And let's also use real Greek characters, not transliteration, please! Or at least not just transliteration. After all, many/most of us here can handle Hebrew characters, so we certainly should be able to handle Greek ones.
Dewayne Dulaney On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Rolf Furuli <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- "In the world you will have trouble. But, be brave! I have defeated the world!" —John 16:33, DDV (Dewayne Dulaney Version) My Bible blogs: http://my.opera.com/Loquor/blog/ and http://hasopher.preachersfiles.com/ My Biblical Languages and Latin Learning Aids Blog, and home of my translation of John's Gospel: Let Ancient Voices Speak, http://letancientvoicesspeak.preachersfiles.com.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
