Rolf Furuli wrote:
Quote
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.
Unquote
LJ: First, I would like to know how you are able to justify your taking כנף
in a collective and plural sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but your
understanding of Daniel 9:27c, ועל כנף שקוצים משמ , seems to be something
like "on the wings of armies metaphorically pictured as birds of prey comes its
rider, משמ , the one causing the desolation." If this is your understanding,
isn't there some absurdity in one person riding on the wings of many birds?!
Further, in Exodus 19:4, God tells the people of Israel that he carried them
"on the wings of eagles." However, the Hebrew is על־כנפי
נשרים , where כנף is in the plural and construct state, as opposed to Daniel
9:27c, where it is in the singular and construct state. (I am not able to
properly copy and paste the words cited from Exodus and hence they may not
appear correctly when you read this.)
You write, "and the army also is referred to as an abomination or
abominations." You have not mentioned where such a reference is found. Nowhere
in the Hebrew Bible is an army referred to as an "abomination" or
"abominations." The Heb. word translated "abominations" in Daniel 9:27c is
שקוצים . This word, either in the singular or plural, occurs 28 times in the
Hebrew OT and in all but three instances the reference is clearly to a pagan
god or its image. In Jeremiah 13:27, this word in the plural is rendered
"detestable acts" in NIV, but these acts are still related to idolatry. In
Zechariah 9:7, the context is again idolatry, leaving only Nahum 3:6, where it
means "filth." Therefore there is overwhelming lexical support for taking
שקוצים in Daniel 9:27c as a reference to some idolatrous images or
representations, which is my understanding. Specifically, I have applied the
term to Roman imago standards, upon which a three-dimensional image of an
emperor appeared. As you know, Roman emperors were deified and worshipped as
gods. Each imperial Legion would have an imago, carried on a staff at the head
of the legion by a imaginifer. The image was that of the emperor then in power
or of the emperor who had "raised" or "formed" the legion. Four legions
besieged Jerusalem in AD 70, viz., V Macedonica, XII Fulminata, XV Apollinaris
and X Fretensis. As each of them had their imago standard, the plural form
שקוצים is most apposite. You write,
"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. " My interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is certainly guided by what I
consider to be its most probable fulfillment in history, but its stays within
what is lexically and grammatically permitted and is consistent with what the
book of Daniel says elsewhere. The same cannot be said of understanding of
"abominations," which has absolutely no lexical support anywhere. As you
yourself have conceded, the sense I attach to כנף is "not impossible." Apart
from its usual sense of bird wings, it also bears such meanings as "edge" or
"end" ("ends of the earth,"Job 37:3; 38:13); "corners" ( "four corners of the
earth," Ezekiel 7:2, ); extremity, or loose flowing end, of a garment
(Deuteronomy 22:12; 1 Samuel 15:27). It is therefore entirely possible
therefore that כנף refers to the part of a Roman standard bearing the image
of an emperor, which was fixed to the end of the pole and was like its "wing."
The words ועל כנף שקוצים משמם
I understand as a prophetic description of the imago standards--there would
have been four corresponding to the four legions--as they lay or stood on the
altar of burnt offering in the temple subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem on 8
Gorpaeus (probably 8 September) in AD 70: "and upon the wing of abominations is
one causing desolation". (As I mentioned in the last post, the "one causing
desolation" is the Roman emperor.) Though Josephus does not mention any such
event, his narrative of events after the fall of the city certainly allows it
(see BJ 6:403-419; 7:1). It is instructive to compare how
the word pterux (meaning 'wing') was used in ancient Greek with the use of
כנף in Hebrew. According to "An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon," based on
Liddell and Scott's "Greek-English Lexicon," the meanings of pterux include
'anything like a wing [such as] the flap or skirt of a coat of armour' and 'the
broad edge of a knife or spear.' The following , too, are cited on a website I
came across as meanings of pterux: 'lobe of the lungs,' 'blade of a
steering-paddle,' 'feathery foliage,' 'point of a building,' 'shoulder-blade,'
'sails,' 'fence,' 'wall,' 'fin' (of fish). (With regard to this last, the
comment of Isaac Fried, list member, is apposite here: "[כנף] is also related
to the post-biblical סנף SNP, 'branch', and
סנפיר 'fin', of Lev. 11:9.")
You'll see that there is some overlap with the meanings of כנף . There is
also epi to pterugion tou ierou in Matthew 4: 5 and Luke 4:9. pterugion is
a diminutive of pterux and means "winglet." Of course, ancient Hebrew is not
ancient Greek, but, in view of the similar variety of meanings attested for
כנף in the Hebrew scriptures, limited a corpus as it is, I do not see any
difficulty in seeing this Hebrew word being used in this prophetic passage to
refer to that part of a Roman imago standard which had the image of the
emperor, which, was fastened to the end of a pole and indeed bore some
resemblance to a wing (pictures of Roman imago standards available on the web).
In any case, the use of the word שקוצ elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures point
to שקוצים in Daniel 9:27 as being a reference to idolatrous images and hence
the phrase "X of שקוצים " is most naturally understood as referring to some
part of some idolatrous images or objects. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my
last post, that Mark uses the masculine participle esthkota with bdelugma,
(Mark 13:14), suggesting that he thought of the latter as being a
representation or image of a god or deified man. Luke's parallel to Mt. and
Mk. reads, "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by
armies, then know that her desolation [Gr. ERHMWSIS] is near" (Luke 21:20).
Note that Luke omits Matthew's "spoken of through Daniel the prophet" and
Matthew and Mark's "let the reader understand." This is because Luke gives the
interpretation of Matthew and Mark's words ("the abomination of desolating
standing in the holy place/where it should not be"). Since the abomination
cannot be the armies per se--I have demonstrated it above--it must relate to
something associated with them, viz., the imago standards they carried.
You further write Quote 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.
Unquote LJ: You have misunderstood me. I did not apply Daniel 9:27 to
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. What I said was that the Romans placing the imago
standards on the altar of burnt offering in AD 70 after the fall of the city
follows "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])." Leonard Jayawardena
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
