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

LXX phrase, ‘åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé’ f ound in Habakkuk 2:3 does not actually make sense.

Expand Messages
  • philipengmann
    LXX phrase, `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé found in Habakkuk 2:3 does not actually make sense. I believe that the LXX phrase, `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      LXX phrase, `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé' found in Habakkuk 2:3 does not actually
      make sense.

      I believe that the LXX phrase, `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé' found in Habakkuk 2:3
      does not actually make sense and is really a bad translation from the
      Hebrew to the Greek. This is because `åñ÷ïìåíïò' is a present
      participle, and according to the definition of a present participle,

      "The function of the present participle may be understood as
      follows: "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the
      leading verb. The present participle therefore is used if the action
      denoted by the participle is represented as taking place at the same
      time as the action denoted by the leading verb, no matter whether the
      action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future."

      `çîåé' is a future verb meaning `he/she/it will come'.

      Therefore, since `åñ÷ïìåíïò' is a present participle, the action
      denoted by the participle is represented as taking place in the
      future i.e. at the same time as the action denoted by the leading
      verb, and so both `åñ÷ïìåíïò' and `çîåé' take place in the future.

      Both `åñ÷ïìåíïò' and `çîåé' have the same contextual meaning, `to
      come'.

      Since both `åñ÷ïìåíïò' and `çîåé' have the same contextual
      meaning, `to come'; and both are in the future tense, the literal
      translation of `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé' found in Habakkuk 2:3 is `while he
      will be coming, he will come', which is meaningless. My explanation
      for this `meaningless' translation is that the LXX translators tried
      to mimic the infinitive absolute form of the MT, which was a
      brilliant attempt but a bad translation.

      1. I would like other opinions of my analysis please.

      2. I would also like to see how others translate the Habakkuk 2:3
      LXX phrase, `åñ÷ïìåíïò çîåé'

      3. And also I would like to know whether various LXX versions have
      varying readings for this particular phrase.



      Thanks very much.

      Philip Engmann.


      PS. The full discussion can be accessed at

      1. www.engmann.20m.com
      2. The hotmail communities section
    • c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net
      ... This bad translation HMT qal inf abs - qal imperf as LXX pres part - indic fut is common. You will find some examples among the following: Gen. 15:13
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        on 6/1/03 12:25 AM philipengmann wrote:

        > Since both ERCOMENOS and hHXEI have the same contextual
        > meaning, `to come'; and both are in the future tense, the literal
        > translation of ERCOMENOS hHXEI found in Habakkuk 2:3 is `while he
        > will be coming, he will come', which is meaningless. My explanation
        > for this `meaningless' translation is that the LXX translators tried
        > to mimic the infinitive absolute form of the MT, which was a
        > brilliant attempt but a bad translation.
        >
        > 1. I would like other opinions of my analysis please.

        This "bad translation"

        HMT qal inf abs -> qal imperf as LXX pres part -> indic fut

        is common. You will find some examples among the following:

        Gen. 15:13 Gen. 18:10 Gen. 18:18 Gen. 37:8 Deut. 6:17 Deut. 13:10 Deut. 15:8
        Deut. 15:10 Deut. 15:11 Deut. 17:15 Deut. 23:22 Judg. 4:9 Judg. 8:25 1Sam.
        9:6 1Sam. 24:21 1Sam. 25:28 1Sam. 26:25 1Sam. 28:1 2Sam. 5:19 2Sam. 9:7
        2Sam. 24:24 1Kings 2:37 1Kings 2:42 1Kings 11:11 1Kings 13:32 Is. 48:8 Jer.
        3:1 Jer. 32:30 Jer. 38:20 Jer. 43:29 Jer. 44:9 Jer. 51:17 Jer. 51:25 Jer.
        30:6 Jer. 27:4 Ezek. 28:9 Ezek. 44:20 Hos. 1:2 Hos. 1:6 Amos 5:5 Mic. 2:12
        Hab. 2:3 Zech. 11:17 Ruth 2:16

        BTW, please transliterate your Greek and Hebrew.

        greetings, Clay


        --
        Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
        Three Tree Point
        P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
      • philipengmann
        Thanks Clay. Your information is very helpful for me. Much appreciated. How can I get access to a seach engine such as the one you used? The issue I think is
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Clay. Your information is very helpful for me. Much
          appreciated. How can I get access to a seach engine such as the one
          you used?

          The issue I think is that this particular LXX construction is really
          not Greek and as such is found only in the LXX and GNT (Greek New
          Testament), but does not ever occur in Classical Greek nor in this
          sense in "native" Greek outside of a "biblically influenced" setting;
          and since it is really not a typical greek construction, (in spite of
          its frequent occurence in the LXX) but an MT Hebrew construction,
          strictly speaking it does not make sense, as I've demonstrated,
          although one can make some sense out of the general spirit of the
          construction.

          According to F. C. Conybeare & St. George Stock, A Grammar of
          Septuagint Greek,

          §81. The Intensive Participle.

          "On the other hand there is a cause in operation in the LXX tending
          to an unnecessary use of participles. For in place of a cognate
          dative we often find the participle used along with a finite form of
          the same verb, to convey the intensive force that is accomplished in
          Hebrew by the addition of the infinitive to the finite verb, e.g.--

          Gen. 22:17 EI MHN EULOGWN EULOGHSW SE, KAI PLHQUNWN PLHQUNW TO
          SPERMA SU. Jdg. 11:25 MH MACOMENOS EMACASATO META ISRAHL H
          POLEMWN EPOLEMHSEN AUTON?

          We might fill pages with instances of this idiom, but a statement of
          its frequency must suffice. This emphatic use of the participle is a
          more unmitigated Hebraism than the other forms of the etymological
          figure. The cognate accusative is quite Greek and the cognate dative
          is to be found in pure Greek, but we should search in vain among
          classical authors for the intensive use of the participle. There is a
          clear instance indeed in Lucian (Dialogi Marini IV 3 IDWN FEUGWN
          EKFEUGEI there is a difference of meaning between the participle and
          the finite verb--he himself escapes by flight."

          According to Albert Pietersma,

          "As has been noted, in Hebrew a so-called infinitive absolute can be
          used to intensify other verbal forms. Most books within the
          Septuagint anthology represent that intensifying infinitive in Greek.
          The two regular ways of doing so are (a) by a cognative dative noun
          (cf. Gen 2:17 QANATW APOQANEISQE ) and (b) by a cognate participle,
          as we have essentially in Hab 2:3.
          Though the intensification of the Hebrew could have been transferred
          to Greek in keeping with standard Greek usage, the two modes
          typically resorted to result in translationese Greek, i.e. such usage
          occurs only in translation literature of the formal correspondence
          variety, but not in the living language."

          I would further appreciate help in answering the following
          verificational question (either on or off list). Are there any
          examples of this particular LXX construction, (present participle+
          finite verb) in

          1. Classical Greek Literature
          2. The "Living Greek Language"?

          Clearly this subject is quite fine and delicate and also cuts accros
          LXX, Greek, MT Hebrew, and Biblical Translation lists.




          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, <c.s.bartholomew@w...> wrote:
          > on 6/1/03 12:25 AM philipengmann wrote:
          >
          > > Since both ERCOMENOS and hHXEI have the same contextual
          > > meaning, `to come'; and both are in the future tense, the literal
          > > translation of ERCOMENOS hHXEI found in Habakkuk 2:3 is `while he
          > > will be coming, he will come', which is meaningless. My
          explanation
          > > for this `meaningless' translation is that the LXX translators
          tried
          > > to mimic the infinitive absolute form of the MT, which was a
          > > brilliant attempt but a bad translation.
          > >
          > > 1. I would like other opinions of my analysis please.
          >
          > This "bad translation"
          >
          > HMT qal inf abs -> qal imperf as LXX pres part -> indic fut
          >
          > is common. You will find some examples among the following:
          >
          > Gen. 15:13 Gen. 18:10 Gen. 18:18 Gen. 37:8 Deut. 6:17 Deut. 13:10
          Deut. 15:8
          > Deut. 15:10 Deut. 15:11 Deut. 17:15 Deut. 23:22 Judg. 4:9 Judg.
          8:25 1Sam.
          > 9:6 1Sam. 24:21 1Sam. 25:28 1Sam. 26:25 1Sam. 28:1 2Sam. 5:19 2Sam.
          9:7
          > 2Sam. 24:24 1Kings 2:37 1Kings 2:42 1Kings 11:11 1Kings 13:32 Is.
          48:8 Jer.
          > 3:1 Jer. 32:30 Jer. 38:20 Jer. 43:29 Jer. 44:9 Jer. 51:17 Jer.
          51:25 Jer.
          > 30:6 Jer. 27:4 Ezek. 28:9 Ezek. 44:20 Hos. 1:2 Hos. 1:6 Amos 5:5
          Mic. 2:12
          > Hab. 2:3 Zech. 11:17 Ruth 2:16
          >
          > BTW, please transliterate your Greek and Hebrew.
          >
          > greetings, Clay
          >
          >
          > --
          > Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
          > Three Tree Point
          > P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
        • c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net
          ... Philip, What you have done here is make up a personal definition of what makes sense and then turned around and applied it to LXX. Your definition may be
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            on 6/7/03 7:16 AM philipengmann wrote:

            > The issue I think is that this particular LXX construction is really
            > not Greek and as such is found only in the LXX and GNT (Greek New
            > Testament), but does not ever occur in Classical Greek nor in this
            > sense in "native" Greek outside of a "biblically influenced" setting;
            > and since it is really not a typical greek construction, (in spite of
            > its frequent occurence in the LXX) but an MT Hebrew construction,
            > strictly speaking it does not make sense ...


            Philip,

            What you have done here is make up a personal definition of what "makes
            sense" and then turned around and applied it to LXX. Your definition may be
            useful for your own purposes but don't expect others to accept it.

            The LXX has its own grammar. This is non-controversial.

            The LXX rendering of the hebrew Infinitive construct follows a pattern which
            is recognizable and for that reason alone it "makes sense." There is a
            structural regularity here which is impossible to over look.

            The LXX is not classical greek nor is it the street language of the
            Hellenistic period. This is non-controversial.

            Translation of a work of literature is never street language even though
            there are attempts made in that direction. Formal Equivalence (FE)
            translations typically distort the target language in an attempt to render
            the source language. For contemporary examples see R. Lattimore's Iliad &
            Odyssey or more recently E.Fox "The Five Books of Moses."

            E.Fox's translation does in English what the LXX did in Hellenistic Greek.
            Does "The Five Books of Moses" make sense? My 84 year old mother has read it
            five times and she thinks it makes sense. She has no background in Hebrew.

            Attempts to render an ancient work in street language can end up being quite
            commical. Look at Ezra Pound's Elektra* which attempts to use something
            like "ebonics" as a target language.

            The LXX rendering of the hebrew Infinitive construct follows rules and for
            that reason it makes sense.

            greetings, Clay.

            --
            Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
            Three Tree Point
            P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062


            *Sophocles. Elektra : a play / [translated] by Ezra Pound and Rudd
            Fleming ; edited and annotated by Richard Reid.
          • c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net
            ... should read: Infinitive absolute -- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              on 6/7/03 10:59 AM c.s.bartholomew@... wrote:

              > Infinitive construct

              should read: Infinitive absolute

              --
              Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
              Three Tree Point
              P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
            • Philip Engmann
              Thanks Clay, My approach is investigative, so I have no personal convictions that I expect others to accept. How would you translate the phrase, ERCOMENOS
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 16, 2003
              • 0 Attachment

                Thanks Clay,

                My approach is investigative, so I have no personal convictions that I expect others to accept.

                 

                How would you translate the phrase, ‘ERCOMENOS hHXEI ’ in Habakkuk 2:3?

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: c.s.bartholomew@... [mailto:c.s.bartholomew@...]
                Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:00 PM
                To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: LXX phrase,ERCOMENOS hHXEI ’found in Habakkuk 2:3 does not actually make sense.

                 

                on 6/7/03 7:16 AM  philipengmann wrote:

                > The issue I think is that this particular LXX construction is really
                > not Greek and as such is found only in the LXX and GNT (Greek New
                > Testament), but does not ever occur in Classical Greek nor in this
                > sense in "native" Greek outside of a "biblically influenced" setting;
                > and since it is really not a typical greek construction, (in spite of
                > its frequent occurence in the LXX) but an MT Hebrew construction,
                > strictly speaking it does not make sense ...


                Philip,

                What you have done here is make up a personal definition of what "makes
                sense" and then turned around and applied it to LXX. Your definition may be
                useful for your own purposes but don't expect others to accept it.

                The LXX has its own grammar. This is non-controversial.

                The LXX rendering of the hebrew Infinitive construct follows a pattern which
                is recognizable and for that reason alone it "makes sense." There is a
                structural regularity here which is impossible to over look.

                The LXX is not classical greek nor is it the street language of the
                Hellenistic period. This is non-controversial.

                Translation of a work of literature is never street language even though
                there are attempts made in that direction. Formal Equivalence (FE)
                translations typically distort the target language in an attempt to render
                the source language. For contemporary examples see R. Lattimore's Iliad &
                Odyssey or more recently E.Fox "The Five Books of Moses."

                E.Fox's translation does in English what the LXX did in Hellenistic Greek.
                Does "The Five Books of Moses" make sense? My 84 year old mother has read it
                five times and she thinks it makes sense. She has no background in Hebrew.

                Attempts to render an ancient work in street language can end up being quite
                commical.  Look at Ezra Pound's Elektra* which attempts to use something
                like "ebonics" as a target language.

                The LXX rendering of the hebrew Infinitive construct follows rules and for
                that reason it makes sense.

                greetings, Clay.

                -- 
                Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
                Three Tree Point
                P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062


                *Sophocles.  Elektra : a play / [translated] by Ezra Pound and Rudd
                                   Fleming ; edited and annotated by Richard Reid.




                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.