Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Peter:

Taking the Greek listed below, it is interesting to note that the verb is 
singular, therefore it would not refer to TA APOKEIMENA which is plural, but 
to AUTWi. I don't know Greek that well, nor do I have an LXX handy, but could 
TA APOKEIMENA refer back to $B+ and MXQQ (the Hebrew words) that are the 
subjects of the first half of this verse?

Similarly YB) in Hebrew is singular, looking for a singular subject.

As for the AUTOS after the KAI, it looks as if it is merely linguistic, not 
theological.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> 
> On 23/01/2005 02:23, Jim West wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Peter Kirk wrote
> >
> >>>
> >> Jim, I don't know how you understand the LXX of this line, but 
> >> it seems to me to support Kelton's suggestion - which is of 
> >> course far from a new one even in modern times, e.g. NRSV 
> >> renders "until tribute comes to him". LXX reads:
> >>
> >> hEWS AN ELQHi TA APOKEIMENA AUTWi
> >>
> >> literally "until come the stored things to him". AUTWi is 
> >> certainly "to him" and clearly supports a reading with a 
> >> separate Hebrew word LOH. TA APOKEIMENA suggests a slightly 
> >> different interpretation of $Y than Kelton's, but could well be 
> >> a rendering of the same word.
> >
> >
> >
> > The issue first raised was on the propriety of dividing the word 
> > differently than it stands in MT.  LXX doesn't support a 
> > differing division.   Further, "weloh" occurs after "shiloh"- so 
> > unless you see some sort of dittography, you still haven't 
> > demonstrated that the LXX supports an emendation.
> >
> Well, Jim, if I haven't made myself clear I will do so now. Yes, 
> LXX does support a different word division from MT. The WLW 
> following $YLH is in a separate clause, separated with "and" in 
> both Hebrew and Greek, and is separately represented in LXX. LXX is 
> here in fact a word for word rendering of MT, apart from the split 
> of $YLH, with no reordering, as should be clear from the following 
> comparative table of the second half of the verse (view with fixed 
> width):
> 
> MT     LXX
> 
> (D KY  hEWS AN
> YB)    ELQHi
> $YLH   TA APOKEIMENA AUTWi
> WLW    KAI AUTOS
> YQHT   PROSDOKIA
> (MYM   EQNWN
> 
> The only thing which is not a literal translation here is the 
> nominative AUTOS for LW, where a dative might be expected. But this 
> may have been a theological or linguistic adaptation, as "he [is] 
> the expectation of the nations" may seem better than "to him [is] 
> the expectation of the nations".
> 
> But if the LXX translators did not read $YLH as two words, 
> something like $Y LW, then where did they get the AUTWi (before 
> KAI) from?
> 
> 
> -- Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm