Actually, there are cases where the MT and the DSS vary by more than just spellings. That sometimes complete words or more are different. Sometimes those differences support the LXX. On the whole, the DSS support the MT more than the LXX.SteveMiller wrote:Ste and Karl,
About the Hebrew text being corrupt: When we compare the MT to the DSS, I understand that there is a word for word correspondence, the only difference being letters within words, which can make for a different word. So the errors that you see in the MT are letter errors. If the LXX were the correct text here, then the MT text would be more in error than just in letters. We don't see that big of an error that I know of when MT is compared to DSS. LXX does have gross errors. So I give more credence to the MT here.
That is a gross error in the LXX.SteveMiller wrote:The LXX takes ה֥וּא as the subject of "eat and drink".
Because this is the word order patterns of both poetry and prose.SteveMiller wrote: That is fine. But the 2 of you are taking hoo and making it the subject of "say", skipping over "eat and drink". How can you do that?
In Biblical Hebrew sentences in prose, the word order is predicated on the importance of what is said. Often the most important thing is the action, hence the verb comes first. In conversation, the subject is often emphasized, so it comes first.
In poetry, word order can be predicated on poetic license, how it fits the pattern of the poetry.
This particular verse is poetry.
The ה֥וּא is there not as an emphatic. I haven’t made a study of its use, but often I find it used merely to indicate the subject of the verb. The verbal conjugation makes it redundant, but Hebrew sentences often contain it anyways. This is most common in conversation. In reference to the above concerning word order, this use is to say that the subject, not the action, is most important in the sentence.SteveMiller wrote: Why should the hoo even be there? In your translations it shouldn't be there. The "he" subject is included in the verb "say". There is no reason to make the "he" emphatic, nor to separate it from its verb by 2 other verbs.
I don’t see that. Look at the above.SteveMiller wrote: The only reason for hoo is to say, "so he is", ending the first part of the verse.
A city gate is designed to keep unwanted people out of the city. Evil people don’t want to make friends with good people. So an evil person has, as it were, a gate in his life to keep good people out. So even if an evil person may say ”eat and drink”, his heart is not with you.SteveMiller wrote:Karl,
Poetry says a lot in a few words. It says something deep by means of a picture. What would gate be saying? That he is closed to you? I don't see gate as meaning closed. But you right that gate refers to more than just the opening. And I don't see the idea of being closed as a deep idea that would justify such a hard to understand picture.
Also the idea is not that he is closed to you, but that he is being disingenuous to you, and from the previous verse, has an evil eye. Don't believe him. A gate is not disingenuous nor does it have an evil eye.
These figs are moldy, “hairy”. They may be rotten as well, but the specific reference is to mold.SteveMiller wrote:How about:
For as rotten in his soul, so he is. Eat and drink he says to you, but his heart is not with you.
rotten comes from Jer 29:17 and has to do with not being edible.
Where do you get “vomit”?SteveMiller wrote:If you eat it, you'll vomit.
Jer 5:30; 23:14; 18:13; Hos 6:10 may be related.
Karl W. Randolph.
