B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

As readers of my posts on the above topic on the old forum will know, I have advocated understanding שִׁקּוּצִים in Daniel 9:27c as idolatrous objects of worship and כְּנַף as a part of such objects situated on its edge and called its "wing" figuratively. Though the word כְּנַף is not used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in that particular sense, it does bear a figurative meaning in a number of passages in addition to its literal meaning of 'bird wing.'

I am investigating the meanings of the word "wing" used figuratively in the cognate languages of Hebrew and would like to know how the corresponding words were used figuratively in such languages, especially Aramaic, the language of part of the book of Daniel and the lingua franca of Daniel's world.

Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka

Leonard:

leonardj@live.com wrote:As readers of my posts on the above topic on the old forum will know, I have advocated understanding שִׁקּוּצִים in Daniel 9:27c as idolatrous objects of worship

This part of the verse there’s no disagreement.

leonardj@live.com wrote: and כְּנַף as a part of such objects situated on its edge and called its "wing" figuratively. Though the word כְּנַף is not used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in that particular sense, it does bear a figurative meaning in a number of passages in addition to its literal meaning of 'bird wing.'

Before looking at other languages, look at how this word is used in Biblical Hebrew.

It’s also used in the sense of cloaking. In fact, that’s the verbal use from the same root. It’s used for the side, or extensions, of a building, for parts of clothing in the sense of a part that can be cut off without it being readily noticed 1 Samuel 24:4»5, 11. Therefore, to insist that it mean “bird wing” doesn’t fit its uses in Tanakh.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl W. Randolph wrote:

Quote

Therefore, to insist that it mean “bird wing” doesn’t fit its uses in Tanakh.

Unquote

LJ: Please read my post again. For the life of me I can't understand how such a short and simple post as mine could have been so grossly misunderstood. Nowhere did I "insist" that כְּנַף in the Hebrew Bible means "bird wing." While that is its literal and most frequent meaning in the Hebrew Bible, there are other figurative meanings of this word, all of which I have examined and think are figurative extensions of the literal meaning.

All that I wish to find out is what FIGURATIVE meanings the corresponding words of כְּנַף in the cognate languages of Hebrew, especially Aramaic, bear. I would greatly appreciate the contributions of those with knowledge of these languages. I have studied biblical Aramaic (at a basic level) but it is limited to the biblical Aramaic vocabulary.

Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka.

Leonard:

leonardj@live.com wrote:Quote

Therefore, to insist that it mean “bird wing” doesn’t fit its uses in Tanakh.

Unquote

LJ: Please read my post again. For the life of me I can't understand how such a short and simple post as mine could have been so grossly misunderstood. Nowhere did I "insist" that כְּנַף in the Hebrew Bible means "bird wing." While that is its literal and most frequent meaning in the Hebrew Bible, there are other figurative meanings of this word, all of which I have examined and think are figurative extensions of the literal meaning.

It’s what you call “the literal meaning” that I question.

For example, the literal meaning of חטא is “miss the mark” in the sense of aiming for a target, but missing it. Yet in Tanakh, all but a couple of times it’s used with the figurative extension of “sin”.

So likewise, just because כנף is used to refer to a bird’s or cherub’s wing more often in Tanakh than other uses, does not mean that that is not itself a figurative extension of its literal meaning. In fact, there is indication that its use as “wing” is in fact a figurative extension, but there’s too little information to be certain.

Karl W. Randolph.

K. W. Randolph wrote:

So likewise, just because כנף is used to refer to a bird’s or cherub’s wing more often in Tanakh than other uses, does not mean that that is not itself a figurative extension of its literal meaning. In fact, there is indication that its use as “wing” is in fact a figurative extension, but there’s too little information to be certain.

LJ: You have not mentioned in this post what indication you think there is in Biblical Hebrew that the use of כנף in the sense of a bird's wing is itself a figurative extension. However, in your penultimate post you wrote

It’s also used in the sense of cloaking. In fact, that’s the verbal use from the same root. It’s used for the side, or extensions, of a building, for parts of clothing in the sense of a part that can be cut off without it being readily noticed 1 Samuel 24:4»5, 11. Therefore, to insist that it mean “bird wing” doesn’t fit its uses in Tanakh.

The verb כנף in the niphal stem is used in Isaiah 30:20: וְלֹא־יִכָּנֵף עֹוד מֹורֶיךָ ("and your teachers will be hidden no more" [NIV]). The BDB Hebrew and English Lexicon gives two basic definitions for this word: (1) wing and (2) extremity. Its verb form is described as a denominative verb from definition 2 of the noun above and glossed as "be cornered, thrust into a corner, or aside." The meanings given under basic definition 2 in EDB are, I think, all figurative extensions of the basic meaning of this word, viz. a bird's wing. These meanings include "corner" or "loose flowing end" of a skirt or garment (e.g., 1 Sam. 15:27); "end," "edge " or "corner" as in Job 37:3, "to the ends [lit. wings] of the earth"; Job 38:13, "to take the earth by the edges [lit. wings]"; Is. 11:12, "four quarters [wings] of the earth." (Is there an allusion to an insect with four wings in "four wings of the earth"?) בִּכְנָפַיִךְ in Jer. 2:34 (גַּם בִּכְנָפַיִךְ נִמְצְאוּ דַּם נַפְשֹׁות אֶבְיֹונִים ) is rendered in almost every translation I have checked as "skirt, clothers," etc. The 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) has an interesting translation : "Also in thy wings is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it in holes, but upon all these places." In a footnote, the comment on this verse is "The Prophets and the faithful are slain in every corner of your country."
(Contrary to what you have mentioned in your post. this word is not used of a building in the Hebrew Bible --unless it be in Daniel 9:27c, which is debatable--though τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ in Matthew 4:5 does have that meaning.)

A comparison with other languages may be instructive here. I looked up the entry for πτέρυξ in the Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon and observe that its basic meaning is a bird's wing and all other many meanings are figurative extensions of this basic meaning. Even the verb form πτερύσσομαι, meaning 'triumph, exult' (γενηΘα και χαιρω τε και πτερυττομαι, Diph. 61:6) is clearly a "denominative" from the noun. I also read the entire entry in New Oxford Dictionary for "wing" and find that again its basic meaning is a bird's (or insect's) wing and ALL other meanings, including verb forms, are derived figuratively from that. I call this basic meaning "literal meaning" and repeat that a "bird's wing" is the LITERAL MEANING meaning of כנף.

Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka

Leonard:

You are making two mistakes:

1) Just because a certain pattern shows up in other languages does not mean that the same pattern is found in Biblical Hebrew. Such are your references to Greek and English.

2) You are à priori claiming that a certain meaning is a term’s “literal meaning” when you have no evidence for that. What makes you so certain that the verb comes from the noun, and not the other way around, from the use of parental wings to cover their eggs and chicks?

BDB is a source I’ll look at, but I may very well disagree with it. After all, I wrote my own dictionary because I found dictionaries such as BDB not accurate in all matters.

Yes, you’re right, it’s not used for buildings—I added something in this discussion that’s not in my dictionary.

So let me again say, just because one use is more common in Tanakh, does not mean that that’s its primary meaning.

As for Daniel 9:27, it’s not an easy verse to read in its context, but apparently its subject is the coming ruler and/or his people. In the unpointed text (remember, the Masoretic points are sometimes wrong as far as meaning is concerned) the word in question can be translated as “as the presentation (of the detestable thing from the destroyer)” in other words, from the time the destroyer brandishes his detestable things until the end, … which means that you can’t even insist that the word means “wing” in this verse.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl W. Randolph wrote

You are making two mistakes:

1) Just because a certain pattern shows up in other languages does not mean that the same pattern is found in Biblical Hebrew. Such are your references to Greek and English.

2) You are à priori claiming that a certain meaning is a term’s “literal meaning” when you have no evidence for that. What makes you so certain that the verb comes from the noun, and not the other way around, from the use of parental wings to cover their eggs and chicks?

LJ: I think that in this particular case the same pattern is found in Hebrew as in Greek and English. My position that a bird's wing is the literal or basic meaning of כְּנַף is based on examination of the available lexical evidence (in the Hebrew Bible). Of course, what I call "literal meaning" is not to be confused with the meaning of the root or stem of the word, which, according to BDB, is "dub[ious]."

So let me again say, just because one use is more common in Tanakh, does not mean that that’s its primary meaning.

I do not say that the sense 'a bird's wing' is the primary meaning of כְּנַף because it is more common--which indeed accounts for well over 50% of its uses in the OT--but because all other meanings appear to be derived from that basic meaning.

As for Daniel 9:27, it’s not an easy verse to read in its context, but apparently its subject is the coming ruler and/or his people. In the unpointed text (remember, the Masoretic points are sometimes wrong as far as meaning is concerned) the word in question can be translated as “as the presentation (of the detestable thing from the destroyer)” in other words, from the time the destroyer brandishes his detestable things until the end, … which means that you can’t even insist that the word means “wing” in this verse.

As I have mentioned in my earlier posts (on the old forum), I translate וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם as "and upon the wing of abominations is/will be one causing desolation." I understand שִׁקּוּצִים to refer to some idolatrous objects and כְּנַף to be some part of this object situated on one end of it and forming its "wing." In this prophetic passage, "wing" is a reference to a Roman imago standard (on which a three-dimensional image of the reigning Roman emperor appeared), which was mounted on a pole and carried at the head of a legion by the imaginifer.
שִׁקּוּצִים are these standards with their poles. מְשֹׁמֵם, the one causing desolation and appearing on the כְּנַף, is the Roman emperor. Roman ensigns--not just imagos--being objects of worship and emperors being deified to boot, these objects would have been considered "abominations" by the Jews. The words וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם I take to be a prophetic description of the Roman imago standards of the four legions that attacked Jerusalem as they stood or lay on the altar of burnt offering in the temple--probably along with other Roman ensigns--ten days after the fall of Jerusalem on 8 Gorpaeus (probably 8 September) AD 70. The daily sacrifice ceased on 17 Panemus (5 August) AD 70. Though Josephus does not report any placement of imagos on the altar of burnt offering after the fall of the city, his narrative of events does allow that possibility (BJ 6:403-419; 7:1).

The setting up of an idol altar upon the altar of burnt offering in the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 B.C. fulfilled Daniel 8:13 and 11:31. Daniel 12:11 speaks of another setting up of an abomination of desolation at the "time of the end" (11:40). The Hebrew is שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם, that is, abomination, one causing desolation. That the two words are in apposition indicates that the abomination and the desolator are identical. שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם in Daniel 12:11 is based on the revelation in Daniel 9:27, where the מְשֹׁמֵם, whose image appears on the כְּנַף of the שִׁקּוּצִים, is to cause the desolation, or physical destruction, of the sanctuary and the city. (The abomination of desolation at the time of Antiochus caused only ceremonial desecration of the temple, there being no physical destruction of the temple or the city by Antiochus.)

The words וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם וְעַד־כָּלָה וְנֶחֱרָצָה תִּתַּךְ עַל־שֹׁמֵם in Daniel 9:27 I would translate as "and upon the wing of abominations is the one causing desolation even until the end that is decreed is poured out upon the desolator." The judgement is spiritual in nature, a full discussion of which would take us beyond what is relevant to B-Hebrew. I will only add that the fulfillment of the judgment--and indeed of the entire final half week of the symbolical seventy weeks of Daniel 9-- involves the type-antitype relationship between natural Israel and the spiritual Israel, viz. , the NT church.

Leonard Jayawardena

Dear Leonard:

It appears that you think you know more Biblical Hebrew than do I, so I don’t see any reason for me to continue in this discussion.

Both of us agree that this refers to the Roman legions and their standards. I see it as referring to the time they surrounded Jerusalem and set up their standards.

I don’t have an imagination, therefore I don’t spiritualize readings, rather just read the text according to its literal meaning.

That‘s all I have to say for now.

Karl W. Randolph.

Dear Karl

Some comments and questions on your understanding of Daniel 9:27 as stated in your posts.

In your penultimate post you wrote

As for Daniel 9:27, it’s not an easy verse to read in its context, but apparently its subject is the coming ruler and/or his people. In the unpointed text (remember, the Masoretic points are sometimes wrong as far as meaning is concerned) the word in question can be translated as “as the presentation (of the detestable thing from the destroyer)” in other words, from the time the destroyer brandishes his detestable things until the end, … which means that you can’t even insist that the word means “wing” in this verse.

In earlier posts on the old B-Hebrew forum you wrote:

A possible translation is, “and upon as the presentation (brandishing) the detestable things from the one who is destroying and until the completion that what is determined is poured out upon destruction.” Bad English. Difficult passage to understand.

and

Is כנף one word, or is it a prefixed כ on a participle of נוף which has the meaning of “to present, as in setting before, brandishing, waving”? What were the detestable things from the desolator if not the banners bearing the Roman gods brandished by the Roman legions?

This verse in a few words describes the highlights of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD.

LJ:

1. With regard to the subject of 9:27, נָגִיד in v. 27 is most naturally understood as being the same as מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד of v. 25, not two different individuals as some interpret. I apply both to the Christ. How do you read?

2. Your understanding of the two prepositions of וְעַל כְּנַף, "upon as," seems to be a rather cumbersome way saying "from the time that." Why not just use מִן as in 9:25, מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנֹות יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַד־מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an annointed one, a ruler." Also see 12:11 (וּמֵעֵת ). (By the way, could you cite a text from biblical hebrew that uses these two preposition together to express the idea "from the time that"?)

3. In your translation, what is the syntactical relationship between שִׁקּוּצִים and מְשֹׁמֵם ? You seem to undertand them practically as being in a contruct relationship, though both are in the absolute state. The text requires the supply of a verb between the two words (I supply "is/will be"). How do you justify the translation "detestable things from the desolator"?

4. The purpose of a conjectural amendation is to obtain a more intelligible reading of a text, but I don't see how your emendation achieves this purpose. It appears that your principal motive in rendering וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם the way you do is to be able to relate these words to Roman soldiers brandishing their idolatrous ensigns before Jerusalem when it was besieged in AD 66 under Cestius, and, in addition to other problems, it doesn't seem to bother you that 9:27c as translated/understood by you does not connect logically with the preceding and following clauses--at least you have not demonstrated it so far.

5. Have you taken into account Daniel 12:11: "And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days"? The form of the statement presupposes prior revelation of the two events. Since the cessation of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation predicted in 8:13 and 11:31 were fulfilled at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C., that prior revelation must (by a process of elimination) be that mentioned in 9:27. Note that just as in the parallel case at the time of Antiochus, in both 12:11 and 9:27 the setting up of the abomination of desolation is to follow the cessation of the daily sacrifice. You see the abomination fulfilled in the events of AD 66 but the daily sacrifice in the temple ceased in AD 70. You are putting the cart before the horse!

Furthermore, שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם in Daniel 12:11 is "abomination, one causing desolation." I see the two words as being in apposition and hence describing the same person or thing. Even if you render it as "desolating sacrilege," as some do, still it means that the sacrilege causes desolation (in a physical or ritual sense). In your understanding of Daniel 9:27c, מְשֹׁמֵם is the Roman army and שִׁקּוּצִים are their--from a Jewish point of view--abominable ensigns and so the abominations and the desolator are two different entities. This is inconsistent with Daniel 12:11 and also the antecedent at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, where it was the idolatrous altar that was placed on the altar of burnt offering that was the abomination, הַשִּׁקּוּץ , and also caused the desolation, or desecration, of the temple, and so was the מְשֹׁומֵם (see 11:31).

In previous posts I also cited Mark 13:14, where the singular masculine participle ἑστηκότα is used with τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (which is how the Septuagint rendered שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם in Daniel 12:11), indicating that the writer of the second gospel thought of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως as a person. Thus far you have not interacted with any of these arguments.

Leonard Jayawardena

leonardj@live.com wrote:Dear Karl

1. With regard to the subject of 9:27, נָגִיד in v. 27 is most naturally understood as being the same as מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד of v. 25, not two different individuals as some interpret. I apply both to the Christ. How do you read?

Different people, because if each unit of a seven stands for a year, which is the traditional understanding of the passage, then hundreds of years separate the two.

leonardj@live.com wrote:2. Your understanding of the two prepositions of וְעַל כְּנַף, "upon as," seems to be a rather cumbersome way saying "from the time that." Why not just use מִן as in 9:25, מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנֹות יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַד־מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד, "from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an annointed one, a ruler." Also see 12:11 (וּמֵעֵת ). (By the way, could you cite a text from biblical hebrew that uses these two preposition together to express the idea "from the time that"?)

I see this as emphasizing the initial presentation of the standards.

leonardj@live.com wrote:3. In your translation, what is the syntactical relationship between שִׁקּוּצִים and מְשֹׁמֵם ? You seem to undertand them practically as being in a contruct relationship, though both are in the absolute state. The text requires the supply of a verb between the two words (I supply "is/will be"). How do you justify the translation "detestable things from the desolator"?

The word משמם consists of the noun שמם with the prefix מ.

leonardj@live.com wrote:4. The purpose of a conjectural amendation is to obtain a more intelligible reading of a text, but I don't see how your emendation achieves this purpose. It appears that your principal motive in rendering וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם the way you do is to be able to relate these words to Roman soldiers brandishing their idolatrous ensigns before Jerusalem when it was besieged in AD 66 under Cestius, and, in addition to other problems, it doesn't seem to bother you that 9:27c as translated/understood by you does not connect logically with the preceding and following clauses--at least you have not demonstrated it so far.

There is no conjectural amendation in this verse. I have made it very clear that the Masoretic points are not original, are sometimes wrong even as far as meaning is concerned (there’s no question that they don’t reflect Biblical era pronunciation), therefore are not to be considered canon when considering the text. Therefore, I consider the unpointed text and the possibilities available to the reading of that text.

leonardj@live.com wrote:5. Have you taken into account Daniel 12:11: …

The vision recorded in Daniel 12 is a different prophecy, and should be taken as such.

leonardj@live.com wrote:In previous posts I also cited Mark 13:14, where the singular masculine participle ἑστηκότα is used with τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (which is how the Septuagint rendered שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם in Daniel 12:11), indicating that the writer of the second gospel thought of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως as a person. Thus far you have not interacted with any of these arguments.

Leonard Jayawardena

Let’s deal with the Biblical Hebrew text first.

Karl W. Randolph.