Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

On Sun 23 Jul 2000 (23:35:30), dinosaur2list AT prodigy.net wrote:
> Came on with a question that I see oddly coincides with a current
> b-greek thread from Ephesians. Is there any justification in Hebrew
> grammar for the KJV use of the article with "vine" and "fig tree" in
> Zachariah 3:10?  They're anarthrous in the MT (and also LXX), so
> wondered what the source of the KJV translation was.  [Had never
> noticed this difference, but saw the NEB translation (which supplies
> "his," German style) quoted in Judith Baldwin's commentary.  Checked
> NIV & RSV and found they do likewise.]  With the article, the line
> sounds a bit Messianic, so the difference doesn't seem negligible.  (My
> personal preference would be that they not supply anything; just leave
> them anarthrous.)

 Dear Diana,

 It seems to me that in a case where a personal attribute (vine and figtree)
 are mentioned, it is assumed, if not otherwise stated, that the property in
 question belongs to the *subject* of the verb.

 So it would appear that the NRSV gets it right: "On that day, says the LORD
 of hosts, *you* shall invite each other to come under *your* vine and fig
 tree". You couldn't issue an invitation to your neighbour to come and sit
 under someone else's vine and figtree!

 Questions about arthrousity (is that a word?) can often be resolved by
 looking at a translation into a language *without* articles, such as Latin.
 Jerome renders Zachariah 3:10 "in die illa dicit Dominus exercituum vocabit
 vir amicam suum subter vineam et subter ficum". No doubts about that!

 The translators of the "King James" Bible would certainly have had the
 Vulgate for reference, along with their Hebrew and Greek exemplars.

 Shalom
 Ben
-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
 http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm