Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

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