Dear Leonard, You should not forget that the word "translation" may refer to different things. The nature of a translation may be different depending on who is the target group. In a Hebrew class, "academic translation" is performed. The target is the teacher who wants to know if the students understand Hebrew, and the goal of the students in this form of translation is to render the nuances of the text at the expense of a good fluent translation. In my view, Karl's translation is in no way nonsensical, but he tries to convey the nuances of the text, as he understands them—this is academic translation. The syntax of the verse is difficult, and therefore it can be rendered in different ways. In an article, I gave the following translation:
"And upon the wings of abominations the one causing desolation will come. And this will be until the complete destruction, because that which is decided will gush forth upon the one becoming desolate." I take כנף in the collective sense and use plural. I see no reason why we should abandon the literal meaning "wing." Your rendering "edge" (top) is not impossible. But a good principle is that if we want to deviate from the basic meaning of a word (here "wing"), we need to have something in the context pointing in this direction. But I see nothing that would suggest "edge/top. If "wing" is chosen, what can the meaning be? In v. 26, the word "flood" may refer to an army. If this is correct, and the army also is referred to as an abomination or abominations, "wings" could refer to the swiftness of this army, as was the case in Habbakuk 1:6-8. But in any case, our translation should be based on lexical, grammatical, and syntactical points, and not on our understanding of the fulfillment of a prophecy. I agree with you that the prophetic words point to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (66—70 CE). But why bring in Antiochus IV Epiphanes? The writer of 1 Maccabees may very well have read the book of Daniel and applied the words about the שקוצים to Antiochus IV. But the other words in v. 27 do not fit this king. We may also note that Matthew 24:15 says in connection with the understaning of the abomination: "Let the reader use discernment." Perhaps Matthew was familiar with 1 Maccabees and did not agree with the interpretation of the abomination in this book. The understanding of the book of Daniel to a great degree depends on the view regarding when the book was written. I think there are good arguments against a second century writing of the book, and I have not found any words that need to be applied to Antiochus IV. In my view, Antiochus IV is never referred to in the book of Daniel. (Interestingly, apart from a few campaigns, we have very little exact information about the life of Antiochus IV; see O. Mørkholm. "Antiochus IV of Syria" 1966. Many of the applications to Antiochus IV in chapter 11, therefore are circular.) Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Fredag 27. September 2013 07:01 CEST skrev Leonard Jayawardena <[email protected]>: > Karl W. Randolph wrote: Quote A possible translation is, “and upon as the presentation (brandishing) the detestable things from the one who is destroying and until the completion that what is determined is poured out upon destruction.” Bad English. Difficult passage to understand. Any reason why my reading is wrong? I’d like to hear it. Unquote LJ: With respect, I think that your translation is not only bad English, but also nonsensical ☺. I would translate ועל כנף שקוצים משמם as "and upon the edge (or top) of abominations is/will be one causing desolation." I understand the "abominations" to be a reference to Roman imago standards, at the top of which an emperor's image was depicted (pictures are available on the web). For "edge" as a sense of כנף , see Job 37:3; 38:13. The historical context in which this prophecy was fulfilled is the Jewish war period beginning in AD 66. The "one causing the desolation" of both the temple and the city of Jerusalem was the emperor. (The specific emperors under whom the Roman war against the Jews was prosecuted was first Nero and then Vespasian. It is not a problem to my exegesis if the image of the emperor appearing on Roman imago standards at the time of the war was that of neither, for it is the institution of the Roman emperor that is in view.) According to Daniel 9:27, the daily sacrifice in the temple was to be cease "in the midst of the week" followed by the setting up of "abominations," i.e., the imago standards (presumably on the altar of burnt offering, following the precedent of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C., who set up an idolatrous altar on top of the altar of burnt offering, which the writer of Maccabees calls TO BDELUGMA THS ERHMWSEWS [1 Maccabees 1:54; cf. Daniel 8:13; 11:31]), which is somewhat cryptically expressed as "and upon the edge (or top) of abominations is/will be one causing desolation." The setting up of the abomination of desolation following the cessation of the daily sacrifice is clearly predicted in Daniel 12:11 and fulfilled in AD 70. The synoptic gospels, I think, confirm this interpretation. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus said, "But when you see the abomination of desolation [Gr. TO BDELUGMA THS ERHMWSEWS] spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing [hESTOS] in the holy place--let the reader understand--then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and the one upon the housetop..." (Matthew 24:15). Mark has the masculine participle hESTHKOTA instead of Matthew's neuter hESTOS. This is constructio ad sensum and suggests that Mark, or whoever was responsible for the second gospel, thought of TO BDELUGMA as a representation of a god or a deified man. Luke's parallel to Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation [Gr. ERHMWSIS] is near" (Luke 21:20). The reference is clearly to a physical desolation, or devastation, of Jerusalem, which was to be caused by the משמם of Daniel 9:27c, who was the Roman emperor, upon whom "the end that is decreed is poured out"--כלה ונחרצה תתך על-שמם [Daniel 9:27)-- in the end. This judgement is spiritual in nature. The TO BDELUGMA in Matthew and Mark is not the Roman armies per se but the imago standards they carried. I understand Mt. 24:15; Mk. 13:14 and Luke 21:20 as being fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem by Cestius in AD 66. "Edge" or "top" is my preferred sense for כנף but the meaning "wing," the most frequent sense of this word, may also be possible here because of the possible resemblance of the top of a Roman imago standard to the form of a bird with outstretched wings. Leonard Jayawardena Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:55 -0700 > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Meaning of W:(AL K:NAP in Daniel 9:27c > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > > Leonard: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Leonard Jayawardena <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Karl W. Randolph wrote: Quote Is כנף one word, or is it a prefixed כ on a > participle of נוף which has the meaning of “to present, as in setting before, > brandishing, waving”? > Unquote So with your reconstruction, how would you translate W:(AL K:NAP > $IQ.WCIYM M:$OM"M ? > Leonard Jayawardena > I had to go back and look up the Hebrew to see what is your transliteration, > why didn’t you just write the Hebrew characters? > > A possible translation is, “and upon as the presentation (brandishing) the > detestable things from the one who is destroying and until the completion > that what is determined is poured out upon destruction.” Bad English. > Difficult passage to understand. > > Any reason why my reading is wrong? I’d like to hear it. > Is there an idiom that I might have missed? > > Karl W. Randolph. _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
