Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 14:6

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: donaldrvance AT mac.com, jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org, George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 14:6
  • Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 16:33:55 EDT


Dear Professor Vance:

You wrote: “Since HRRM ends in either a m pl absolute


ending or with a 3 m pl genitive suffix (making HRR status


pronominalis--forgive the butchered Latin), it cannot be in the


construct state by definition. As for translation, "mountains, Seir"


if we go with a plural understanding, or "their mountain(s), Seir" if


we go with a gen. sx.”

Could you please explain the following translation and comment by E.A.
Speiser in “The Anchor Bible Genesis”?

“…in the* hill country of Seir.
*So most versions; MT ‘their’.”

What do “most versions” of the text have?

I myself view HRRM as being an archaic plural absolute, and meaning “hill
country”. I note, however, that translations of this word vary greatly.
Several say “hill country”, one says “high country”, many say “mount”, and
they also split as to whether the word “their” precedes it.

I did not realize that this translation was such a controversial issue
among Biblical scholars. When you suggest “mountains, Seir”, wouldn’t “hill
country” be a better rendering, or at least an equally good rendering? A
translation of “hill country, Seir” would be fine for me. Or are you saying
that “hill country” would be an improper understanding of HRRM? Using
normal English, south of the Dead Sea are mountains, whereas north of the
Dead
Sea is classic hill country, so in English (if not in Hebrew), there’s a big
difference in the wording of these competing translations. Do you see the
Hebrew here as being ambiguous as between “hill country” vs. “mountains”?

Perhaps we could all understand the issue here better if you would tell us
what “most versions” of the text, other than the Masoretic Text, have. I
really like Speiser’s translation, but it makes me nervous when he says he is
not giving us the Masoretic Text version.

Thanks for any help you can give us on this.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page