Posts by Alleymom

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

I have been having trouble pasting in images. Let me try again.

For those who are confused about the difference between the Hebrew preposition "beth" [ b ] and the preposition "lamed" [ l ], here is a verse in which both prepositions occur.

In Ezra 1:3, "to Jerusalem" has the preposition "lamed," which I have highlighted. "In Jerusalem" and "in Judah" have the preposition "beth", which is also highlighted. In Hebrew, the ordinary way to say "in" or "at" a static location is with the preposition "beth". However, if there is motion involved, as in "to Jerusalem," then the preposition "lamed" is used.

Edited to say: I must be doing something wrong. I uploaded the jpeg image to my JWD files. Then I copied it and pasted it into the composition box. I saw the image (really I did !), but when I clicked "submit post" it disappeared. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

Scholar to Alleymom:

Your personal translation of Jeremiah 29:10 is important becsause you read and understand Hebrew and you do not have to be a scholar to do this. The matter at hand should be rather simple because a little preposition is involve and you simply have to carry that little meaning into English. I have checked many commentaries on this passage and not one commentator has raised the matter of any exegetical difficulty. So , it should be a straight forward transaltion but you to be either incapable or unwilling to do this. I suspect with all the linguistics posted on this subject and Jenni's opinions that this is a very complex linguistic matter and that the NWT is fully correct.

Neil ---

Incapable or unwilling? I gave you my opinion the other night.

In my message #423 I said:

I read Hebrew and studied it at the university level (many years ago), but I am not a Hebrew scholar. Why would you value my opinion on this when you can consult the opinion of real experts in the field? However, since you did ask, my opinion is that the ordinary and expected way to say "in" Babylon would be to use the Hebrew preposition "beth" rather than the preposition "lamed". It is very, very common in Biblical Hebrew to see the expression "b + placename".

You want Jeremiah 29:10 to mean:

"Jerusalem will be destroyed in about ten years. And seventy years after Jerusalem has been destroyed, when seventy years of exile have been completed for the exiles-to-come, who are now still in Jerusalem but who will join you at Babylon after Jerusalem has been destroyed, then I will visit you (and the exiles who will join you) and fulfill My good word to you (and to the exiles of the future), to bring you (and the exiles of the future) back to this place."

But that's not what the Hebrew text says. It doesn't say anything at all about Jerusalem being destroyed.

You want it to say "at Babylon" so as to construe the verse as speaking about the time the exiles spend in captivity in Babylon. But you ignore the fact that the letter is being written to the thousands of people (including the king, the king's mother, the nobles, the craftsmen, etc.) who are already there, along with the sacred vessels which have been taken from the temple. For all of these thousands of people, who would surely seem to count as the most important of the exiles, the period of captivity is not going to be 70 years, but roughly 80 years. So by insisting on "at Babylon," you are distorting the plain meaning of the letter, which was a promise to the exiles who were already there.

I said: the ordinary and expected way to say "in" Babylon would be to use the Hebrew preposition "beth" rather than the preposition "lamed".

If you read Hebrew, you would find that this is a very, very common expression. The preposition b + placename means "in" or "at" a place. But the text does not have b + placename, it has verb [mel'oth - qal infinitve construct] + l + placename. Your own source, Jack Lundbom, says the 70 years refers to Babylon's tenure as a world power.

You said:

I have checked many commentaries on this passage and not one commentator has raised the matter of any exegetical difficulty.

Well, Neil, doesn't that tell you something? Commentators love to discuss the difficult passages, those which are notorious "cruxes". The fact that you have checked "many" commentaries and "not one commentator" has said there is "any exegtical difficulty" or disagreement means that your suspicion is incorrect:

"I suspect with all the linguistics posted on this subject and Jenni's opinions that this is a very complex linguistic matter ..."

It's not a complex linguistic matter at all. The only reason that people here have been posting details of Hebrew grammar is because you keep insisting that all of the modern translations and all of the scholars and commentators are wrong.

That you would continue to say this when you have now heard from the man who is the world's foremost authority on the use of the Hebrew preposition (and when you yourself admit that after consulting many commentaries you have not even come across a hint of exegetical difficulty in the verse), seems to indicate that your adherence to the NWT is fideistic and not based on scholarly grounds.

Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

Neil ---

As long as you are quoting from Lundbom, let's take a look at some other things he said:

On page 20 he gives his translation of Jeremiah 29:10:

For thus said Yahweh:
When Babylon has completed seventy years before me, I will attend to you and confirm upon you my good word to bring you back to this place.

On page 249, commenting on Jeremiah 25:11, he writes:

The 70 years here and in 29 10 refer not to the length of Judah's exile or to "Jerusalem's desolations" but to Babylon's tenure as a world power.

Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

In support of the NWT's rendering of 'melot' as 'the fulfilling' I draw your attention to the commentary on Jeremiah by Jack Lundbom wherein it states:"when according to the completion for Babylon; KB (Kohler & Baumgartner) translates lepi melot' as soon as the time has passed'. Jeremiajh 21-36, Vol.21B, Anchor Bible Series,2004, p.353. This indeed solves Leolaia's problem that something of a duration of seventy years came to a conclusion at Babylon.

Neil ---

And I draw YOUR attention to what Lundbom said just a little further up on the same page.

10 When Babylon has completed seventy years before me. I.e., when Babylon has served Yahweh as a world power for 70 years. The specified period, which is a round number and no more, refers neither to Judah's exile in Babylon not to Jerusalem's uninhabitation, both of which were considerably shorter.

Marjorie

763

Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?

by Little Bo Peep in

hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.

Alleymom

In the last few days much of this discussion has moved to:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/90425/1.ashx

The second thread was intended to be a pointer for this one, but there has been significant discussion there recently.

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

It seems that I have goofed in claiming that meloth in Leviticus 25:30 is not an infinitive but I am correct in saying that the NWT renders these infinitives differently. I base my exegesis on the NWT because I cannot read Hebrew but I do have several Hebrew reference works to hand. Ideally, I should learn Hebrew and read the Hebrew first and then read it into English. That would be ideal but most do not have the time to do this and that is why the NWT was produced so that as a literal translation it has made thos original languages accessible to Bible Students. I am sur that you would agree that is truly a noble aim.

Neil --

But as this incident has shown, one can't hope to do detailed textual or linguistic analysis by relying on an English translation. It's simply not possible to look at an English translation, no matter how literal it may be, and say with certainty that the Hebrew word must be such-and-such a form.

What perplexes me is that you say you own several Hebrew reference works, but you apparently did not consult any of them when you made the claim that mel'oth in Lev. 25:30 was not an infinitive. Even after you were challenged on your claim, you apparently did not consult a parsing guide, because you continued to insist that Lev. 25:30 was not an infinitve.

would you pleas give me your personal opinion as to whether in the case of Jeremiah 29:10 that NWT rendering of 'le' is impossible and that the NWT has violated some Hebrew rule of grammar?

I read Hebrew and studied it at the university level (many years ago), but I am not a Hebrew scholar. Why would you value my opinion on this when you can consult the opinion of real experts in the field? However, since you did ask, my opinion is that the ordinary and expected way to say "in" Babylon would be to use the Hebrew preposition "beth" rather than the preposition "lamed". It is very, very common in Biblical Hebrew to see the expression "b + placename".

To me the important point is that as a Christian I have faith that Jesus loves me and died for me. I do not think that my eternal salvation depends upon whether the Hebrew preposition lamed in Jeremiah 29:10 means "in + placename" or "for + placename".

I am not miffed about Leolaia's intervention but surely amused by it. The matter of Jenni is somewhat puzzling because despite my repeated requests no-one has presented in full the original letter to Jenni from it is claimed form Carl Jonsson but the original letter came from Germany. Until that letter is posted I believe that some suspicion about Jenni remains justifiable despite the fact that Jenni is a well recognized scholar. I am somewhat surprised that none has commented on Jenni's original journal article on Jeremiah 3:17 and I would have thought that in any discussion of le affixed to a place that this article is a must read.

I don't understand this. Why do you think that anyone here would have a copy of the original correspondence between Carl Jonsson and Dr. Jenni? And what difference does it make, since you wrote to him yourself and he told you the same thing?

As to the German journal article on Jeremiah 3:17 which Dr. Jenni referenced in his reply to you, I have put in an interlibrary loan request for it. But, as my husband asked me, do you think Dr. Jenni would have referenced the article if it did NOT support what he told you in his letter? He told you that Jeremiah 29:10 means "for Babylon" and he cited his earlier article as giving additional support.

And I still don't understand how you could say: "Until that letter is posted I believe that some suspicion about Jenni remains justifiable despite the fact that Jenni is a well recognized scholar." What exactly is it that you suspect Dr. Jenni of doing wrong? And if you don't trust his scholarship or his integrity why do you think it is important to look at his earlier article? Why would that article be any more trustworthy in your eyes than Dr. Jenni's recent book on lamed, which represents a lifetime of learning?

I agree with you absolutely that regardles of the meaning of the preposition which was elevated and continuosly objectified that the letter was sent to the early exiles, ten yeras prior to the Fall. However, this does not or prove that the seventy years began then or earlier because nothing is said about its beginning. The focus of this chapter is on the end of the period or its fulfillment not its beginning. This is easily proved by the fact that the beginning of the seventy years is subject to so much dispute including Jonsson.

Since the letter was sent to the exiles who were already in Babylon, it must apply to them, not to the exiles-of-the-future who were still in Jerusalem. The Hebrew word mel'oth is used, from the root ML' meaning "to fill up" and the promise is clearly made to the exiles who were already there:

"For thus says the Lord, 'When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit YOU and fulfill My good word to YOU, to bring YOU back to this place.' "

The verse says YOU three times. And it says "seventy years" even though, by your reckoning, it would be at least eighty years that the exiles were "in Babylon".

Sincerely,
Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

In addition to Leviticus 8:33; 12:4, 25:30, and Jeremiah 29:10 (displayed above), there are other examples of the word mel'oth as well: 2 Kings 4:6, Ezekiel 5:2, Daniel 10:3.

In all of these examples, mel'oth is a Qal infinitive construct.

(Edited to say --- I tried to upload a jpeg image of the first four verses, and it displayed ok in my reply box but apparently disappeared when I clicked "send". )

Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

I wonder if he's going to say that it is not infinitive because in English it's not translated in the NWT as an infinitive:

Leolaia ---

I suspect you are correct. You posted the above while I was composing the message in which I asked Scholar:

Since you do not read Hebrew, may I ask where you got the idea that mel'oth in Lev. 25:30 is not an infinitive? If you are inferring that on your own by comparing various English translations, you are making a mistake.

Marjorie

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

Scholar wrote to Narkissos:

Meloth at Leviticus 25: is not an infinitive, so in Jeremiah 29:10 we have the infinitive form, 'the fulfilling ' which does not appear exactly in Leviticus. What you and Leolaia have failed to recognize that it is only the NWT that recognizes the verbal form as an infinitive and translates accordingly which demonstrates the accuracy of this brilliant translation.

Neil ---

The form mel'oth in Leviticus 25:30 is exactly the same as in Jeremiah 29:10.

I read Hebrew and this year I am reading the weekly Torah and haftorah readings according to the Jewish liturgical cycle. I was reading Leviticus 25 in Hebrew just last night (I am a week ahead in my reading) and I can tell you that Narkissos and Leolaia are correct --- the forms in the two verses are identical.

Since you do not read Hebrew, may I ask where you got the idea that mel'oth in Lev. 25:30 is not an infinitive? If you are inferring that on your own by comparing various English translations, you are making a mistake.

Incidentally, I did mean to weigh in earlier. I can understand that you were a little miffed to find that Leolaia had posted your letter to Dr. Jenni without asking/informing you, but you ought to realize that Dr. Jenni is the one who copied it to her. I take it that you are not accusing her of making any alterations in your letter, are you?

I, for one, appreciated seeing copies of all three letters (the ones from you and Leolaia and the response from Dr. Jenni). I wish you had posted your letter along with Dr. Jenni's response as soon as you heard back from him. The reason I wrote to you was because I was wondering whether or not you had ever heard from him.

Now, if you are unhappy because you think Dr. Jenni did not address all of the specific points you raised (although it certainly seems to me that he answered to the point), why not write to him again? I have to tell you, I am disappointed in your reaction. The reason I looked up Dr. Jenni's email address and sent it to you was because I hoped that it would be helpful to you to hear from the world's foremost authority on the Hebrew preposition lamed.

Instead, you seem to be suggesting that Dr. Jenni has so much bias against the WTS that he is intentionally twisting the truth about the use of lamed in Jer. 29:10! I can hardly believe that you would suggest such a thing about a man of Dr. Jenni's stature. Do you really think that a scholar of his repute would compromise his academic integrity because of a supposed bias against Jehovah's Witnesses? Frankly, that just boggles my mind.

Plus, just to put all of this in context again, in the other thread I brought up the matter of the letter which Jeremiah wrote from Jerusalem to the exiles who were already in Babylon. This included the king, the king's mother, the nobles, many of the artisans and craftsmen, etc. Vessels from the holy temple had also been looted and taken to Babylon.

The people were distraught, especially because the false prophets were telling them that the captivity would be short, and that the yoke of Babylon would be broken within two years.

Jeremiah wrote to the people to tell them --- the exiles who were already in captivity --- that they should settle down and marry and plant vineyards because the Lord would remember them and come for them. You want to change this so that the letter of comfort and consolation is meant not for the people to whom it was actually sent (by messengers from Jerusalem to Babylon), but for the exiles-of-the-future who would not even arrive in Babylon for another ten years. This doesn't make sense, Neil.

You really don't need to know Hebrew or all of this detailed information about the preposition lamed to see that regardless of whether it says "for Babylon" or "at Babylon," either way the letter is a promise to the exiles who were already there in Babylon, some ten years before the destruction of Jerusalem. According to Jeremiah 29, the seventy years had already started, even though Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed.

Sincerely,
Marjorie Alley

76

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

by Alleymom in

in the gentile times reconsidered, carl olof jonsson has a section on jeremiah 29:10 and the question of whether the hebrew text should be translated "seventy years for babylon" or "seventy years at babylon.".

(see pp.

211- 215 in the third and fourth editions of gtr and pp.

Alleymom

Just a quick note that will serve as a "btt" ----

My husband read through all of Dr. Jenni's book on the Hebrew preposition "beth" a few years ago. Jim was *extremely impressed that Dr. Jenni, who is widely renowned as a Hebrew linguist and who is undoubtedly the greatest living authority on Hebrew prepositions, would take the time to answer questions on this.

I realize that most of you don't know who this man is, but Jim was amazed. I get the impression that Jim thinks this is on the order of someone like Einstein responding to a simple physics question from a non-specialist.

Marjorie