Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 26/01/2005 20:34, Karl Randolph wrote:

> Peter:
>
> I agree with you that the Greek has this reading. But is that the reading 
> that the translator intended? Or did he mess up the Greek to try to 
> communicate a Hebrew idea?
>  

Well, I think the LXX translators mostly knew their Greek, even though 
they sometimes misunderstood the Hebrew and sometimes translated 
excessively literally.

> In particular, who is the AUTWi? Judah? Can't be, as he is the one holding 
> the objects in the first place. Or does this mean he will hold the objects 
> until all that prophesied about him will come to a close, meaning that when 
> Judah no longer has those objects, that is the end of prophecy?
>  

What objects are you talking about? Well, possibly TA  APOKEIMENA are 
objects, but more likely, from the Greek, this is the fate or perhaps 
glorious future to be expected by Judah, who is probably the AUTWi. Or 
possibly they are objects which Judah will receive. But they are 
obviously not objects which he already holds.

> As to my reading of the Hebrew, I understand it as a contraction of )$R LW in 
> the same manner as Ezekiel 21:32 (also previously cited in reference to this 
> verse) where the )$R LW is the subject of the verb. This subject, directly 
> translated from Hebrew to Greek would be in dative, not nominative as 
> expected for Greek.
>  

Well, $- is not a contraction of )$R but an independent relative 
pronoun. But I agree that the syntax may be parallel to Ezekiel 21:32. 
In fact the parallel is so close that it may be a deliberate allusion. 
But the difference in Ezekiel is that there is a relative clause with a 
separate subject, HM$P+ "the right", and so the relative pronoun is not 
the subject. So the sense there is "until comes [the one] concerning 
whom to him [is] right", i.e. "until the one comes who has the right". 
To go back to Genesis, this could perhaps be understood as "until comes 
[the one] concerning whom to him [is]". But if the relative pronoun is 
not the subject, what is? I suppose possibly a generic "it", giving a 
sense "until the one comes who has it", with the "it" presumably 
referring to the $B+ and/or the MHQQ. Yes, this could make sense.

But this is not at all what the Greek text is saying. There is no 
relative pronoun in the Greek.

> Upon later thought, if I were the translator of the passage, I would have 
> stated hEOS AN ELQHi AUTOS TOU TA APOKEIMENA recognizing that here in this 
> verse the LH (archaic form of LW ) actually has a genetive emphasis, 
> signifying ownership. Further that the objects owned are those mentioned as 
> the subjects of the main sentence.
>  

Well, this Greek sentence is ungrammatical. Do you mean hEWS AN ELQHi 
AUTOS TWN APOKEIMENWN, "until comes he of the reserved/destined things"? 
But the Hebrew cannot mean that. Or perhaps hEWS AN ELQHi AUTOS hOU (or 
hWi) TA APOKEIMENA, "until comes he whose [are] the reserved/destined 
things"? This would correspond to the interpretation of the Hebrew 
above. But it is not what the Greek text says.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 25/01/2005