The Message (a Hebrew question)

Hey so I found something in my Anchor Commentary:

AB similarly translates this as
"has put fertility in the earth" Dahood writes,

"the context
hints that consonantal šmwt
(שמות) is
the antonym of milhamot (מִלְחָמוֹת)
"wars";
Budde long ago proposed the emendation šalom.
This
inference evokes the theme of UT [Ugaritic Textbook] "Banish war from the earth, put
love in the land; pour peace into the bowels of the earth, rain down
love into the bowels of the fields" Consonantal šmwt
is
identified with Ugaritic šmt,"oil,
fat".

Unfortunately, I have no clue what he is talking about. Does anyone here speak Dahood?

Who is Budde? Dahood gives no reference to what work he is referring to.

Rosie Perera

Hmm, well I suppose that could be construed as a positive spin on spreading a wasteland or wilderness over the land. If the devastation destroys all human culture and agriculture and leaves it a "haunt for jackals" it could produce trees and flowers growing wild. But I confess Peterson's take on it seems more positive than the text intends.

The only thing I could think of that might have given him justification for finding a positive spin on it is this definition in The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words:

8047. שַׁמָּה shammâh, sham-maw’; from 8074; ruin; by impl. consternation:— astonishment, desolate (-ion), waste, wonderful thing.

Wait, the UBS Handbook on Psalms sheds a bit more light on it:

In verse 8b desolations translates a word meaning an event which evokes terror or wonder from those who see it, an "awesome" or "prodigious" event; so TEV "amazing things"; NAB "astounding things"; NJV "astounding deeds"; SPCL "surprising things." This interpretation follows the Septuagint "wonders" and the Vulgate prodigia, and is the meaning given by K-B and Holladay. But NEB, NIV, and NJV are like KJV "desolations." It seems best here to follow TEV. The expression translated "amazing things" by TEV can be rendered in some languages in idiomatic terms; for example, "eyesore things," "things that stop the heart," and "things that fill up the throat."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151553#Comment_151553

Hmm, well I suppose that could be construed as a positive spin on spreading a wasteland or wilderness over the land.

I think Peterson is following Dahood who based on the Ugartic suggests that the word is not "desolations" but "oil" and thus reads it as "who brings fertility to the earth" (oiling the earth would I guess be like anointing it maybe?)

What you note in the UBS Handbook is interesting. I looked up the LXX and sure enough it reads

ἃ
ἔθετο
τέρατα
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
"Who puts wonders
on the earth." In the LXX τέρας
here usually
(34 of 38 times according the the TDNT) translates מוֹפֵת
"wonders"

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151563#Comment_151563

Peace in the Lord to both of you! *smile*

Am very grateful for this post. Gave me a chance to do a real study this morning that was pleasant and edifying! Thank you muchly!

This is the kind of posting that can be very beneficial to others in the Logos Community

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151563#Comment_151563

I think Peterson is following Dahood who based on the Ugartic suggests...

Speaking of Ugaritic, I saw this interesting article in the news today:

Simple computer program decodes lost biblical language

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151662#Comment_151662

Peace in the Lord to both of you! *smile*

Am very grateful for this post. Gave me a chance to do a real study this morning that was pleasant and edifying! Thank you muchly!

This is the kind of posting that can be very beneficial to others in the Logos Community

Yes Milford, I agree. We need to hear from George Somsel on that matter. He has been always very helpful in questions like this one.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151563#Comment_151563

Hmm, well I suppose that could be construed as a positive spin on spreading a wasteland or wilderness over the land.

I think Peterson is following Dahood who based on the Ugartic suggests that the word is not "desolations" but "oil" and thus reads it as "who brings fertility to the earth" (oiling the earth would I guess be like anointing it maybe?)

What you note in the UBS Handbook is interesting. I looked up the LXX and sure enough it reads ἃ ἔθετο τέρατα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. "Who puts wonders on the earth." In the LXX τέρας here usually (34 of 38 times according the the TDNT) translates מוֹפֵת "wonders"

I would agree that Peterson is following Dahood here. There are two points to note:

(1) Dahood's argument hinges in good part on his noting that שַׁמּ֣וֹת is the antonym to מִלְחָמוֹת֮ in the following verse.
(2) The term "fatness of the earth" is a way of speaking of the fecundity of the land. See Gen 27.28

וְיִתֶּן־לְךָ הָאֱלֹהִים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ

I often find Dahood thought-provoking.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151843#Comment_151843

Just in time rides George in his white shining armour! *smile*

Thanks, George! Much appreciated!

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Dahood is wrong...silly wrong.

Sillier still? Attaching the word "bible" to "The Message". As a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally is Peterson...but not enough to take it (or him) seriously.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151888#Comment_151888

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

It's v 8 in English. In the Hebrew it is v. 9

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151888#Comment_151888

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Depends on the translation you are using. Luckily chapter and verse divisions are a human add-in given their inconsistencies.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151889#Comment_151889

It's v 8 in English. In the Hebrew it is v. 9

To be more precise, one can find English translations in either the 8 or 9 camp. One thing I really appreciate about Logos 4 is its ability to move seamlessly across these inconsistencies.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151888#Comment_151888

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Dahood is wrong...silly wrong.

Sillier still? Attaching the word "bible" to "The Message". As a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally is Peterson...but not enough to take it (or him) seriously.

Dahood is "silly wrong"? It's nice to know that you are so much more knowledgeable in the field than Dahood was. If you wish to criticize your betters, I suggest that you provide some proof. We've been through the question of The Message previously so I don't wish to go into that question again. Suffice it to say that Peterson didn't do a bad job at what he was attempting to accomplish. Again, if you wish to criticize your betters, provide some proof.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151904#Comment_151904

Dahood is "silly wrong"? It's nice to know that you are so much more knowledgeable in the field than Dahood was. If you wish to criticize your betters, I suggest that you provide some proof. We've been through the question of The Message previously so I don't wish to go into that question again. Suffice it to say that Peterson didn't do a bad job at what he was attempting to accomplish. Again, if you wish to criticize your betters, provide some proof.

"Betters"?!?! [:P] LOLOLOL

Proof?? Umm...how about everybody EXCEPT Dahood . You can't really tell, but I put that period in bold print. [:)] Case closed...

...except that I will say that his "it means the opposite of" argument, in my view, is extremely weak-- the whole context and mood of the passage is that of building layer upon layer (in modern parlance: "laying it on thick"). It isn't the time nor place for the subtlety of contrast. In other words, Eccl. 3:2-3 this ain't.

More like "die, uproot, kill, tear down" -- with hot sauce.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151843#Comment_151843

Dahood's argument hinges in good part on his noting that שַׁמּ֣וֹת is the antonym to מִלְחָמוֹת֮ in the following verse.

George,

can you help me understand this? I'm not really familiar
with how antonyms work in Hebrew, but in English they are simply the
opposite in meaning not form. So if שַׁמּוֹת
means "oil" I'm not sure why that is the antonym of
מִלְחָמוֹת
"war". Does Dahood simply mean that conceptually he
would expect the meaning of the two verses to be contrasting each
other? Because they could theoretically just as easily be a parallel
in structure. Is there some grammatical form or mark in the Hebrew that
flags these two verses (or the two words) as being antonyms that I am
unaware of?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151662#Comment_151662

Am very grateful for this post. Gave me a chance to do a real study this morning that was pleasant and edifying! Thank you muchly!

Glad you enjoyed it Milford, blessings to you [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151888#Comment_151888

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Dahood is wrong...silly wrong.

Sillier still? Attaching the word "bible" to "The Message". As a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally is Peterson...but not enough to take it (or him) seriously.

...the verse depends on what Bible you use. In LXX and Vulgate it is even Psalm 45. But I know you know that [:D]

EDITED: Yes, I realize now you are speaking about the Message Bible. So OK, it is verse 8 - 10... [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151888#Comment_151888

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Dahood is wrong...silly wrong.

Sillier still? Attaching the word "bible" to "The Message". As a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally is Peterson...but not enough to take it (or him) seriously.

I, for one, would appreciate your points more if they were written in more respectful language ... may be a sign of my age, but ...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151931#Comment_151931

So if שַׁמּוֹת means "oil" I'm not sure why that is the antonym of מִלְחָמוֹת "war".

Antonyms in Hebrew aren't basically different from antonyms in any other language, but it must be understood that one word can have different connotations. War is obviously a destructive activity so one aspect of the term מִלְחָמוֹת would be that of destruction and devastation. Since in Isaac's blessing of Jacob [in place of Esau] and his subsequent "blessing" of Esau the phrase "fatness of the earth" speaks of the fruitfulness of the ground so that on the one hand Jacob was to live in a fruitful land while Esau was to live מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ "away from the fatness of the earth" or, as Peterson renders it "far from earth's bounty." The antonym here is the destructiveness of war on the one hand compared to the fruitfulness of the earth on the other.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151977#Comment_151977

Minor point...OP says the verse in question is v. 9...actually, it's v. 8.

Dahood is wrong...silly wrong.

Sillier still? Attaching the word "bible" to "The Message". As a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally is Peterson...but not enough to take it (or him) seriously.

I, for one, would appreciate your points more if they were written in more respectful language ... may be a sign of my age, but ...

Seems to be in line with

lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2002-January/012074.html">

His dependence on Ugaritic had one of two effects on reviewers: either they loved it or they hated it. There seemed to be no in-between, a reviewer either hailed it as the greatest achievement of the century in Hebrew studies, as Albright did, or they castigated it as a joke because he erroneously (according to the reviewer) leaned so heavily on a cognate language at the expense of other more traditional branches of philology as well as the Qumran scrolls.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152014#Comment_152014

Seems to be in line with

Ah yes, I keep forgetting what academia is like in those fields where one actually expects to be employed based on reputation rather than everyone being in the top three or four in their specialty ... there only being three or four others in the world with the specialty - and that count Denver taxicab drivers and the local mailman. I still laugh about my brother (economics professor and provost) asking me if I was going to try to publish my Master's thesis. I responded it was simpler to simply mail a copy to the only other people in the world who cared about the topic - one in Sri Lanka and one in Germany.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152011#Comment_152011

Antonyms in Hebrew aren't basically different from antonyms in any other language, but it must be understood that one word can have different connotations. War is obviously a destructive activity so one aspect of the term מִלְחָמוֹת would be that of destruction and devastation. Since in Isaac's blessing of Jacob [in place of Esau] and his subsequent "blessing" of Esau the phrase "fatness of the earth" speaks of the fruitfulness of the ground so that on the one hand Jacob was to live in a fruitful land while Esau was to live מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ "away from the fatness of the earth" or, as Peterson renders it "far from earth's bounty." The antonym here is the destructiveness of war on the one hand compared to the fruitfulness of the earth on the other.

Okay, so then
שמות being an antonym of "war" is dependent on it being read as "fat of the earth" since if it was read as "horrors on the earth" it would be a synonym. bountifulness/destruction=antonym; desolation/destruction=synonym

I guess I'm not getting why you say "Dahood's argument hinges in good part on his noting that שַׁמּ֣וֹת is the antonym to מִלְחָמוֹת֮ in the following verse" since it seems to me that the reverse is the case: his argument that it is an antonym hinges on his reading of "oil/fat". Perhaps I am not understanding your point? Could you clarify please?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152082#Comment_152082

I'm also wondering how the LXX gets the rendering "wonders" here for
their translation of
שמות

Note that I'm writing the above with out vowel points. Dahood's argument requires that we remove the vowel points from the Hebrew here (as he does all the time for his entire translation. Like Dahood the LXX translators were working with Hebrew that had no vowel
points since the Masoretic text did not exist at the time, so I'm wondering if there is a word in Hebrew with those consonants
שמות that could
mean "miracle" or "sign"?

Here's where this becomes a Logos question: what would be the best way to search that? I did a lemma search and only came up with shammot "horror/desolation". Perhaps this goes beyond the scope of Logos since it involves knowledge of Hebrew forms not found in the Bible?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152092#Comment_152092

Also, what are we to make of the Hebrew title for the book of Exodus being
שמות?

Does that mean it is called "horrors" or "desolations"?

Perhaps that is where the LXX get "wonders/signs" from? That would certainly be a nicer title for the book, dontcha think?

My BHS has no vowel points for שמות in their titles, so is this word shammot? If so I'm wondering why it would be translated as "horrors" where it appears in the OT?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152100#Comment_152100

Also, what are we to make of the Hebrew title for the book of Exodus being שמות?

Does that mean it is called "horrors" or "desolations"?

Perhaps that is where the LXX get "wonders/signs" from? That would certainly be a nicer title for the book, dontcha think?

My BHS has no vowel points for שמות in their titles, so is this word shammot? If so I'm wondering why it would be translated as "horrors" where it appears in the OT?

It's a different word. In Exodus the word שְׁמוֹת is the plural of שֵׁם meaning "name" -- "These are the names..."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152100#Comment_152100

Also, what are we to make of the Hebrew title for the book of Exodus being שמות?

Does that mean it is called "horrors" or "desolations"?

Perhaps that is where the LXX get "wonders/signs" from? That would certainly be a nicer title for the book, dontcha think?

My BHS has no vowel points for שמות in their titles, so is this word shammot? If so I'm wondering why it would be translated as "horrors" where it appears in the OT?

Generally there is no one meaning for a word. A word is used differently in different contexts. Not only are there different denotations for words, there are also different connotations.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152122#Comment_152122

Generally there is no one meaning for a word. A word is used differently in different contexts.

It's interesting that the unpointed שמות
means “names” in Exodus (שְׁמוֹת) and that same unpointed שמות is read as “horrors” (שַׁמּוֹת) in the MS. I wonder what the LXX thought the unpointed שמות
meant in order to read it as "signs/wonders". Is there another word in hebrew with the consonants שמות
that would fit?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152145#Comment_152145

Generally there is no one meaning for a word. A word is used differently in different contexts.

Right, so if the unpointed שמות means “names” in Exodus, perhaps this same word in a different context means “signs/wonders” in Ps 46:8 (H: v9). The English word “omen” means “sign” but etymologically comes from the word “name”. Perhaps the same is true for “names” in Hebrew (I don’t know the etymology here, so it’s just a guess). Thus the LXX reads the unpointed שמות and sees it as the plural for “names” (שְׁמוֹת) and translates it as “omen/sign/wonder” instead of reading it as the MS does as the plural for “horrors” (שַׁמּוֹת). Sound plausible?

Omen does not come from the word "name." It comes from the Latin omen, -inis meaning [surprise !] omen, sign.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152164#Comment_152164

Omen does not come from the word "name." It comes from the Latin omen, -inis meaning [surprise !] omen, sign.

Yeah, I caught that too (notice I edited my above post). My bad.

I was thinking of the Latin proverb nomen est omen and had reversed the meaning in my head.[:$]

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152173#Comment_152173

Dahood's interpretation is hard to accept:

1) The Ugaritic šmt occurs in Aqht (KTU 1.19:3:10) :

in. šmt. in. ʿẓm. = "There is no šmt there is no bone". The same verse occurs again in (KTU 1.19:3:25) . In (KTU 1.19:3:35) we find the third and last occurrence of that word: iṯ.šmt. iṯ. ʿẓm. "There is šmt there is bone"

šmt was explained through analogy to bones. In the words of Gordon: "The meaning ‘fat’ is favored by parallelism with ‘bone’. Usually šmn (49:III:6) designates vegetable fat (= olive oil), whereas šmt may refer to human fat in the Aqht story." UT 8.3 footnote 4.

It is possible that this word indeed signifies "fat". In that case we should assume assimilation of the third radical "n" with the feminine marker "t" : šmnt > šmtt > šmt. Note that this lemma is only attested in Aqht whereas the the unassimilated root šmn is very frequent in Ugaritic (see Del Olmo Lette's lexicon pp. 827-831).
But Ugaritic is not alone in the Semitic world: Arabic (سَمْنٌ and not as Del Olmo Lette wrongly quotes Lane!) , Aramaic (שומנא), Akkadian (šamnum), Mishnaic Hebrew (שמנת) all have parallel forms where the n is retained. Nowhere outside Ugaritic is an assimilation of n and t attested for the root שמנ. It is also unlikely (though not completely impossible) that the "n" returned in Mishnaic Hebrew after it "disappeared" in Ps 46. There is simply no reason to think that this isolated form occurring only 3 times in the same text in a totally different context than that of Ps 46 has anything to do with שמות.

Besides how should we explain the form שמות with the "ו" instead of the expected "שמת"?

An Ugaritic analogy leads to a dubious analogy to BH that leads to so many problems when the verse is quite coherent as it is.

2) With respect, the context does not hint to "oil" or "peace". The might of god is demonstrated through his ability as a warrior to destroy weapons (v. 10) to cause earthquakes (v.4) to make the earth move (v.7) and in the case of verse 9 to cause devastation in the world.

3) Dahood's analogy with Gen 49:20 is also misleading. שמנה is usually understood as an adjective that pertains to לחמו and not as a noun "fatness". Even if that interpretation cannot be ruled out, it cannot serve as the only evidence for a new definition to שמות if only for the fact that "n" is retained before the feminine marker.

4) Dahood and Gordon should always be used with scrutiny. Never take Ugaritic analogies for granted. Study Ugaritic. Check the texts and the lexicons. Only then can you decide what is likely (according to common sense! ).

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155382#Comment_155382

One professional opinion on Dahood and Ugaritic- my former UChicago advisor Dennis Pardee is one of the top guys in Ugaritic right now. He warned our class never to take Dahood's interpretations at face value because his methodology was flawed.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/152026#Comment_152026

Ah yes, I keep forgetting what academia is like in those fields where one actually expects to be employed based on reputation rather than everyone being in the top three or four in their specialty ... there only being three or four others in the world with the specialty

[:'(] Sad, but true.

Erich von Däniken is the world's best known proponent of alien migration to Earth. But it makes him neither correct nor believable. Without re-hashing the validity of "The Message," I am curious why the OP would turn to a singular authority when there are so many resources in Logos. If the singular source is WRONG, you lose everything you've built on the erroneous foundation. However, if Albright agrees, it must be correct. [:)]

Rosie brought up several other Logos sources that shed more light on the passage. And much as I disagree with George on Peterson, George's post goes a long way in explaining it clearly.

btw: This is a very interesting post. Thank you for sharing it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155415#Comment_155415

And much as I disagree with George on Peterson, George's post goes a long way in explaining it clearly.

I'm not too sure how much we really disagree on Peterson. I said he did a fairly good job at what he was attempting. Just what was he attempting? He was trying to make the bible readable for those who were turned off by traditional translations and therefore really didn't know what it said. I don't always (make that "I frequently don't") care for his translation, but I've been reading this stuff since I was a kid on a regular basis. That means this translation really isn't for me. I suspect it isn't for you either.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155434#Comment_155434

I'm not too sure how much we really disagree on Peterson. I said he did a fairly good job at what he was attempting. Just what was he attempting?

Good point. I frequently compliment people's achievements with "He is good at what he does." without actually liking what it is that he does so well. Case in point: I hate "Rap" music but I can tell the difference between a talented Rapper and a rank amature.

Peterson is "good at what he does."

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151974#Comment_151974

PSA 45:8 (same as 46 normal count)

⁸Come, and behold the works of the Lord, what wonders he has achieved on the earth.

Brenton, L. C. L., Sir. (2009). The Septuagint version of the Old Testament (Ps 45:8)

8 Come, behold the works of the Lord, Who has wrought desolations and wonders in the earth.

The amplified Bible, containing the amplified Old Testament and the amplified New Testament. 1987 (Ps 46:8). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Attention, all! See the marvels of God!

He plants flowers and trees all over the earth,

Bans war from pole to pole,

breaks all the weapons across his knee.

Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language (Ps 46:8–9).

Exercise for Student – You look up the rest (some with have it in Psa 45 most in 46 – some in V 8 most in V 9 – enjoy)

Exercise for Student – You have seen what others have done here – verify their results. (don't just read - learn)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155726#Comment_155726

PSA 45:8 (same as 46 normal count)

⁸Come, and behold the works of the Lord, what wonders he has achieved on the earth.

Brenton, L. C. L., Sir. (2009). The Septuagint version of the Old Testament (Ps 45:8)

8 Come, behold the works of the Lord, Who has wrought desolations and wonders in the earth.

The amplified Bible, containing the amplified Old Testament and the amplified New Testament. 1987 (Ps 46:8). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Attention, all! See the marvels of God!

                        He plants flowers and trees all over the earth,

                  Bans war from pole to pole,

                        breaks all the weapons across his knee.

Peterson, E. H. (2002). The Message : The Bible in contemporary language (Ps 46:8–9).

Exercise for Student – You look up the rest (some with have it in Psa 45 most in 46 – some in V 8 most in V 9 – enjoy)

Exercise for Student – You have seen what others have done here – verify their results. (don't just read - learn)

I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make here (if any). It should be noted, however that Brenton was dealing with the Greek text of the LXX and not the Hebrew.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155726#Comment_155726

normal count

normal, shnormal ... it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155732#Comment_155732

“I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make here (if any). It should be noted, however that Brenton was dealing with the Greek text of the LXX and not the Hebrew.”

I said this was a good exercise for the student – so before replying I have done the exercise and proved most of what has been said in this thread [and learned a new thing or two about Logos 4] [it took me five hours and the report is over five pages]

Figured out how to list all versions for that verse -- Psalm 46:8

Used text comparison on my collection of English Bibles

Separated the two groups [copied the list in to Word and using cut and paste separated the versions into Desolations and Wonders]

Desolations: is used in 23 versions - Wonders Amazing astounding plants flowers in 7 versions

Desolations and Wonders both are used in 1 version [AMP]

As the D-R was on the list I checked to see if this verse is a Challoner change: it was not

To show that I did the first part I found this list of 7 versions that are not desolation: D-R [Challoner]; GNT ; NCV ; NJB ; The Message ; The Septuagint Version of the old Testament ; YLT and also DOUAY OLD TESTAMENT of Anno Domini 1610 [not in Logos];

In his English translation of the LXX Brenton did not use Desolations here – the Greek LXX was translated from the Hebrew. Conclusion: the item of discussion in this thread is not new [goes back to something BC. They used 5059. τέρας téras; A wonder or omen. It is often associated with sēmeíon (4592), sign, and is usually in the pl. translated “wonders” Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament

Using Tan, R., deSilva, D. A., & Logos Research Systems, I. (2009; 2009). The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint. To find the verse under study [The LXX is often off by one]

That is what I meant. Give the newer users a hint on how to do these ‘things’.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/155955#Comment_155955

LXX is probably a theological correction. In the eyes of the translator: God's deeds - his "project" cannot be devastations. It is similar to euphemism.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156090#Comment_156090

LXX is probably a theological correction. In the eyes of the translator: God's deeds - his "project" cannot be devastations. It is similar to euphemism.

I trust the LXX about as far as I can throw it. And if I did throw it, I probably wouldn't bother going to pick it up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156156#Comment_156156

I trust the LXX about as far as I can throw it.

You know, I'd be far more apt to listen to you, if you didn't insult what you do not like.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156159#Comment_156159

...but, MJ...you're always the FIRST to reply! [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156156#Comment_156156

I trust the LXX about as far as I can throw it. And if I did throw it, I probably wouldn't bother going to pick it up.

I tend to prefer the MT myself, but you must realize that the Qumran scrolls have passages which favor the LXX as well as the Sam Pent (in Hebrew). It would seem that the text was not fully settled at that time. Then there are times when the MT simply is not comprehensible. One can emend based on conjecture regarding what corruption may have occurred, resort to cognate studies to find some help from Akkadian, Ugaritic or Arabic or one can take the LXX rendition. If I had plenty of cash to spare, I might send you a copy of http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6626.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156156#Comment_156156

""I trust the LXX about as far as I can throw it. ""

Have you read the LXX and compared verse by verse to the KJV and the NSAB to note differences? I have. I have a theory about the LXX. It is 10 pages long so will summarize.

Question: What did the early church (in the days of Paul and John) use as Scripture? My research is leading me to the conclusion that they most likely used the LXX and NOT the Hebrew, as we now know it. {That is what did they use prior to 100 AD?}

The LXX was first translated from the Hebrew in 285 BC. (Most likely only the first five Books at that time, and over the next 150 years the rest of the Hebrew Scripture was translated into Greek – some very good and some not so good – according to some of my sources)

The Jews finally settled on an OFFICIAL wording of their Scriptures in 150 AD. {There are thirty five years more between when the Greek LXX was translated and when the Jews fixed the current Hebrew text then we have been using the King James translation – 285 BC to 150 AD or about 435 years between when the LXX was translated and when the Jews accepted a final wording of their scripture - 1611 to 2010 is only 399 years that we have been using the KJV}

From what I have read it seems that at the time of Jesus there were two distinct texts for what we know as the OT. One of these texts was translated into the Greek as the LXX starting in 285 BC. The other was accepted in 150 AD as the OFFICIAL HEBREW texts and has been the standard for the Jews ever since. And is now ACCEPTED as the OFFICIAL OLD TESTAMENT for the Christians. [They picked the version / wording that the Christians were NOT using!!]

Then between 200 to 500 AD (or so) the Christians noticed that their Greek text {of the LXX} did not agree with the Jews Hebrew texts. So they started CORRECTING their Greek texts {the LXX} to match the Hebrew (not knowing that there were originally two different Hebrew texts and that the Jews picked the OTHER ONE). [We need to find a copy from pre 100 BC!]

I like the LXX: There are gems in it: study Proverbs 13:24 The famous “Spare the Rod” verse.

²⁴ He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. KJV

24 He that spares the rod hates his son: but he that loves, carefully chastens him. LXX

Note that verse 24 in the LXX adds a modifier to the chastisement – carefully

ALL Hebrew based versions tell us to discipline him and to do it now or early and to be diligent about doing it. None of the Hebrew based versions tell us how to do it. Some like the NIV tell us to be careful that we do it but not to be careful how we do it.

The LXX tells us that if we Spare the rod if you hate your son, but if you love your son you will, with care [and love], discipline him.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156172#Comment_156172

And is now ACCEPTED as the OFFICIAL OLD TESTAMENT for the Christians.

Er .. ah.. the Orthodox Christians generally treat the LXX as the authoritative text. I know ... Ms.OneNote on this. [:D]

Thanks for sharing your work - it looks very interesting.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156172#Comment_156172

Have you read the LXX and compared verse by verse to the KJV and the NSAB to note differences? I have. I have a theory about the LXX. It is 10 pages long so will summarize.

David, thank you so much for sharing your study with us. It's very interesting and I wish I can read the whole thing.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156184#Comment_156184

David, thank you so much for sharing your study with us. It's very interesting and I wish I can read the whole thing.

I agree, thanks Dave. Is there a way I can get a copy of your study on this subject?

Bohuslav you do get up early![:)]

Ted.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156186#Comment_156186

Bohuslav you do get up early!

Hello Ted, how can you know if you do not do it as well? [:)]

EDIT: O..., OK, I forgot you are one hour ahead of us [:D]

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/156187#Comment_156187

Each reading should be treated individually. LXX is sometimes preferable (in many readings of the book of Samuel for example).

Most of the Qumran scrolls are proto-masoretic. Some of the proto-masoretic scrolls date to the 3rd century BC. This alone serves to refute the claim that LXX is more ancient and more reliable.

In the real world, one has to collect all variants, in the case of ancient translations one needs to retrovert the readings into their putative Hebrew source. Only then can one compare the readings and decide which is the preferred or "original" reading.

This Psalms case is quite easy. The difficult reading is MT. The exegetic motivation of the translator is clear. No one here is able to offer an hypothesis as to how the MT reading grew from the LXX reading. I offered an hypothesis as to how the process may have been the other way about. It is difficult to postulate a graphic interchange here .

In this case MT reading is to be preferred.

PS LXX readings in the law codes of the Pentateuch very often reflect mishnaic law. This has already been noted by Z. Frenkel in the 19th Century. But again each case has to be considered individually.