NETBible: votive

Results 1 - 8 of 8 for votive (0.000 seconds)

(1.00)

(Lev 7:16)

¹tn For the distinction between votive and freewill offerings see the note on Lev 22:23 and the literature cited there.

(0.50)

(Pro 7:14)

²tn Hebi> “I have peace offerings.” The peace offerings refer to the meat left over from the votive offering made at the sanctuary (e.g., Lev 7:11-21). Apparently the sacrificial worship meant as little to this woman spiritually as does Christmas to modern hypocrites who follow in her pattern. By expressing that she has peace offerings, she could be saying nothing more than that she has fresh meat for a meal at home, or that she was ceremonially clean, perhaps after her period. At any rate, it is all probably a ruse for winning a customer.

(0.47)

(Lev 22:21)

¹tn The meaning of the expression לְפַלֵּא־נֶדֶרfont> (lÿfallefont>’-nederfont>) rendered here “for a special votive offering” is much debated. Some take it as an expression for fulfilling a vow, “to fulfill a vow” (e.g., HALOTi> 927-28 s.v. פלאfont> piel and NASB; cf. NAB, NRSV “in fulfillment of a vow”) or, alternatively, “to make a vow” or “for making a vow” (HALOTi> 928 s.v. פלאfont> piel [II פלאfont>]). Perhaps it refers to the making a special vow, from the verb פָלַאfont> (palafont>’, “to be wonderful, to be remarkable”); cf. J. Milgrom, Numbersi> (JPSTC), 44. B. A. Levine, Leviticusi> (JPSTC), 151 and 193, suggests that this is a special term for “setting aside a votive offering” (related to פָלָהfont> [palahfont>, “to set aside”]). In general, the point of the expression seems to be that this sacrifice arises as a special gift to God out of special circumstances in the life of the worshiper.

(0.42)

(Lev 1:3)

¹sn The burnt offeringi> (עֹלָהfont>, ’olahfont>) was basically a “a gift of a soothing aroma to the <sc>Lordsc>” (vv. 9, 13, 17). It could serve as a votive or freewill offering (e.g., Lev 22:18-20), an accompaniment of prayer and supplication (e.g., 1 Sam 7:9-10), part of the regular daily, weekly, monthly, and festival cultic pattern (e.g., Num 28-29), or to make atonement either alone (e.g., Lev 1:4; 16:24) or in combination with the grain offering (e.g., Lev 14:20) or sin offering (e.g., Lev 5:7; 9:7). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTEi> 4:996-1022.

(0.42)

(Lev 27:2)

¹tn Cf. the note on Lev 22:21. Some take this as an expression for fulfilling a vow, “to fulfill a vow” (e.g., HALOTi> 927-28 s.v. פלאfont> piel and NASB; cf. NRSV “in fulfillment of a vow”) or, alternatively, “to make a vow” or “for making a vow” (HALOTi> 928 s.v. פלאfont> piel [II פלאfont>]). Perhaps it refers to the making a special vow, from the verb פָלָאfont> (palafont>’, “to be wonderful; to be remarkable”), cf. Milgrom, Numbersi> [JPSTC], 44. B. A. Levine, Leviticusi> (JPSTC), 151 and 193, suggests that this is a special term for “setting aside a votive offering” (related to פָלָהfont>, palahfont>, “to set aside”). In general, the point of the expression seems to be that this sacrifice is a special gift to God that arose out of special circumstances in the life of the worshiper.

(0.29)

(Lev 3:1)

¹sn The peace offering sacrificei> primarily enacted and practiced communion between God and man (and between the people of God). This was illustrated by the fact that the fat parts of the animal were consumed on the altar of the <sc>Lordsc> but the meat was consumed by the worshipers in a meal before God. This is the only kind of offering in which common worshipers partook of the meat of the animal. When there was a series of offerings that included a peace offering (see, e.g., Lev 9:8-21, sin offerings, burnt offerings, and afterward the peace offerings in vv. 18-21), the peace offering was always offered last because it expressed the fact that all was well between God and his worshiper(s). There were various kinds of peace offerings, depending on the worship intended on the specific occasion. The “thank offering” expressed thanksgiving (e.g., Lev 7:11-15; 22:29-30), the “votive offering” fulfilled a vow (e.g., Lev 7:16-18; 22:21-25), and the “freewill offering” was offered as an expression of devotion and praise to God (e.g., Lev 7:16-18; 22:21-25). The so-called “ordination offering” was also a kind of peace offering that was used to consecrate the priests at their ordination (e.g., Exod 29:19-34; Lev 7:37; 8:22-32). See R. E. Averbeck, NIDOTTEi> 1:1066-73 and 4:135-43.

(0.25)

(Jer 11:15)

⁴tn The meaning of this line is also uncertain. The Hebrew text reads somewhat literally, “holy meat they pass over from upon you.” The question of the subject of the verb is the main problem here. The verb is masculine plural and the only subject available is “holy meat” which is singular, a “they” which goes back to “the many,” or a noun from the end of the preceding line which is combined with “holy meat.” The latter is the solution of the Greek version which reads “Will votive offerings [or pieces of fat (following the Old Latin)] and holy meats take away from you your wickedness?” However, that resolution has been rejected in the preceding note as smoothing out the difficulties of the first two lines. It also leaves out the כִּיfont> (kifont>) at the beginning of the following line and takes the noun “your wickedness” as the object of the verb. That certainly would make for an easier reading of both this line and the next and the assumption that כִּיfont> may not be in the text is possible because it could be explained as a double writing of the pronoun on the end of the preceding phrase “from upon you” (מֵעָלָיִךְfont>, mefont>’alayikhfont>). However, besides being the smoother reading it leaves the last line too short poetically. The solution of the UBS, Preliminary Reporti>, 4:209 is that “they” (referring back to “the many”?) is the subject. They read: “so that they carry away from you even sacrificial flesh.” But who are “they” and “you?” Is the “they” the priests and the “you” the people? (See 1 Sam 2:10-17 for a possible parallel.) This, however, introduces too many unknowns into the text. The translation adopted is based on a revocalization of the form “from upon you” (מֵעָלָיִךְfont>, mefont>’alayikhfont>) to “your treacherous acts” (מַעֲלָיִךְfont>, mafont>’alayikhfont>; for this noun cf. BDB 591 s.v. I מַעַלfont> 2), a solution which is also proposed in the margin of the NJPS which reads: “Can your treacheries be canceled by sacral flesh?” For the nuance of the verb presupposed here (= be removed, cease to exist) see BDB 718 s.v. עָבַרfont> Qal.6.c and compare usage in Job 30:15. While this solution does preserve the consonantal text and is accepted here, it should be acknowledged that there is no ancient support for it and the reading of the noun “treacheries” in place of the compound preposition “from upon” is purely speculative.

(0.21)

(Jer 11:15)

³tc The meaning of this line is uncertain. The text reads somewhat literally either “her doing the wicked thing the many” or “doing it, the wicked thing, the many.” The text, relationship between words, and meaning of this whole verse have been greatly debated. Wholesale emendation based on the ancient versions is common in both the commentaries and the modern English versions. Many follow the lead of the Greek version which in many cases offers a smoother reading but for that very reason may not be original. The notes that follow will explain some of these emendations but will also attempt to explain the most likely meaning of the MT which is the more difficult and probably the more original text. Since it is presumed to be the original the text will be dealt with in the notes line for line in the MT even though the emendations often relate to more than one line. For example the Greek of the first two lines reads: “Why has the beloved done abomination in my house?” This ignores the preposition before “my beloved” (לִידִידִיfont>, lididifont>) and treats the form “her doing” (עֲשׂוֹתָהּfont> [’asotahfont>], Qal infinitive plus suffix) as a finite verb (עָשְׂתָהfont> [’astahfont>], Qal perfect third feminine). The forms are similar but the Greek is smoother. Moreover, it is difficult to explain the presence of “to” in the MT if the Greek is the original. The Greek text likewise does not have the difficulty that is exhibited in the MT by the word “the many” (הָרַבִּיםfont>, harabbimfont>). It reads a word for “vows/votive offerings” (εὐχαίfont> [eucaifont>] regularly = נְדָרִיםfont> [gÿdarimfont>]) in place of the word “many” (הָרַבִּיםfont>, harabbimfont>) and takes it as part of a compound subject of the verb in the following line meaning “take away.” However, this word is far removed graphically from that in the MT and it would be difficult to explain how the MT arose from it. The Old Latin apparently reads a word for “fat” (adipesfont> = חֲלָבִיםfont>, khalavimfont>) which is closer in script to the MT and would be more likely original than the Greek. However, both of these resolutions look like attempts to smooth out a difficult text. Because there is no solid support for any single reading, it is probably best to retain the MT’s “the many.” Many do retain it and take it as a second accusative of “doing it” and read “she does the wicked thing with many [i.e., many false gods],” a use of the accusative which is hard to justify. Another alternative, taking the adjective “the many” to modify the noun “the wicked thing” is sometimes suggested but is not possible because the adjective is masculine plural and the noun is feminine singular which is contrary to Hebrew style. Hence one cannot read “she has done many wicked things.” The present translation follows the suggestion in D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Projecti>, 4:209, that it is the subject of the infinitive construct with an object suffix which is anticipatory of the noun “wickedness” that follows (cf. GKC 425 §131.mi>), i.e., “the many do it, namely the wickedness” (for the meaning of the noun see BDB 273 s.v. מְזִמָּהfont> 3.b).