What is the Hebrew source for the interlinear? (and 1 more question).

Not really sure how to phrase the question here.

Is there a specific manuscript being used? Or what Hebrew source is being used in the ESV Interlinear? Are there different interlinears? If so, which is most accurate?

The issue I'm having, is with Jeremiah 22:30. Specifically where it says "of his offspring". The interlinear says this is "mizar" A Jewish acquaintance of mine who is fluent in Hebrew says that it should be "from his offspring" and that his Hebrew source says the word is "MiZarO".

His quote:

Jer. 22:30 - כִּי לֹא יִצְלַח מִזַּרְעוֹ

The hebrew word there is MiZarO (Mem-Zayin-Raish-Ayin-Vav), from the
root "ZERA" (Zayin-Raish-Ayin) meaning "seed". The Mem in front of the
root (vowelized with a Cheerek, making the "ee" sound) adds the word
"from" to the root; the Vav at the end of the word (vowelized with a
Cholem, making the "O" sound) adds a personal male possessive to the
root, making the total word "MiZarO" mean "from his seed"

This is important because we are discussing the validity of Christ's lineage through Joseph and the curse of Jeconiah (and this is why Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Christ).

So I'm trying to verify his claim as well as find the most accurate source of Hebrew to use, using Logos 4.

Found out that he is using "According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition"

===EDIT===

Using the KJV Interlinear, the phrase is "of his seed", and the word then in Hebrew seems to be: "mi ow zar" or "miowzar", which is closer to what my friend above says...but still, there is a difference. So how do we know which interlinear/translation to use here? It seems to be an important issue because according to one translation, it may legitimize the genealogy...yet according to another, it voids it.

Second Question

I do not know Hebrew, just starting to learn it actually. But in the interlinear, the Hebrew words are each separated. Like in Logos 4, the interlinear separates the "mi" and "zar". However, as I understand it, this is not how the word actually reads if one were to read it in Hebrew. The word would be joined. How can I tell what words should be and shouldn't be joined using Logos 4?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rich DeRuiter

When I just checked the ESV for Jer 22:30 and right clicked on the English word "offspring" the MSS and Lemma come back as זרע - this is in keeping with what you are discussing above. The rev int splits the initial mem and final vav since these are a preposition and a personal pronoun, respectively.

BHS and LHI have .מִזַּרְעוֹ

DMB

Here's a screen print from the Lexham Hebrew Interlinear (BHS). The source on ESV-interlinear is a bit cloudy (AndersenForbes for 'text').

The note associated with 'from/of' above: BHRG §39.14, 7

MJ. Smith

Is there a specific manuscript being used? Or what Hebrew source is being used in the ESV Interlinear? Are there different interlinears? If so, which is most accurate?

As much as possible, Logos tries to use the same text for the interlinear that the original translators did. So yes, different interlinears use different texts. Which one is the most accurate? I'm not sure how you would measure accuracy. Each set of translators probably thought they had developed the "best possible" text - and each group probably had a member or two who disagreed with the final reading.

Jeremy Lewis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283841#Comment_283841

OK...so does this mean that the ESV may be less accurate here since at least 2 other translations have it different?

Also, I have the Study version. Is there a way to change out which interlinear is associated with the ESV? If another translation is more accurate, then perhaps I should switch to a different one.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283849#Comment_283849

Is there a way to change out which interlinear is associated with the ESV?

No, the interlinear is the text that was used for the ESV - alternative original language texts wouldn't necessarily map to the ESV. Gorman's preferences for exegesis:

"He expresses a preference for formal-equivalence translations and divides translations
into four categories: 1) preferred for exegesis (NRSV,
NAB, TNIV, and NET), 2) useful for exegesis, with caution (RSV, NIV, NASB,
REB, ESV, HCSB), 3) unacceptable for exegesis, but helpful in others ways (NLT,
NJB, CEV, GNB, The Message), and 4) unacceptable for exegesis (KJV, NKJV,
LB)."

http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/reviews_new/review404.htm

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283849#Comment_283849

OK...so does this mean that the ESV may be less accurate here since at least 2 other translations have it different?

No. The ESV follows the BHS, but splits the word into three parts. This is in keeping with how Hebrew works. The preposition (mem) is affixed as a prefix, the personal pronoun (vav) as a suffix. The word itself is set on it's own.

Here's what I see:

If you right click on "offspring" in your ESV what lemma do you get?

Here's what I see (which is in keeping with what the BHS and LHI have):

EDIT: Here is what I'm talking about, from the BHS:

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/283849#Comment_283849

OK...so does this mean that the ESV may be less accurate here since at least 2 other translations have it different?

Also, I have the Study version. Is there a way to change out which interlinear is associated with the ESV? If another translation is more accurate, then perhaps I should switch to a different one.

I think there might be some confusion about "of" because the ESV is aligned with the Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text, like all the other reverse interlinears; the preoposition basically means "from". The KJV probably comes close to being literal with "no man of his seed" but probably should have used "no man from his seed". The ESV combines the Hebrew "man" and "seed" as "offspring" i.e. "man from seed", so the "of" is a connector for its translation "none of his offspring" which is aligned with the Hebrew preposition. That's the way I see it, anyway!

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered