Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

 Polychroni Moniodis  wrote:
> 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: 

Whether it's strained or not is open to debate, I've seen Paul put  prepositional phrases in all sorts of places.  More important to me  is, as I recall, this isn't what I suggested.  I believe I said it would  be EulogEmenos en onomati Kyriou ho erkhomenos or something  similar.

> "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. 

But with the proximity already there the repeated article is  unnecessary.  The only reason to use this type of construction  would be to place extra emphasis on the prepositional phrase,  which the writers apparently weren't interested in doing.

> 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): 

I should say it's "not irrelevant"!  The phrase doesn't even show up  in a variant in either UBS(3) or NA(26).  It is indeed in the edition of  the TR that I have, and Zane Hodges' "Majority Text" edition shows  a variant, but I think it's clear both on manuscript grounds and  grammatical grounds that it has no claim to originality.  It would  appear to be a dittography, nothing more.  So this passage is  irrelevant.

> _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. 

But pointless, since the phrase is not original.  Discussing this one  is a waste of bandwidth and time.

>  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. 

No it doesn't.  Hebrew word order could also have repeated the  article if the writer had so desired, and I have shown that there are  good reasons why the gospel writers didn't use this construction.

> 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.  

Sorry, but at the time the NT was written, that "minor stop" wasn't  indicated in the text so your reasoning is anachronistic.  To see  what the NT writers might have had available in Hebrew, look at the  way text is laid on on the pages of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Actually,  though, what the NT writers probably used was the Septuagint,  Psalm 117(118?):26 specifically, which reads exactly like the NT  text.  Like everyone else of the time, they didn't have indications of  that "minor stop" in their Hebrew text.  If the Greek of the time had  called for a repeated article, I'm confident it would have been there.

> 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. 

But once again, neither the LXX translators nor the NT writers had  that minor stop in their text.  So it's meaningless.  I'm afraid you're  beating a dead horse, and suggest you just let it lie.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.