Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: [lxx] Ancient Of Days

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Juvenaly
    Time expressions in the LXX are not always to be read literally.  E.g. the last verse of PS. 22 reads and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for very long
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Time expressions in the LXX are not always to be read literally.  E.g. the last verse of PS. 22 reads "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for very long time." St Maximus says the latter expression means "forever."

      The Ancient of Days in Daniel is, according to some sources, Christ. There is a discussion about this, I think,  in The Life of the Theotokos and Ever -Virgin Mary (or similar title) from Holy Apostles Convent.

      Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christopher
      Dear Fr. Juvenaly And Peter Papoutsis     In Daniel Seven, who then is the One like a Son of Man? I agree that in Revelation we see Christ fit the
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Fr. Juvenaly And Peter Papoutsis
            In Daniel Seven, who then is the One like a Son of Man? I agree that in Revelation we see Christ fit the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.9; however, he fits the description of Christ resurrected in Daniel 7.13 coming unto the Ancient of Days, his Father. If we allow both of them to take on that title, then the ambiguity vanishes. I know for certain that Jesus Christ shares his Father's name YHWH, as seen in Isaiah 40.3, so I would not be surprised if he also shares the title "Ancient of Days". 


        Godspeed
        Christopher



        ________________________________
        From: Fr. Juvenaly <juven_29@...>
        To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 2:25 AM
        Subject: Fw: Re: [lxx] Ancient Of Days


         

        Time expressions in the LXX are not always to be read literally.  E.g. the last verse of PS. 22 reads "and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for very long time." St Maximus says the latter expression means "forever."

        The Ancient of Days in Daniel is, according to some sources, Christ. There is a discussion about this, I think,  in The Life of the Theotokos and Ever -Virgin Mary (or similar title) from Holy Apostles Convent.

        Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell
        Ancient of Days is a title, and perhaps we overburden it with mountains of words that seek exegetical exhaustion of possibilities of permutations... The term
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Ancient of Days is a title, and perhaps we overburden it with mountains of words that seek exegetical exhaustion of possibilities of permutations... The term 'Days' here can mean the 6 specific days of Creation itself, and be referring to the Ancient One Who is the Author of those Days, or it can refer to ALL days now understood as the 24 hour day... Running it through a bigger wringer than these would probably not be an exegetical-grammatical success, but would be perhaps better approached in the sacred writings of the Fathers who have written about it...
          Arsenios
          Reader Arsenios
          Ellensburg, WA









          Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest � Unsubscribe � Terms of Use � Send us Feedback



















          .














          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Christopher
          Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly     Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly
                Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?

                Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day. Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we have something to think about.  


            Christopher



            ________________________________
            From: Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell <maqhth@...>
            To: LXX Yahoo Groups <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:55 AM
            Subject: RE: [lxx] Ancient Of Days




            Ancient of Days is a title, and perhaps we overburden it with mountains of words that seek exegetical exhaustion of possibilities of permutations...  The term 'Days' here can mean the 6 specific days of Creation itself, and be referring to the Ancient One Who is the Author of those Days, or it can refer to ALL days now understood as the 24 hour day...  Running it through a bigger wringer than these would probably not be an exegetical-grammatical success, but would be perhaps better approached in the sacred writings of the Fathers who have written about it...
            Arsenios
            Reader Arsenios
            Ellensburg, WA






             

             
              Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback




             

             
             
             



               




               

              .


             









                                     

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Peter Papoutsis
            For the Orthodox its whatever the Church says via the Holy Spirit that matters in the end. I suggest we leave the LXX discussion list and continue this
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              For the Orthodox its whatever the Church says via the Holy Spirit that matters in the end. I suggest we leave the LXX discussion list and continue this conversation privately as it has nothing to do with the LXX.


              Peter A. Papoutsis


              ________________________________
              From: Christopher <rhoadess@...>
              To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:29 PM
              Subject: Re: [lxx] Ancient Of Days

               
              Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly
                  Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?

                  Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day. Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we have something to think about.  

              Christopher

              ________________________________
              From: Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell <mailto:maqhth%40hotmail.com>
              To: LXX Yahoo Groups <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:55 AM
              Subject: RE: [lxx] Ancient Of Days


              Ancient of Days is a title, and perhaps we overburden it with mountains of words that seek exegetical exhaustion of possibilities of permutations...  The term 'Days' here can mean the 6 specific days of Creation itself, and be referring to the Ancient One Who is the Author of those Days, or it can refer to ALL days now understood as the 24 hour day...  Running it through a bigger wringer than these would probably not be an exegetical-grammatical success, but would be perhaps better approached in the sacred writings of the Fathers who have written about it...
              Arsenios
              Reader Arsenios
              Ellensburg, WA

               

               
                Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback

               

               
               
               

                 

                 

                .

               

                                       

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • rickl144@gmail.com
              Perhaps Ancient of Days is a title in Hebrew, equivalent to the Eternal One. If a title, it may be that ancient and days should not be looked at
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Perhaps "Ancient of Days" is a title in Hebrew, equivalent to "the Eternal One." If a title, it may be that "ancient" and "days" should not be looked at separately, but as a unit.

                Richard Lanser
                Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Christopher <rhoadess@...>
                Sender: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:29:07
                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com<lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                Reply-To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [lxx] Ancient Of Days

                Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly
                    Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?

                    Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day. Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we have something to think about.  


                Christopher



                ________________________________
                From: Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell <maqhth@...>
                To: LXX Yahoo Groups <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:55 AM
                Subject: RE: [lxx] Ancient Of Days




                Ancient of Days is a title, and perhaps we overburden it with mountains of words that seek exegetical exhaustion of possibilities of permutations...  The term 'Days' here can mean the 6 specific days of Creation itself, and be referring to the Ancient One Who is the Author of those Days, or it can refer to ALL days now understood as the 24 hour day...  Running it through a bigger wringer than these would probably not be an exegetical-grammatical success, but would be perhaps better approached in the sacred writings of the Fathers who have written about it...
                Arsenios
                Reader Arsenios
                Ellensburg, WA






                 

                 
                  Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback




                 

                 
                 
                 



                   




                   

                  .


                 









                                         

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell
                I was afraid you were going to ask for citations of some of the Fathers, and I do not have any, except Fr. Seraphim Rose s Genesis, Creation and Early Man ...
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 14, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  I was afraid you were going to ask for citations of some of the Fathers, and I do not have any, except Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Genesis, Creation and Early Man"... The Orthodox generally hold to at LEAST a bi-level understanding of Scriptural meaning, and it can get more than that according to whom you are reading... If you read, for instance, the Biblical account of the entry of the Theotokos into the Temple at age 3, and then read Fr. Gregory Palamas Homily 53, you are in for a shock - I was at least... There are yawing abysses of meaning there that I would NEVER have suspected in a normal, exegetical reading...
                  So that to try to nail down one meaning or another as THE meaning misses the density and complexity of the saving words of Holy Writ, and generally should be avoided... Scripture unfolds with each reading of it, ever more and more... This does NOT mean that the meaning of Scripture is thereby rendered idiosyncratic to the particulars of the person's life who is reading it - Not in the slightest - But instead it is a measure of the purity of heart that one has attained in repentance, for without purity, it will mean one thing, and that meaning will deepen and become more profound as one's soul is purified more and more, and as one encounters God...
                  So that, to get back on an LXX track, there is much that exegesis cannot reveal in the meaning of Holy Writ, and our efforts with the text should thereby be to establish what the text is there to afford, which is a structure of understanding that can handle the God-afforded perceptions of the Saints who in their purity of heart DO understand it... Dumbing down Holy Writ to simplistic sentences generally will cause the higher meanings to be lost... And yet they must be intelligible...
                  With that, I agree with Peter - This should be discussed off list, because it has little to do with LXX issues...
                  Time, btw, is a feature of creation which was itself being created during the 6 days of creation, so that the 24 hour day is not yet in effect 'during' the time of those 6 days... Yet they are days... Read Seraphim Rose...
                  Arsenios

                  Reader Arsenios [George] Blaisdell

                  Ellensburg, WA




                  Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly


                  Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?





                  Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day. Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we have something to think about.









































































                  .












































                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











                  ------------------------------------





                  Yahoo! Groups Links











                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]










                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Christopher
                  Dear Reader Blaisdell, and Peter Papoutsis     I am glad to go off list then. I believe you should have my e-mail. Godspeed Christopher
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 15, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Reader Blaisdell, and Peter Papoutsis
                        I am glad to go off list then. I believe you should have my e-mail.



                    Godspeed
                    Christopher


                    ________________________________
                    From: Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell <maqhth@...>
                    To: LXX Yahoo Groups <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:29 PM
                    Subject: RE: [lxx] Ancient Of Days


                    I was afraid you were going to ask for citations of some of the Fathers, and I do not have any, except Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Genesis, Creation and Early Man"...  The Orthodox generally hold to at LEAST a bi-level understanding of Scriptural meaning, and it can get more than that according to whom you are reading...  If you read, for instance, the Biblical account of the entry of the Theotokos into the Temple at age 3, and then read Fr. Gregory Palamas Homily 53, you are in for a shock - I was at least...  There are yawing abysses of meaning there that I would NEVER have suspected in a normal, exegetical reading...
                    So that to try to nail down one meaning or another as THE meaning misses the density and complexity of the saving words of Holy Writ, and generally should be avoided...  Scripture unfolds with each reading of it, ever more and more...  This does NOT mean that the meaning of Scripture is thereby rendered idiosyncratic to the particulars of the person's life who is reading it - Not in the slightest - But instead it is a measure of the purity of heart that one has attained in repentance, for without purity, it will mean one thing, and that meaning will deepen and become more profound as one's soul is purified more and more, and as one encounters God... 
                    So that, to get back on an LXX track, there is much that exegesis cannot reveal in the meaning of Holy Writ, and our efforts with the text should thereby be to establish what the text is there to afford, which is a structure of understanding that can handle the God-afforded perceptions of the Saints who in their purity of heart DO understand it...  Dumbing down Holy Writ to simplistic sentences generally will cause the higher meanings to be lost...  And yet they must be intelligible... 
                    With that, I agree with Peter - This should be discussed off list, because it has little to do with LXX issues...
                    Time, btw, is a feature of creation which was itself being created during the 6 days of creation, so that the 24 hour day is not yet in effect 'during' the time of those 6 days...  Yet they are days...  Read Seraphim Rose...
                    Arsenios

                    Reader Arsenios [George] Blaisdell

                    Ellensburg, WA




                    Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly


                        Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?





                        Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day. Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we have something to think about. 




















                     







                     





                     


                     


                     











                       














                       





                      .








                     





























                                               





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











                    ------------------------------------





                    Yahoo! Groups Links











                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]










                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                       
                       

                       
                       






                                             

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • James
                    If this discussion goes off list please add me to it as I am interested in seeing what folks have to say on this issue. Thanks; James .
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 15, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If this discussion goes off list please add me to it as I am interested
                      in seeing what folks have to say on this issue.

                      Thanks;
                      James
                      .
                      On 12/15/2012 12:32 PM, Christopher wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dear Reader Blaisdell, and Peter Papoutsis
                      > I am glad to go off list then. I believe you should have my e-mail.
                      >
                      > Godspeed
                      > Christopher
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: Reader Arsenios George Blaisdell <maqhth@...
                      > <mailto:maqhth%40hotmail.com>>
                      > To: LXX Yahoo Groups <lxx@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lxx%40yahoogroups.com>>
                      > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:29 PM
                      > Subject: RE: [lxx] Ancient Of Days
                      >
                      >
                      > I was afraid you were going to ask for citations of some of the
                      > Fathers, and I do not have any, except Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Genesis,
                      > Creation and Early Man"... The Orthodox generally hold to at LEAST a
                      > bi-level understanding of Scriptural meaning, and it can get more than
                      > that according to whom you are reading... If you read, for instance,
                      > the Biblical account of the entry of the Theotokos into the Temple at
                      > age 3, and then read Fr. Gregory Palamas Homily 53, you are in for a
                      > shock - I was at least... There are yawing abysses of meaning there
                      > that I would NEVER have suspected in a normal, exegetical reading...
                      > So that to try to nail down one meaning or another as THE meaning
                      > misses the density and complexity of the saving words of Holy Writ,
                      > and generally should be avoided... Scripture unfolds with each reading
                      > of it, ever more and more... This does NOT mean that the meaning of
                      > Scripture is thereby rendered idiosyncratic to the particulars of the
                      > person's life who is reading it - Not in the slightest - But instead
                      > it is a measure of the purity of heart that one has attained in
                      > repentance, for without purity, it will mean one thing, and that
                      > meaning will deepen and become more profound as one's soul is purified
                      > more and more, and as one encounters God...
                      > So that, to get back on an LXX track, there is much that exegesis
                      > cannot reveal in the meaning of Holy Writ, and our efforts with the
                      > text should thereby be to establish what the text is there to afford,
                      > which is a structure of understanding that can handle the God-afforded
                      > perceptions of the Saints who in their purity of heart DO understand
                      > it... Dumbing down Holy Writ to simplistic sentences generally will
                      > cause the higher meanings to be lost... And yet they must be
                      > intelligible...
                      > With that, I agree with Peter - This should be discussed off list,
                      > because it has little to do with LXX issues...
                      > Time, btw, is a feature of creation which was itself being created
                      > during the 6 days of creation, so that the 24 hour day is not yet in
                      > effect 'during' the time of those 6 days... Yet they are days... Read
                      > Seraphim Rose...
                      > Arsenios
                      >
                      > Reader Arsenios [George] Blaisdell
                      >
                      > Ellensburg, WA
                      >
                      > Dear Arsenios and Fr. Juvenaly
                      >
                      > Please feel free to site some of the Church Fathers on this title. I
                      > wanted to also point out a interesting way of looking at a possible
                      > translation of the Days in Genesis 1.5. It might be translated as "And
                      > he became morning and he became evening, Day one." in the Hebrew. It
                      > repeats this way on each of the Creation "Days" as if someone is the
                      > actual "Day" themselves. Does the lxx do the same?
                      >
                      > Arsenios, your alternative interpretation of the title makes a
                      > beautiful connection between the Creator and Genesis one account, but
                      > because he is the Author of both types of days, it leaves us guessing
                      > again, as you point out. I honestly think we should just leave the
                      > title as it is, and work from there using logic as a filter. Logically
                      > speaking, I think we can all agree that there are more than 24 hours
                      > within each of the six "Days" of creation which is what I am trying to
                      > prove. I wonder what the Church Fathers have to say, I wonder what the
                      > O.T. Father's said, (Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, Hillel)? The book of
                      > Jubilees seems to agree with multiple days within each creation day.
                      > Okay, well I am straying far from the groups purpose, but at least we
                      > have something to think about.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > .
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                    • Philip
                      Dear Listees, The preposition ek precedes three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei. Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 17, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Listees,
                        The preposition ek precedes
                        three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei.
                        Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs?
                        Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1]
                        eufranqhte,
                        ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou;
                        eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou,
                        oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei;
                        kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei;
                        kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn
                        ghn tou laou autou.
                         
                        Also, I would be
                        grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the
                        entire verse.
                         
                        Many thanks,
                         
                        Philip Engmann
                         


                        ________________________________

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Philip
                        Dear Listees,   please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don t seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?   Season s
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 28, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Listees,
                           
                          please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don't seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?
                           
                          Season's greetings.
                           
                          Philip Engmann


                          ________________________________
                          From: Philip <philipengmann@...>
                          To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:28 AM
                          Subject: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?

                           

                          Dear Listees,
                          The preposition ek precedes
                          three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei.
                          Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs?
                          Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1]
                          eufranqhte,
                          ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou;
                          eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou,
                          oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei;
                          kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei;
                          kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn
                          ghn tou laou autou.
                           
                          Also, I would be
                          grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the
                          entire verse.
                           
                          Many thanks,
                           
                          Philip Engmann
                           

                          ________________________________

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Philip
                          Dear Listees,   since there seems to be complete silence as answer to my issue, (although I have raised it twice) can I raise another one.   I propose,
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 2, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Listees,
                             
                            since there seems to be complete silence as answer to my issue, (although I have raised it twice) can I raise another one.
                             
                            I propose, albeit briefly here that LXX Deut 32:43 is poetically in sync with the preceding part of the poem (Deut 32:1-42), (as opposed to MT Deut 32:43, which is poetically out of sync  with the rest of the poem.
                             
                            Please does anyone have any comments on this issue?
                             
                            Many thanks,
                             
                            Philip Engmann


                            ________________________________
                            From: Philip <philipengmann@...>
                            To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 7:08 PM
                            Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?

                            Dear Listees,
                             
                            please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don't seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?
                             
                            Season's greetings.
                             
                            Philip Engmann


                            ________________________________
                            From: Philip <philipengmann@...>
                            To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" <lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:28 AM
                            Subject: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?

                             

                            Dear Listees, The preposition ek precedes three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei. Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs? Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1] eufranqhte, ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou; eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou, oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei; kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei; kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn ghn tou laou autou.   Also, I would be grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the entire verse.   Many thanks,   Philip Engmann   ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • andrew fincke
                            Dear Philip, The key to the verse is and will render vengeance to his adversaries i.e. the underlined part of Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 3, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Philip,
                              The key to the verse is "and will render vengeance to his adversaries" i.e. the underlined part of
                              "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."
                              LXX doubles several of the clauses, and one of these conflations omits the personal pronoun to get "... because the blood of his sons is avenged and he will avenge, and he will repay justice to enemies and to haters he will repay...." The double omission of the pronoun "his," which tacked onto a Hebrew plural noun is yod+vav (��), forces the reader to take a second look at the word and see in �� the letter kuf (�). That changes "to his adversaries" (�����) to "to righteousness" (����) and corrects a verse, the Hebrew of which impossibly pictures the Lord cleansing the earth of its inhabitants to assuage the offended sensibilities of the angels. King James/Hebrew: "and will render vengeance to his adversaries" becomes in the LXX doublet "and will repay justice with righteousness." LXX offers hope for the inhabitants of the earth - at any rate for thos doing righteousness, who will be treated justly. Note that the word "justice is absent from the Hebrew/King James. For an agglutination (is that the right word, Bob?) of "justice" and "righteousness" in the context of legal proceedings see Psalm 9:5. For Emanuel Tov's edition of the Qumran fragment (4QDeut-q) with a version of Deut. 32:43 similar to LXX see DJD (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) XIV, pp. 138-142.
                              Andrew Fincke



                              To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                              From: philipengmann@...
                              Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:51:43 -0800
                              Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis? LXX Dt 32:43 in synch





                              Dear Listees,

                              since there seems to be complete silence as answer to my issue, (although I have raised it twice) can I raise another one.

                              I propose, albeit briefly here that LXX Deut 32:43 is poetically in sync with the preceding part of the poem (Deut 32:1-42), (as opposed to MT Deut 32:43, which is poetically out of sync with the rest of the poem.

                              Please does anyone have any comments on this issue?

                              Many thanks,

                              Philip Engmann


                              ________________________________
                              From: Philip philipengmann@...>
                              To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 7:08 PM
                              Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?

                              Dear Listees,

                              please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don't seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?

                              Season's greetings.

                              Philip Engmann


                              ________________________________
                              From: Philip philipengmann@...>
                              To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:28 AM
                              Subject: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?



                              Dear Listees, The preposition ek precedes three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei. Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs? Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1] eufranqhte, ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou; eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou, oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei; kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei; kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn ghn tou laou autou. Also, I would be grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the entire verse. Many thanks, Philip Engmann ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • MJ
                              Andrew, what has any of this got to do with the question of whether or not the prefix ek adds emphasis to verb?
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 16, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Andrew, what has any of this got to do with the question of whether or not the prefix 'ek' adds emphasis to verb?

                                --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, andrew fincke wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Dear Philip,
                                > The key to the verse is "and will render vengeance to his adversaries" i.e. the underlined part of
                                > "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."
                                > LXX doubles several of the clauses, and one of these conflations omits the personal pronoun to get "... because the blood of his sons is avenged and he will avenge, and he will repay justice to enemies and to haters he will repay...." The double omission of the pronoun "his," which tacked onto a Hebrew plural noun is yod+vav (éå), forces the reader to take a second look at the word and see in éå the letter kuf (÷). That changes "to his adversaries" (ìöøéå) to "to righteousness" (ìöã÷) and corrects a verse, the Hebrew of which impossibly pictures the Lord cleansing the earth of its inhabitants to assuage the offended sensibilities of the angels. King James/Hebrew: "and will render vengeance to his adversaries" becomes in the LXX doublet "and will repay justice with righteousness." LXX offers hope for the inhabitants of the earth - at any rate for thos doing righteousness, who will be treated justly. Note that the word "justice is absent from the Hebrew/King James. For an agglutination (is that the right word, Bob?) of "justice" and "righteousness" in the context of legal proceedings see Psalm 9:5. For Emanuel Tov's edition of the Qumran fragment (4QDeut-q) with a version of Deut. 32:43 similar to LXX see DJD (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert) XIV, pp. 138-142.
                                > Andrew Fincke
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                                > From: philipengmann@...
                                > Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:51:43 -0800
                                > Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis? LXX Dt 32:43 in synch
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Dear Listees,
                                >
                                > since there seems to be complete silence as answer to my issue, (although I have raised it twice) can I raise another one.
                                >
                                > I propose, albeit briefly here that LXX Deut 32:43 is poetically in sync with the preceding part of the poem (Deut 32:1-42), (as opposed to MT Deut 32:43, which is poetically out of sync with the rest of the poem.
                                >
                                > Please does anyone have any comments on this issue?
                                >
                                > Many thanks,
                                >
                                > Philip Engmann
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: Philip philipengmann@...>
                                > To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 7:08 PM
                                > Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?
                                >
                                > Dear Listees,
                                >
                                > please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don't seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?
                                >
                                > Season's greetings.
                                >
                                > Philip Engmann
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: Philip philipengmann@...>
                                > To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com" lxx@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:28 AM
                                > Subject: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Dear Listees, The preposition ek precedes three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei. Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs? Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1] eufranqhte, ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou; eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou, oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei; kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei; kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn ghn tou laou autou. Also, I would be grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the entire verse. Many thanks, Philip Engmann ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • MJ
                                I can only speculate concerning the motives of other members of the group for not responding. My own motive is that I rather doubt that it does provide
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 16, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I can only speculate concerning the motives of other members of the group for not responding. My own motive is that I rather doubt that it does "provide emphasis", but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do the 'homework' to come up with evidence one way or the other.

                                  What I do know is that at diverse periods of the long history of the Greek language, often 'ek' has droppped the original force of the preposition, and became a way of expressing aspect rather than tense. I remember a note, for example, in The Cambride Greek and Latin Classics edition of Oedipus Rex that this use was common in Sophocles.

                                  Of course, Sophocles wrote in a very different kind of Greek than the LXX translators. But it seems even more likely to me to be the case in the LXX period, since Browning claims that the Hellenistic period was precisely when aspect became more important than before.

                                  Even in this passage, it makes perfect sense to me that 'ek' simply expresses a perfective aspect, no other kind of 'emphasis' at all. But if you feel otherwise, I would suggest you pick a few 'ek' prefixed verbs at random and compare their definitions with and without the prefix between the lemmas in Liddell and Scott vs. those in an LXX Greek lexicon, and/or look at evidence for such emphasis in Hatch and Redpath.

                                  --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Philip wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Dear Listees,
                                  >  
                                  > since there seems to be complete silence as answer to my issue, (although I have raised it twice) can I raise another one.
                                  >  
                                  > I propose, albeit briefly here that LXX Deut 32:43 is poetically in sync with the preceding part of the poem (Deut 32:1-42), (as opposed to MT Deut 32:43, which is poetically out of sync  with the rest of the poem.
                                  >  
                                  > Please does anyone have any comments on this issue?
                                  >  
                                  > Many thanks,
                                  >  
                                  > Philip Engmann
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ________________________________
                                  > From: Philip
                                  > To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com"
                                  > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 7:08 PM
                                  > Subject: Re: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?
                                  >
                                  > Dear Listees,
                                  >  
                                  > please could I be permitted to repeat my question since I don't seem to have had any responses at all to the first part?
                                  >  
                                  > Season's greetings.
                                  >  
                                  > Philip Engmann
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ________________________________
                                  > From: Philip
                                  > To: "lxx@yahoogroups.com"
                                  > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:28 AM
                                  > Subject: [lxx] The Preposition ek Provides Emphasis?
                                  >
                                  >  
                                  >
                                  > Dear Listees, The preposition ek precedes three verbs in LXX Dt 32:43. ekdikatai,ekdikhsei, andekkaqariei. Does this preposition ek provide emphasis to these verbs? Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX[1] eufranqhte, ouranoi, ama autw, kai proskunhsatwsan autw panteV aggeloi[2]qeou; eufranqhte eqnh meta tou laou autou, kai eniscusatwsan autw panteV uioi[3]qeou, oti to aima twn uiwn[4] autou ekdikatai; kai ekdikhsei; kai antapodwsei dikhn toiV ecqroiV, kai toiV misousin antapodwsei; kai ekkaqariei kurioV thn ghn tou laou autou.   Also, I would be grateful if someone could help me with the audio reading/pronunciation of the entire verse.   Many thanks,   Philip Engmann   ________________________________ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.