Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 27/01/2005 19:41, Karl Randolph wrote:

> 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."
>  

You are probably right, concerning the LXX text we have discussed (but 
see below). You certainly are if $YLH is in fact to be understood as $-LW.

> 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.)
>  

This was what I meant: in the Hebrew of this verse the relative pronoun 
)$R introduces a verbless subordinate clause, of which HM$P+ is the 
subject and LW is the indirect object. Well, that is how I parse this. 
Any other suggestions? In English the clause may not be verbless and so 
"is" must be added.

> 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.
>  

Well, I  think you are wronging such translators as Darby and Young, 
mother tongue speakers of English who for certain reasons (not very good 
in my opinion) have chosen to produce excessively literal translations. 
The LXX translators may have done something similar, at least in some 
places. Aquila certainly did, in his Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.

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

Good question. We should have looked at this evidence before. BHS gives 
the following variant evidence for the word $YLH:

Many Hebrew MSS and Samaritan MSS read $LH
Greek Lucianic, Origen etc read hWi APOKEITAI, which the BHS editors 
interpret as suggesting Hebrew $EL.OH or $EL.OW with the note cf. Syriac 
and Targum
Other conjectures noted by BHS are $:)IYLOH and MO$:LOH

But not actually anything from DSS. Well the Lucianic and Origen Greek 
looks close to one of my suggestions, hWi TA APOKEIMENA, and would be a 
reasonable translation of your understanding of the line "until comes 
the one to whom they belong", with APOKEITAI "is reserved/destined" as 
the translator's equivalent of your "belong". And perhaps the later LXX 
is a corrupted version of the Lucianic and Origen 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.
>
>  
And now my doubts about this reading are ebbing away!

--
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: 265.7.6 - Release Date: 27/01/2005