Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polychroni <upb_moniodis AT ONLINE.EMICH.EDU>]

 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