[b-hebrew] 2300 evening - mornings
joel at stucki.ws
Mon Aug 14 22:36:04 EDT 2006
On 8/14/06, Harold Holmyard <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:
> Dear Joel,
> >>First of all I want to say that I personally have no specific
> >>religious interpretation of these very controversial verses so I don't
> >>really have any agenda I am pushing here.
> >>It seems to me the most plain rendering of what is intended is:
> >>Daniel asks until when is the vision of:
> >>1. [the lack of] daily sacrifice
> >>2. Giving of an abomination of desolation [in place of the sacrifice]
> >>3. [The defilement of] the sanctuary
> >>4. The trodding down army or host
> >>He is answered 2300 "evening mornings" and then the sanctuary is cleansed.
> >>The grammar is problematic with the KJV rendering which most
> >>translations seem to follow. Why the vav before QDW$ in 13 (translated
> >>as 'both' in KJV)? No direct object marker either. This is why I put
> >>TT with the preceding words. I looked for any concurring translations
> >>on this and found NAB had done the same. Seems to make the most sense
> >>to me.
> HH: Here is the NAB:
> Dan 8:13: I heard a holy one speaking, and another said to whichever one
> it was that spoke, "How long shall the events of this vision last
> concerning the daily sacrifice, the desolating sin which is placed
> there, the sanctuary, and the trampled host?"
> >>I kind of like what NAB did on verse 12 as well. It strengthens the
> >>association of the NTN verb with P$).
> HH: You mean P$(. Here is NAB, verses 11-12:
> It boasted even against the prince of the host, from whom it removed the
> daily sacrifice, and whose sanctuary it cast down,
> as well as the host, while sin replaced the daily sacrifice. It cast
> truth to the ground, and was succeeding in its undertaking.
> >>I am certainly willing to hear other ideas. Especially if someone can
> >>point to similar constructions of a compound direct object sans marker
> >>with both preceded with a vav in the sense of both ... and ...
> HH: First, it seems dubious that the active infinitive TT by itself can
> imply "which is placed there." One is adding a relative in English, a
> passive idea, and an adverbial modifier ("there"). How can this be
> justified? On the other hand, the KJV rendering is natural. There does
> not always have to be a marker for the accusative; look at Waltke and
> O'Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax 10.2.1c, examples 10, 20-22, and many,
> many places. If you don't have that book, see Ps 16:4; Gen 49:6; Job
> 5:2; Isa 57:4; Gen 1:11; Gen 9:14. Gesenius' Hebrew grammar says of the
> direct object marker, "The use of this nota accusativi is, however,
> somewhat rare in poetry, and even in prose it is not invariably
> necessary but is restricted to those cases in which the accusative of
> the object is more closely determined by being a proper name, or having
> the article, or by a following determinative genitive (hence also by the
> suffixes), or in some other way." I would add that there are exceptions
> even in these noted cases. Walke and O'Connor cite cases lacking the
> marker where there are pronominal suffixes on the direct object
> accusative (Ps 16:4; Isa 1:3;).
> HH: The nouns in question in Dan 8:13 do not have a definite article, a
> suffix, or a following determinative genitive, and they are not proper
> names, so the absence of the direct object marker would not be surprising.
> HH: Some translations may not deal well with the Hebrew text. I don't
> like the HCSB here, which acts as though there were a vav before TT:
> HCSB Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one
> said to the speaker, "How long will [the events of] this vision last
> —the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that makes desolate, and the giving
> over of the sanctuary and of the host to be trampled?"
> HH: I think a literal rendering should have something like this
> modification of the NRSV (though it is unwieldy):
> Dan. 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to
> the one that spoke, "For how long is this vision concerning the regular
> burnt offering and the transgression that makes desolate so as to give
> over the sanctuary and host to be trampled?"
> HH: You can object that the earlier verses do not mention the sanctuary
> being trampled, but they certainly allow for it in saying that the
> sanctuary is cast down (v. 11), with truth being cast down to the ground
> (v. 12). Also, the verb "give" (TT) in verse 13 matches the verb "give"
> in verse 12 that speaks of the army and the sacrifice being given to
> this enemy. The sacrifice being given would imply the place of the
> sacrifice as well, the sanctuary.
> Harold Holmyard
Yes I never found the absence of of the object marker to be an
insurmountable problem,It just would have been nice to make the object
less ambiguous my bigger concern was the vav prefixing what was
intended to be the direct object according to KJV and most
translations. The way they dealt with this was to translate it as
"both" which seems unjustified. As to the criticisms of the NAB I
won't disagree. I tend to like very exact renderings as well but not
every translation has that as a goal. I just liked that they rethought
the object of TT.
My main argument against the KJV and other trans that follow it is the
interpretation of a compound direct object with both prefixed with vav
and rendered in English as "Both objecta and objectb" I can't recall
ever seeing this construction before. Is there any other example of a
compound direct object with both objects carrying the vav?
More information about the b-hebrew