HH: If a word is long-established by the lexicons and is not problematic
in the contexts, two appearances is not a sufficient basis to start
questioning the word's meaning. The lexicons have reasons for assigning
that meaning. Now, the varying translations in the LXX and Syriac would
be reasons to ask about the meaning.
There is another issue at hand here. When a word is used several times in
contexts where the meaning is clear, then used twice in poetry where words
are often used in unique ways for effect, then should not we continue with
the meaning where it is clear, and try to understand the reason for the
effect in the poetry?
HH: The LXX Psalms translator may not have known what the word meant.Karl: But the actions also give the outward appearance. And since $YT as a
There is a lot that the LXX translators did not know. A word's meaning
is not only determined by its usage in the one or two contexts in which
we find it in the Hebrew OT. It is also determined by cognate usage, and
there is a cognate word in Syriac that means "appearance." You don't
clothe yourself with an "appearance," however, but with a garment
(Psalms). The LXX uses a word EIDOS that means "outward appearance" in
Proverbs. But a woman with the outward appearance of a harlot probably
had the dress of a harlot. That gives the outward appearance.
noun
refers to the action, ...
Karl: But you also admit that they are sometimes wrong, and what's to prevent[Steve Miller] How much authority do you give to the MT vowels?HH: I give the MT vowels a lot of authority. The reading tradition is
supposed to go back to the first or second century.
them
being wrong in this verse too?
use the word "shayith" to mean garment, but "leboosh". Mal 2:16 shows that[Steve Miller] Mal 2:16 seems to be the only one, and obviously does not
"garment of violence" is a possible meaning of Psalm 73:6, but no more. Just
because a verse or even verses somewhere in the Bible say something does not
mean that another unrelated verse says the same thing when it uses
different words. I think this is a common problem in Old Testament
translation. They make verse A mean the same thing as verse B without paying
enough attention to the meaning of the words in verse A.
HH: It is a common, easily understandable image. Similar ideas occur elsewhere. There are the "garments of vengeance" in Isa 59:17, and there is the "garment of praise" in Isa 61:3.
Karl: Steve Miller's criticism still stands, as both HH's examples use
different words, even different from each other.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.