Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:35 +0000

On 26/01/2005 20:34, Karl Randolph wrote:

Peter:

I agree with you that the Greek has this reading. But is that the reading
that the translator intended? Or did he mess up the Greek to try to
communicate a Hebrew idea?


Well, I think the LXX translators mostly knew their Greek, even though they sometimes misunderstood the Hebrew and sometimes translated excessively literally.

In particular, who is the AUTWi? Judah? Can't be, as he is the one holding
the objects in the first place. Or does this mean he will hold the objects
until all that prophesied about him will come to a close, meaning that when
Judah no longer has those objects, that is the end of prophecy?


What objects are you talking about? Well, possibly TA APOKEIMENA are objects, but more likely, from the Greek, this is the fate or perhaps glorious future to be expected by Judah, who is probably the AUTWi. Or possibly they are objects which Judah will receive. But they are obviously not objects which he already holds.

As to my reading of the Hebrew, I understand it as a contraction of )$R LW in
the same manner as Ezekiel 21:32 (also previously cited in reference to this
verse) where the )$R LW is the subject of the verb. This subject, directly
translated from Hebrew to Greek would be in dative, not nominative as
expected for Greek.


Well, $- is not a contraction of )$R but an independent relative pronoun. But I agree that the syntax may be parallel to Ezekiel 21:32. In fact the parallel is so close that it may be a deliberate allusion. But the difference in Ezekiel is that there is a relative clause with a separate subject, HM$P+ "the right", and so the relative pronoun is not the subject. So the sense there is "until comes [the one] concerning whom to him [is] right", i.e. "until the one comes who has the right". To go back to Genesis, this could perhaps be understood as "until comes [the one] concerning whom to him [is]". But if the relative pronoun is not the subject, what is? I suppose possibly a generic "it", giving a sense "until the one comes who has it", with the "it" presumably referring to the $B+ and/or the MHQQ. Yes, this could make sense.

But this is not at all what the Greek text is saying. There is no relative pronoun in the Greek.

Upon later thought, if I were the translator of the passage, I would have
stated hEOS AN ELQHi AUTOS TOU TA APOKEIMENA recognizing that here in this
verse the LH (archaic form of LW ) actually has a genetive emphasis,
signifying ownership. Further that the objects owned are those mentioned as
the subjects of the main sentence.


Well, this Greek sentence is ungrammatical. Do you mean hEWS AN ELQHi AUTOS TWN APOKEIMENWN, "until comes he of the reserved/destined things"? But the Hebrew cannot mean that. Or perhaps hEWS AN ELQHi AUTOS hOU (or hWi) TA APOKEIMENA, "until comes he whose [are] the reserved/destined things"? This would correspond to the interpretation of the Hebrew above. But it is not what the Greek text says.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 25/01/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page