Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT alumni.utexas.net>]

In response to:

Polychroni
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 9:54 AM

I would like to offer the following:

1.
I would insist on an alternative word order:
    EULOGHMENOS EN ONOMATI KYRIOU hO ERXOMENOS
in order to obtain your suggested meaning
    'He that comes is blessed in the name of the Lord'.
This word order would put EN ONOMATI KYRIOU clearly under the scope of
EULOGHMENOS.

This is different than your suggestion of what I (and others) would require:
    "EulogEmenos ho en onomati Kyriou erkhomenos"
which I read as still placing EN ONOMATI KYRIOU under the scope of ERXOMENOS
and still meaning
    'the one who comes in the name of the Lord'!


2. I am not sure where you got the variant reading of the text of Mk 11.10a
as you quoted it:
    "_eulogEmenE hE erkomenE basileia en onomati kyriou tou patros EmOn
dauid_ ..."
(It is not in NA27 nor UBS3.)  Nevertheless, I would agree with you that the
reading of this extraneous text would be:
    "Blessed in the name of the Lord is the coming kingship of our father
David."

But the reason is as follows:
For a person X to come 'in the name of a person Y' means that person X comes
as a representative of person Y.  However, I am not sure how a 'kingdom'
comes as a *representative* of anyone!  In order to apply EN ONOMATI KYRIOU
to BASILEIA, some new meaning must be attributed to the phrase 'in the name
of the Lord', and I cannot come up with any suggestion that is not forced.
The result is that this syntactic parsing (taking EN ONOMATI KYRIOU as
modifying ERXOMENH) is *blocked* because it cannot be given an adequate
semantic interpretation!  Therefore an alternate syntactic parsing must be
sought, and this is found in the suggested reading of the clause (so that EN
ONOMATI KYRIOU modifies EULOGHMENH).

However, this does not affect the reading of the original clause Ps 118.26a
or Mk 11.9b.  Even though you might suggest that the interpretation of this
textual variant can be read back into the previous clause, not so.
Similarity of phrasing does not necessarily wait to similarity of meaning.

3. Furthermore, I disagree that the questionable textual status of the
variant you have posed is irrelevant.  The original text, which reflects the
original meaning of the original text, use of the utmost importance in
determining the original meaning of the text.  A variant such as you have
found merely reflects (at best) a variant opinion on the text, and I do not
think it even carries this much weight.

4. Again, your reconstruction with the definite article inserted before EN
ONOMATI KYRIOU ("EulogEmenos ho erkhomenos ho en onomati Kyriou.") is
inappropriate, and attention *should* be given to the influence of the
Hebrew word order on the Greek word order.

5. Again, the citation of one Hebrew source is not conclusive and must be
weighed against other voices.

6. Again, contextual considerations must not be ignored.

In closing, interpretation and translation are always tasks that require
humility and caution.  The majority and established tradition should not
have automatic final say, but reasoned considerations must be weighed
carefully nevertheless.

God bless!
Joe Friberg
Alrington, TX
JoeFriberg AT alumni.utexas.net
MA Linguistics,
MA Theology student