Tumah
Veteran Member
Many the argument has been formulated to render a certain tranſlation uſing the lexicon, by thoſe who are not familiar with the language in queſtion. Here I note the danger in doing ſo. Here iſ a quote from Biblical Hermeneutics:
I put forward that while extremely knowledgeable, our friend relied on a lexicon to come up with this poſsibility. And here's why:
2 Kings 6:23
" ויכרה להם כרה גדולה"
Pleaſe note the ſimilarity between the two bold red words above and the diſsimilarity below:
NIV "So he prepared a great feaſt"
KJV "And he prepared great proviſion"
What is actually happening here, is that the Hebrew root for "feaſt" or "proviſion" is also being uſed as a verb. Literally, this ſhould read "And he feaſted/proviſioned a great feaſt/proviſion". But that doeſn't make ſenſe in English at all, ſo translators replace the verb with the word "prepared", ſince that's the intent the verſe is trying to convey anyway.
I turn your attention to Job 40:30 (41:6 in your Chriſtian Bible):
Job 40:30 "יכרו עליו חברים"
YLT "Feaſt upon him do companions"
(Kindly note that in Hebrew, certain letters may be dropped from roots when forming words, hence the letter ה here is miſsing, but in it's root form is the ſame as above.)
Here you ſee the verb form of this root makes ſenſe in an Engliſh ſentence in it's literal tranſlation, so the literal tranſlation is uſed. And now, juſt to prove that Biblical Hebrew does this, here's another example:
Gen. 25:29 "ויזד יעקב נזיד"
NIV "Once when Jacob was cooking ſome ſtew"
KJV "And Jacob ſod pottage"
As you may be able to ſee from the Hebrew, the two words in queſtion are identical. They come from the ſame root, one as a verb and the other as a noun. What it's literally ſaying is, "And Jacob boiled boil (where boil is a foodſtuff that is boiled)". But that doeſn't English, ſo tranſlators opt for a more intelligent tranſlation.
And this is why our friend at Hermeneutics is miſtaken. If Origen had any fluency in Hebrew, he would have underſtood that the Hebrew here could not mean "prepare", as uſing the tranſlation from 2 Kings, it would mean "ears you have feaſted for me" and that would be a novel tranſlation indeed.
I hope this has been informative and has given you reaſon to be ware of any tranſlation you attempt to create on your own uſing a lexicon. A lexicon cannot replace learning a language.
The apparent difference of translation between the LXX and the Masoretic Text of Psalm 40:6 may leave doubts as to whether or not the proto-Hebrew Text had ever mentioned "ears," since the word "body" is instead mentioned by three very reliable LXX codices (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus). However, one significant key to understanding this passage comes from Origen of Alexandria. That is, on the one hand, he is the earliest witness extant who indicates in his Hexapla that the proto-Hebrew texts had used the word "ears" and not "body." On the other hand, Origen interprets the meaning of the verse to say the "body" is "prepared" (as a living sacrifice), which is the meaning found in the three principal codices of the LXX and the Christian New Testament (see Heb 10:5).
In conclusion, while Origen had a reputation for interpreting Scripture in very wide brush-strokes, in this particular instance he appears to bridge the gap between the literal Hebrew Text reading ("ears"), and the amplified translation of the LXX ("body") as found in the major codices of the LXX. (As already noted this view finds support with Keil and Delitzsch.) In other words, Origen had recognized the literal text rendering of "ears" (per the Hexapla), but he also had understood the triliteral root כָּרָה meaning not to pierce (כָּרָה = H3738), but to prepare (כָּרָה = H3739). Because of this nuance of the Hebrew verb, Origen seems to indicate (like Keil and Delitzsch) that "ears" in the Hebrew Text would be metonymy for obedience, which therefore appears as "body" in the three principal codices of the LXX and in the Christian New Testament as well.
What our fine friend over at Hermeneutics iſ ſaying, iſ that we find at 2 Kings 6:23 that the root word כרה is given the tranſlation "prepare" and thiſ iſ the translation Origen is using back at Pſalm 40:6 for the ſame three letter root found there, in place of the more common tranſlation "dig".In conclusion, while Origen had a reputation for interpreting Scripture in very wide brush-strokes, in this particular instance he appears to bridge the gap between the literal Hebrew Text reading ("ears"), and the amplified translation of the LXX ("body") as found in the major codices of the LXX. (As already noted this view finds support with Keil and Delitzsch.) In other words, Origen had recognized the literal text rendering of "ears" (per the Hexapla), but he also had understood the triliteral root כָּרָה meaning not to pierce (כָּרָה = H3738), but to prepare (כָּרָה = H3739). Because of this nuance of the Hebrew verb, Origen seems to indicate (like Keil and Delitzsch) that "ears" in the Hebrew Text would be metonymy for obedience, which therefore appears as "body" in the three principal codices of the LXX and in the Christian New Testament as well.
I put forward that while extremely knowledgeable, our friend relied on a lexicon to come up with this poſsibility. And here's why:
2 Kings 6:23
" ויכרה להם כרה גדולה"
Pleaſe note the ſimilarity between the two bold red words above and the diſsimilarity below:
NIV "So he prepared a great feaſt"
KJV "And he prepared great proviſion"
What is actually happening here, is that the Hebrew root for "feaſt" or "proviſion" is also being uſed as a verb. Literally, this ſhould read "And he feaſted/proviſioned a great feaſt/proviſion". But that doeſn't make ſenſe in English at all, ſo translators replace the verb with the word "prepared", ſince that's the intent the verſe is trying to convey anyway.
I turn your attention to Job 40:30 (41:6 in your Chriſtian Bible):
Job 40:30 "יכרו עליו חברים"
YLT "Feaſt upon him do companions"
(Kindly note that in Hebrew, certain letters may be dropped from roots when forming words, hence the letter ה here is miſsing, but in it's root form is the ſame as above.)
Here you ſee the verb form of this root makes ſenſe in an Engliſh ſentence in it's literal tranſlation, so the literal tranſlation is uſed. And now, juſt to prove that Biblical Hebrew does this, here's another example:
Gen. 25:29 "ויזד יעקב נזיד"
NIV "Once when Jacob was cooking ſome ſtew"
KJV "And Jacob ſod pottage"
As you may be able to ſee from the Hebrew, the two words in queſtion are identical. They come from the ſame root, one as a verb and the other as a noun. What it's literally ſaying is, "And Jacob boiled boil (where boil is a foodſtuff that is boiled)". But that doeſn't English, ſo tranſlators opt for a more intelligent tranſlation.
And this is why our friend at Hermeneutics is miſtaken. If Origen had any fluency in Hebrew, he would have underſtood that the Hebrew here could not mean "prepare", as uſing the tranſlation from 2 Kings, it would mean "ears you have feaſted for me" and that would be a novel tranſlation indeed.
I hope this has been informative and has given you reaſon to be ware of any tranſlation you attempt to create on your own uſing a lexicon. A lexicon cannot replace learning a language.