Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter:

If I remember correctly, the question that started this discussion asked if 
the LXX correctly translated the text of Genesis 49:10. I think that it is 
safe to conclude that the answer is "No."

Secondly, in Ezekiel 21:32 HM$P+ is not the subject of the verb, unless if 
counted as part of a subject phrase "he whose is judgment". (Here English 
adds a subordinate clause to make clear what is said in Hebrew.)

You mentioned that you thought the translator(s) of Genesis knew Greek well 
but sometimes translated excessively literally: to me excessive literalness 
is a sign that the translator does not know the target language that well.

I think we have gone about as far as we can go with this discussion of a 
passage where reasonable people are not 100% sure of its meaning.

Oh yes, now I remember, the original question was is it possible to split 
$YLH into $Y and LH? Concerning LH, it is pretty certain that it is an 
archaic form of LW. As for $Y, it is used only three times, all in contexts 
that imply a meaning of "praise", always with the verb YBL. So what could it 
mean here? How would it fit in? It seems to me that understanding this verse 
as having $Y LH raises more questions that it answers.

Is there any DSS attestation for this verse? Does it differ from an unpointed 
Masoretic text?

While I prefer at this time to saying the meaning is "until comes the one to 
whom they ( $B+ & MXQQ ) belong", I admit to harboring doubts that this is 
the correct reading.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "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/
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm