Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Translation: Ps. 118:26a (MT)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Qualls, Nina" <X2QUALLS AT southernco.com>
  • To: 'Polychroni' <upb_moniodis AT ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>, Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Translation: Ps. 118:26a (MT)
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:58:56 -0500


This is very interesting - why not post it to the b-greek list?


-----Original Message-----
From: Polychroni [SMTP:upb_moniodis AT ONLINE.EMICH.EDU]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 10:54 AM
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Translation: Ps. 118:26a (MT)

I'd like to thank this List for its responses to my post. I would
like to post a reply.

A number of posters took exception that the Greek could mean what I
propose.

The bases for claims that the Greek does not meaning what I say it
does were two:

1) Proximity of the phrase
2) Adherence to Hebrew word order, when Greek alternatives were
available that would make clear my proposed translation.

Several posters (Friber, West, Washburn, and Kirk) all made the
point that the prepositional phrase, en onomati Kyriou, would have to be
in proximity to eulogemenos for my translation to be possible. But rather
than the Greek translator doing so, he chose to follow the Hebrew word
order exactly. For the Greek to say what I claim, most
posters suggested a Greek sentence syntax of:

"EulogEmenos ho en onomati Kyriou erkhomenos"

First, this seems like strained Greek to me in order to keep within
the proximity argument. If it were I, I'd write:

"EulogEmenos ho erkhomenos ho en onomati Kyriou."

Where the repeated definite article would serves as a linking
device to unambiguously relate the prep. phrase as an adjective to
erkhomenos.

I would also ask that the text of Mk 11:10a be considered (~Textus
Receptus~?) (whether the prep. phrase is in the autographs or not is
irrelevant for the grammatical consideration):

_eulogEmenE hE erkomenE basileia en onomati kyriou tou patros EmOn
dauid_ ...

Which literally translates to:

"Blessed [be] the coming kingship in the name of the Lord of our
father David"

Do the proximity proponents here advocate that it is the "kingship"
that is coming in the name of the Lord? or is it (predicate position):

"The coming kingship of our father David is blessed in the name of
the Lord."

or (attributive position)

"Blessed in the name of the Lord is the coming kingship of our
father David."

Seems clear to me.

Now turning to the Hebrew-Greek argument:

The point was made that the Greek followed the Hebrew word order,
when another, less ambiguous alternative argument was available to the
translator. But I have shown that the construction:

"EulogEmenos ho erkhomenos ho en onomati Kyriou."

besides being simpler Greek, it also has the advantage of
maintaining the Hebrew order.

However, to link the prep. phrase via the definite article would
have run afoul of the minor stop in the Hebrew. So it is no surprise that
the a repeated definite article is missing where we should rightly expect
it.


Hebrew Argument

Though not qualified to speak on the Hebrew arguments made, the
posts by Baruch Alster and Lewis Reich regarding the placement of the minor
stop seems persuasive over strict word order consideration. Also,
the citation of Rabbi David Kimche gave me courage that my
translation could be substantiated by the Hebrew.

As for the contextual considerations (John Ronning) and theological
considerations as well, that is for another place and another day.

Profuse thanks and appreciation to all. It was as invigorating as
it was enlightening.

Best regards,

Polychroni Moniodis



---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
X2QUALLS AT southernco.com
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page