a Hebrew resource recommendation

Hmmm...since Van der Merwe is the editor of LHI (Lexham Hebrew Interlinear), along with many of his colleagues in South Africa, I assumed that he had written BHRG for Logos as well. I emailed him once with a textual question from Dan. 9 in LHI, but he never replied to my inquiry. [:(]

Oddly, I also emailed the guy who is credited with editing Daniel in LHI (who works at the same university) and he told me he wasn't the editor for Daniel. That kinda surprised me. Still would love to have my question answered at some point.

David Paul said:

Hmmm...since Van der Merwe is the editor of LHI (Lexham Hebrew Interlinear), along with many of his colleagues in South Africa, I assumed that he had written BHRG for Logos as well.

He did.  Here's the bibliographical entry

Van der Merwe, Christo, Jackie Naudé, Jan Kroeze et al. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

David Paul said:

Idiom וְעַ֨ל כְּנַ֤ף ~ and in its place

If that is what it says then it must be an error. It is not an idiom but a famous case of "pure" emendation. It appears in Charles' excellent commentary on Daniel.

The text is then to read: על כנם

 (BTW Logos! Charles is out of copyright!)

The question is not whether the emendation is a preferable reading. The question is whether "in its place" is the idiom על כנף.

There are two על כנף in the OT. One is literally on the wings. The other is the edges.

What was quoted here is "In its place" which corresponds to the emendation. It is not an idiom. 

I understand what you are saying. I am separating the two questions. The first is whether על כנף as it is can be understood as in its place. The answer to this question is no. This was David Paul's original question.

The second question is how to understand the verse. You offer another understanding of the verse you say that we should understand כנף as "limit, end, edge" just as the four corners of the earth. I don't know. perhaps. I don't know of any other place where כנף is a time reference. It sounds alien to me. I am prepared to take this as a possible interpretation but then again this was not the question.

[:)]

Excuse me George but our ways part here:

George Somsel said:

καὶ δυναστεύσει εἰς πολλοὺς ἡ διαθήκη, καὶ πάλιν ἐπιστρέψει καὶ ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος· καὶ κατὰ συντέλειαν καιρῶν [καὶ μετὰ ἐτῶν ἑππὰ καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καιροὺς καὶ ἐξήκοντα δύο καιροὺς] [ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας πολέμου καὶ ἀφαιρεθήσεται ἐρήμωσις] [ἐν τῷ κατισχῦσαι τὴν διαθήκην ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἑβδομάδας]· καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀρθήσεται ἡ θυσία καὶ ἡ σπονδή, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων ἔσται ἕως συντελείας καιροῦ, καὶ συντέλεια δοθήσεται ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν.

The highlighted phrase is part of an addition.

What you should have highlighted is:   καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα

George Somsel said:

You might note that the opening bracket comes AFTER the phrase and does not include it.

I don't care so much for Munich's brackets. The order of the words does not allow συντέλειαν καιρῶν to stand for כנף.

וַחֲצִ֨י καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει

הַשָּׁב֜וּעַ τῆς ἑβδομάδος

יַשְׁבִּ֣ית׀ ἀρθήσεται

זֶ֣בַח ἡ θυσία

וּמִנְחָ֗ה καὶ ἡ σπονδή,

וְעַ֨ל καὶ ἐπὶ

כְּנַ֤ף τὸ ἱερὸν 

שִׁקּוּצִים֙ βδέλυγμα

This is merely to say that I disagree with your interpretation of this verse in the LXX and so does Munich:

Ziegler, dem der Text von 967 nicht vorlag, hat nicht eindeutig auf eine Dublette erkannt, wohl im Hinblick darauf, daß in v. 25 die LXX für den Ausdruck שבעים שבעה ושבועים ששים ושנים (9:25e) keine Übersetzung bietet. Allerdings fehlt in Dan. οʹ auch בצוק העתים—תשוב, die Fortsetzung von v. 25. Deren Übersetzung findet sich nachgetragen in 9:27 mit πάλιν ἐπιστρέψει—συντέλειαν καιρῶν. Die Zeitenberechnung aus v. 25 ist dagegen nicht nachgetragen worden, vielmehr ist das zusätzliche τας von 967 zu Beginn des v. 26 ein gewichtiges Indiz, daß die ursprüngliche Übersetzung in v. 25 tatsächlich eine Zeit- bzw. Zahlenangabe hatte, die offenbar ausgefallen ist. Ersichtlich korrupt ist der Text in v. 26 mit der Reihung von zwei Zahlenausdrücken ohne Angabeiner Maßeinheit.

I stand by what I wrote earlier.

George Somsel said:

BTW:  David Paul, what text are you using which indicates that this is an idiom?  It certainly isn't the Logos BHS, AFAT or even the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft's print edition.

The previous post of my is where I mentioned the LHI, edited by Van der Merwe.

Btw, the NRSV has "and in their place" for that section of the verse.

George Somsel said:

I've noticed in Charles' Revelation commentary his eagerness to emend the text or to reorganize the text is determined by his preconceived assessment of what the text should say.

Speaking of...I appreciate the depth of their comments, but the NET Bible notes, specifically the translator notes, are virtually eager to emend the text of the MT in favor of the Greek, the DSS, or even something out of thin air. It's almost scary to contemplate the willingness to "go there".

George Somsel said:

 

That explains it.  Never trust an interlinear.

Which is why I brought forward the question in the first place. It would be quite an idomatic leap to go from "and upon a wing" to "and in its place". Even though the supposed idiom would give credence to my overall understanding of the prophecy, if it isn't a possible meaning, then it isn't a possible meaning. I'm still in agreement with the general consensus that the Hebrew meaning is "uncertain", but I have a smattering of possible options percolating in my head. And I still am open to someone bringing forward an example that might give credence to this idiom...but I'm not holding my breath.

David Paul said:

, what do you mean "pure emendation"?

If I were speaking to a scholar I would have said emendation. Those adhering to the methodology of Emanuel Tov distinguish between the practice of preferring an attested reading (i.e. a reading that was preserved in the ancient textual witnesses like the LXX) and the choice a putative reading which is not attested in any witness. The latter is called emendation.

But many people think that the Masoretic Text has inherent value. That it is THE Bible and that if one prefers a reading from the LXX or DSS one emends THE text. See for instance your own words:

David Paul said:

Speaking of...I appreciate the depth of their comments, but the NET Bible notes, specifically the translator notes, are virtually eager to emend the text of the MT in favor of the Greek, the DSS, or even something out of thin air. It's almost scary to contemplate the willingness to "go there".

Clearly you think that a choice of any reading other than MT is an emendation. Students of Tov (like me) think that all versions should be treated equally, that there is no inherent quality to a reading of MT over the LXX or DSS, and that all evidence must be evaluated "objectively". But there are some cases where no reading is acceptable. Sometimes a preferable text can be reconstructed assuming simple scribal errors. The best example is: Amos 6:12 where יחרש בבקר ים is almost certain. Here no reading is preferred but a putative text is reconstructed. This we call emendation.

But then YOU call any divergence from MT an emendation so people who subscribe to the same views usually call this practice pure emendation. I dislike this term not only because I think that all versions should be evaluated objectively, but because there is nothing pure about this practice. It's purity is in its lack of evidence. Perhaps uncorroborated emendation would be a better term. Of course there are rare cases where this is imperative but still there is no corroboration for these readings from any textual witness.

Here an interchange of מ and פ is assumed. Probably a phonetic interchange (both are labial). Graphically על כנן is more probable. In any case, this (pure?) emendation is far from certain.

 Have you read TCHB? You won't regret reading it. I promise.

David Paul said:

can you post what Charles has in his version?

 It is on my disk on key which I cannot locate at the moment. I scanned this book  in Beersheba and I have no intention of going there in the near future. It will take some time before I locate my DoK.

David Knoll said:

Clearly you think that a choice of any reading other than MT is an emendation.

Without question I hold a preference for the MT, but I am willing to look at the other "comtemporary" readings. I just find the MT to be preferable in the vast majority of cases. I can contemplate a type of "inspiration" for non-Masoretic texts, but to don't think that all LXX and DSS variations are made of the same cloth, so to speak. I like being aware of "what's out there", but I don't swallow any ancient text whole just because it's old. There are some portions of the LXX that I think probably ought to be classified as targums, at best.

NewbieMick said:

that scholars now found that the LXX (which I'm told in some places translates very literally, in other places less so) in those places where it differs markedly from MT used non-MT Hebrew source documents that in some cases have been found among the DSS in Qumran.

Some of the readings of LXX Samuel agree with 4QSamA. MT Samuel is often corrupt.

LXX Jeremiah is almost certainly an earlier edition than MT. 2 scroll fragments are believed to reflect that first edition in Hebrew.

Whatever text you are studying you need to evaluate all the evidence objectively. A preference for MT does not derive from rational arguments but from theological reasons. Observant Jews for instance do not look outside of MT.  Manuscripts are bound to accumulate corruptions through manual copying.

BKMitchell said:

Would this. below, by any chance be the commentary you guys speak of?

A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John    

Author: Charles, R. H. (Robert Henry), 1855-1931

http://www.archive.org/details/acriticalandexeg01charuoft

 

No Brian. The one I was referring to is "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel". Charles wrote quite a lot.

David Knoll said:

No Brian. The one I was referring to is "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel". Charles wrote quite a lot.

I see, Wipf and Stock have a reprint of it:

http://wipfandstock.com/store/A_Critical_and_Exegetical_Commentary_on_the_Book_of_Daniel

Brian Davidson said:

can you give us a little info on what sort of new resources will be included in SESB 4, Vincent?

I am not privy to that information.