the recipient of the promised gift, without a rigid separation.

Rhetorically, the choice impacts the portrayal of Herod’s actions:

• If he “promised *to her*,” it highlights a direct, perhaps intimate, engagement with the girl, making the oath personally addressed. This aligns with the idea of a statement made *to her* in the presence of others, as hinted in the original post (“he praised the girl with a promise to her in the presence of the others”).
• If he “promised *to give to her*,” the promise itself might be perceived as a broader, perhaps public, declaration, with the “giving” specifically directed to her. This could suggest a more formal, less direct interaction, focusing on the content of the promise rather than its immediate recipient.

Given the context of Herod’s public display and oath, the former (promising *to her*) seems rhetorically more potent, emphasizing his direct culpability and the binding nature of his word spoken *to* the girl.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

While the Greek syntax permits some ambiguity, the most natural reading in light of the immediate context and the semantic range of ὁμολογέω leans towards understanding αὐτῇ as the indirect object of ὡμολόγησεν, while still acknowledging its function within the broader promise to give *to her*. Herod’s oath is a direct engagement with the girl regarding a future action on his part.

Here are three suggested translations:

1. Therefore, with an oath, he *promised her* to give whatever she should ask.
   This translation prioritizes the dative as the indirect object of ὡμολόγησεν, emphasizing that the solemn promise was made directly *to her*.
2. Therefore, having sworn an oath, he declared that he would *give to her* whatever she should request.
   This translation rephrases ὡμολόγησεν as a general declaration and explicitly links the dative αὐτῇ with the act of giving (δοῦναι), thus focusing on the promised action.
3. Therefore, he swore and committed *to her* that he would give whatever she might ask.
   This translation seeks to capture both aspects: the promise made *to her* and the subsequent commitment to give *to her*, offering a slightly more dynamic rendering of ὁμολογέω that encompasses both declaration and obligation.

“`