Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Gen 49:10
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:18:32 -0500

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page