G.W. Wenham (WBC on Genesis): שׂוּחַ
―to meditate‖ is of uncertain meaning, and here we simply follow the consensus of the early versions. More modern suggestions do not seem obviously superior. ―Looked up and noticed.‖ To look up and see always indicates that what is about to be seen is of great significance (see Comment on 22:4). Here the phrase describes Isaac‘s first glimpse of his future wife; in v 64, it describes Rebekah‘s first sight of Isaac.Kenneth Matthews (NAC on Genesis): Verse 63 contributes to the book's picture of Isaac as a man of contemplation or prayer (25:21). “Meditate” is the traditional translation of the obscure term [lashuah] 748 (e.g., LXX, Vg.; also NIV, AV, NASB), believed derived from the well-attested root [siah] (“to meditate, talk, complain”). The targums (Onq., Neof., Ps-J.) and rabbinic tradition (e.g., Gen. Rab. 60:14) interpreted the term similarly, translating it “prayer.” An alternative meaning, “complain, lament,” has support from Isaac's consolation (“was comforted”749 ) over his mother's death (v. 67; cf. 23:1-2). In this case Isaac was distressed, lamenting the loss of his mother (although it had been three years). Others on the basis of Syriac and Arabic roots suggest “walking about, roving” (NRSV, NJB, NJPS, HCSB).750 The passage can support this latter understanding where Rebekah describes his demeanor as someone “walking” [haholek] in the field (v. 65). Yet that Isaac was meditating at the moment of Rebekah's appearance also fits well with the providence-prayer motif of the chapter; the servant's prayer is answered at the exact moment, confirming to all that the discovery is of the Lord (24:15,45,50). The same sense of timely oversight is in Abraham's sight of the caught ram (22:13) and Hagar's discovery of the well at the right moment (21:19), both using similar language as here.
Victor Hamilton (NICOT on Genesis): The hapax legomenon sûaḥ defies explanation (see NAB, which does not even try to translate it). If it is a form of the verb śȋaḥ, then its meaning is “pray,” “meditate” (Ps. 119:15, 23, 27). Most of the ancient versions so understood it: LXX adoleschḗsai; Vulg. ad meditandum; Targ. Onqelos: lṣl‘h (so also AV, RSV, NIV, NASB). Because of “walk” (hālaḵ) in v. 65 I suggest “roam” as a parallel here (cf. Pesh. “walk about,” from šûṭ). Westermann (Genesis, 2:390) and H. P. Müller (“Die hebräische Wurzel ” VT 19 [1969] 368) agree that this is the most likely interpretation (so also JB). Scholars have made at least three other suggestions as to the meaning of śûaḥ. One connects it with an Arabic root meaning “to fling one’s arms” (J. Blau, “Etymologisch Untersuchungen auf Grund des palastinischen Arabisch,” VT 5 [1955] 343-44); a second connects it with a root found in the Dead Sea Scroll Manual of Discipline (1QS 7.15), repoint the ś to ś, read as šûaḥ, and translate “Isaac went out in order to lie down outside” (P. Wernberg-Moller, “A note on lāṣûaḥ baśśāḏeh in Genesis 24:63,” VT7 [1957] 414-16); a third suggestion, which I find most attractive next to “roam,” is that the verb means “to dig a hole” and is a euphemism for relieving oneself. This is reflected in NEB’s translation “hoping to meet them,” to which it adds the footnote indicating that the verb may actually refer to relieving oneself. For this interpretation see G. R. Driver, “Problems of Interpretation in the Heptateuch,” in Mélanges bibliques, rédigés en/’honneur de André Robert, Travaux de l’Institut Catholique de Paris 4 (Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1957), pp. 66-76, esp. 66-68; J. Ellington, “What did Isaac go out to do? (Gen. 24:63-65),” BT 38 (1987) 446-47; and Coote and Ord, Bible’s First History, p. 135, “to urinate”; G. A. Rendsburg, “The Mock of Baal in 1 K. 18:27,” CBQ 50 (1988) 417 n. 15; idem, “Hebrew św/yḥ and Arabic šḫḫ, in FUCUS: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrmann, ed. Y. L. Arbeitman, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 58 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988), pp. 419-30. For a summary of these various interpretations, see Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew. SBLDS 74 (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984), p. 160; and HALAT. 4:1223.
Nahum Sarna (JPS):
15 comments:
Perhaps he was planting trees - https://www.thetorah.com/article/what-is-isaac-doing-in-the-field-when-he-encounters-rebecca
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7236-hapax-legomena
https://youtu.be/HKxWbIN4nbo
How likely is it that Isaac was planting trees in light of the context and based on the torah.com article? :-)
Not to mention the word's potential lexical meaning.
https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/431/jbq_431_zvironlasuach.pdf
https://brill.com/view/journals/vt/44/4/article-p513_7.xml
That is a very complicated question,based on what it means by field and bread at that time.
Also pinpointing a geographical location.
Brentons lxx renders this verse "And Isaac went forth into the plain toward evening to meditate; and having lifted up his eyes, he saw camels coming."
some suggest meditation others suggest what Brentons says
https://www.thetorah.com/article/what-is-isaac-doing-in-the-field-when-he-encounters-rebecca
this website omits "issac" completely: https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/genesis/24-63.html
Whereas this one includes it: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/gen/24/63/s_24001
common opinion seems to be meditate - as that's how the lxx understands it, in this case I am inclined to believe the LXX over our interpretation today. (though I don't think The lxx is ever outright wrong - changes things mainly for clarity)
https://thewellcommunity.org/blogs/the-well/the-tamarisk-tree
The Tamerisk trees and shrubs are nitrogen fixing and are the first phase of the long term development of a food forest. This would extend way beyond the life of Avram.
If you checked out the Brill link, you might have seen that twelve suggestions have been set forth to explain what Isaac was doing in Gen. 24:63. Some are more likely possibilities than others.
To your point about the LXX, we know that there are cases where the LXX trumps the MT. Even if I think it's not accurate in some places, I understand the rationale for translating verses the way LXX does. However, there are likely places where LXX is just flat out wrong. Let's start with Exodus 3:14.
I think it was Goodspeed, might have been someone else who commented on Exodus 3:14 - apparently in Hebrew you double up on certain elements for emphasis (see just one example: https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/gen-1924-jehovah-rained-down-fire-from.html )
It is highly likely the translator took 3:14 that way so instead of literally "I will be who I will be" (this may not be 100% accurate I am accounting for the imperfect state of the verb & 3:12 where it is translated as imperfect)
Pulpit raises a different opinion: "The Septuagint, Αγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, explains rather than translates, but is otherwise unobjectionable." (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/exodus/3.htm) - tho like alot of others seems to ignore the imperfect state of the verb
- most other commentaries do not take this comment into account, frankly I agree:
Charles R. Gianotti (Dallas Theological Seminary), raises a similar question to me (& others) :
“Significantly, most interpreters translate ['eh·yeh] in Exodus 3:12 as future (i.e., I will be ['eh·yeh] with you’). Yet, two verses later, why should not the same translation suffice?”
Gianotti adds
“The future in this case can indeed refer to future activity or effectiveness of YHWH. It should be observed that even Aquila (A.D. 130), noted for his ‘slavishly literal translation’ translated the tense as future.”
What really confuses me tho is Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:10 - uses a very similar statement to the claimed translation but with the correct tense
Furthermore, I would recommend Robert Alter's footnote for Exodus 3:14 in his Hebrew Bible.
This is taken from the book The Shadow of the
Almighty: Father, Son and Spirit in Biblical
Perspective (pp. 10-11) by Ben Witherington and Laura Ice:
"Notice that we do not have in v. 14 ANI ASHER ANI but
a paranomastic use of the verb HAYAH. This suggests on
the one hand that we ought not to translate the phrase
'I am that I am' as if it were an ontological
statement, a statement about God's being, but rather
we seem to be being told something about God's
activity or self-revelation in his activity. The focus
then is not on God's being a self-contained,
self-existent being . . . God then is not speaking
about what God is in the divine essence, but rather
what Yahweh is or will be in relationship to his
people--in his self-revelation."
Exodus ch.3:7,8ASV"And JEHOVAH said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people that are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 8and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. "
JEHOVAH is the oath/covenant keeping God.
Post a Comment