Badgers or sea cows/seals

An eloquent statement, with which I can agree wholeheartedly.

 

Yes, it would. I only pointed out that there are published reasons for having reservation about Lamsa's version as being an accurrate representation of the Peshitta.

 

Sorry! I didn't intend to sound upset.

 

Tactic? Accusation? Dishonest? Are you getting a little bit paranoid? All I did was ask you a question that you did not even answer. For argument's sake, let us say that I am assuming that "badger" is correct. Are you assuming that the KJB "badger" is wrong as well as the other Bibles that have it? Now, what is so difficult about that? Or are you painted in the corner of non-answers? -- Herb Evans

Well, if all you can do is go into an ad hominem rant over KJO's instead of sticking with the issue at hand, I don't know what to tell you. Specifically, what are the falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentations of the truth, or do you always castigate folks with generalities? Are KJO's the issue here or are "badgers?" Seems like the above question has really set you off. Can't you answer it with a "yes" or a "no" rather than with a scourging of me or KJO's? I thought the lack of civility was supposed to be only among KJO's? -- Hreb Evans

 

The online Aramaic English Standard Version has the following from Exodus:

An online The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Dr. George Lamsa has:

It seems that Lamsa does not have "badgers" as you implied. As can be seen, the Lamsa generally reads very similarly to the KJV (sometimes word for word) but at this particular verse chose not to follow the translation of "badgers". Both these Peshitta versions are witnesses against the KJV rendering.

The KJV has:

 

Not much to sink my teeth in here except for the last comment, which is appropriate. -- Herb Evans

 

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home. Did you check Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4;6,8,10, 12? Of course, you didn't. Those are the verses to which I referred. :sleep: -- Herb Evans

 

Actually, I did. The Lamsa does use "badgers" at those references.

 

He just gave his reading of the verse.


Here is the text with comments from Ezekiel 16:10 from The Judica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=63255

(You have to select the "show Rashi commentary" line near the top of the page or you only get the Bible text).


10. And I clothed you with embroidered garments, and I shod you with [the skin of the] badger, and I girded you with fine linen, and I covered you with silk.
And I clothed you with embroidered garments "And I clothed you with embroidered garments of the spoils of your enemies."
and I shod you with badger [Jonathan renders:] And I put shoes of glory on your feet.
and I girded you Heb. וָאֶחְבְּשֵּׁךּ. [Jonathan renders:] and I hallowed priests of you to be serving before Me with turbans of fine linen.
and I covered you with silk Heb. מֶשִּׁי, soie in French. And the High Priest with colored raiment, and [according to] Midrash Aggadah (Mid. Song 4:2), these are the seven clouds of glory, as it is written (Exod. 13:22): "He did not move (יָמִישּׁ) the pillar of cloud by day."

By the way, comments (and translation) at Exodus 25:5 and Numbers 4:25 suggest that Rashi took his information from various sources. Most probably they were earlier commentaries on each book. In other places this translation goes with "tachash skins."

A.F.

 

Sorry about that Herb. That kind of thing comes from reading too many scholarly works.

A.F.

 

I have been checking in to see if this discussion would get back to the values of translating the Hebrew, rather than being a KJVO debate. As long as it is the latter I am really not interested as I have a high appreciation for the KJV, but my first allegiance is to the Hebrew. However, the use of Rabbi Rashi here cannot go unchallenged.

You are confusing the text "below and above the line" (that is modern quotation with ancient commentary). The translation "badger" in Ezekiel 16:10 in the notes is the modern one by Rosenberg. The bold in the comments sections do not go back to Rashi, they are simply there so you know which part of the text his comments apply to. In none of Rashi's comments does he identify the tachash with badger, in fact his quotation of Rabbi Jonathan suggests he didn't see it this way. In the Exodus passage he simply says it was animal that was around for a while, but now gone (something hardly true of the badger).

I am sorry, but there is no evidence here of his usage of the term as you describe.

If you want to argue tachash means badger, you (at present) have to do so with no ancient linguistic support to do so.

 

"Scholarship" like what? I did not claim to be a scholar, but what do you object with?

I simply responded to your request to show the Peshitta reading at this verse (from two different sources). I included the KJV reading to show the similarity of Lamsa's version to the KJV text. What is wrong with that?

 

Well, why did you hide them from us, were you skewing the argument in your favor, since you said the following? -- Herb Evans

:sleep:

 

Well, if you want to argue TACHASH, you must include Abraham's relative. The animal must have been fairly known to name someone after it. You know, "Leave it to Beaver." -- Herb Evans

 

The wrong is in your statement.

The places where Lamsa uses non-KJB wording for "badger" disproves your case rather than confirms it. -- Herb Evans

 

I won't deny that I could have made such a mistake (especially given the resources at hand).

Perhaps you can shed light on why these translators chose to use badger at this point (per Rosenberg).

A.F.

 

LOL! That is okay, you were giving it a Kentucky try. No harm done. Besides someone else is after you. -- Herb Evans

 

Well, I am a KJVO and have been trying to avoid it, but there are some on this thread that are obsessed and incensed with KJVO's. I can't help that. -- Herb Evans

 

:smilewinkgrin: I like a good sense of humor.

Now addressing, the comparison:
This is assuming of course that the relative is named after an animal - a possibility, but not a necessity. Even if one did, however, there is nothing to say that the name is not applied to the dugong, or dolphin.

Again, there are other suitable explanations that have nothing to do with an animal - place names = Kurtahshi, (referred to in the Amarna tablets, contemporary with Moses), which is usually identified with a city south of Kadesh.

But again, the Gen. passage referring to Abraham's relative, doesn't give the translation of "badger" anywhere.

 

I can't answer why they went that route, though it is a recent translation. As I said above, the translation badger is very recent (relatively speaking). It probably has to do with the fact that that is the route many Europeans went, beginning just prior to the Reformation.

I can't firmly rule out it being a specific animal since it is placed in juxtaposition with "skins" in several places. But since badger lacks any (presently speaking) ancient support as a translation of tachash, it seems highly implausible.