Here's one for the KJVOs!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, May 29, 2007.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    To show you I am completely fair in my assessment of the KJVO thingie, I present cases in which the KJVOs are right. I know they're far & few between, but again I tryta be fair.

    Here's one that I haven't even seen any KJVO bring up...

    2 Samuel 24:23, KJV...All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The LORD thy God accept thee.

    Most MVs read as does the NIV:"O king, Araunah gives all this to the king." They do not say that Araunah was also a king, though subservient to David. The Hebrew has the word 'melek, which means 'king' before 'Araunah' in the passage. A rabbi told me the literal reading would be "Araunah king gave to the king...". Besides, the word 'araunah' means 'lord' in the Hittite language most likely used by the Jebusites.

    It's perfectly natural that David, guided by God's wisdom, would allow a king of the Jebusites, who was totally subservient to David, to rule them to keep rebellion from fomenting.(Chronicles gives his name as Ornan, which, in Hebrew, is 'arnn', which means 'strong'. I have no doubt that Araunah was a ruler of the Jebusites, but a loyal vassal of David's.

    He prolly also worshipped God, as it's unlikely that God woulda chosen a place recently owned by a heathen to become His holiest place on the planet.


    Anyway, could some people here who are proficient with Hebrew tell me if I'm right about this?
     
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Self -Deleted]
     
    #2 Rufus_1611, May 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2007
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3, I am not at all knowledgeable of Hebrew - I do well to know English!

    With so many different Bible versions available to us there will be times when a KJV reading is superior to the reading in another version or versions. However, there will also be times when another version or versions has a reading superior to that found in one of the KJVs. As all English Bible versions are mere translations of God's word as it was handed down to us, this is inevitable.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    All we know of Araunah/Ornan is found in three portions of Scripture (2 Samuel 24:18-24, 1 Chron. 22:18-30 and 2 Chron. 3:1)

    He was a Jebusite (2 Sam 24:16)
    He was a thresher of wheat (1 Chronicles 21:20)
    He was the owner of a threshing floor (2 Sam 24:16)
    The threshing floor was on Mount Moriah, the future site of Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 3:1)
    King David went to Araunah’s threshing field (2 Sam 24:19,20)
    Araunah paid homage to king David, “with his face to the ground” (2 Sam 24:20; 1 Chronicles 21:21)
    Araunah/Ornan had four sons who worked with him (1 Chronicles 21:20)
    When King David went to Araunah’s threshing field, Araunah’s sons hid (1 Chronicles 21:21)
    Araunah called David his lord and “the king” (2 Sam 24:21)
    He willingly offered to David any of his belongings that David wanted (2 Sam 24:22)
    He may have known the LORD, calling him by his holy name (2 Sam 24:23)
    It was particularly noteworthy for David to have paid for the threshing field (2 Sam 24:24)

    The Hebrew in Samuel is a bit rough: there are some differences between the Masoretic texts of Samuel and Chronicles and the Qumran manuscripts.

    In Hebrew (BHS), the phrase simply reads: …/Araunah/ the king/ to (the) king/…
    In the “modern versions” the words are taken in a vocative way to refer to David.

    Robert Alter translates it: "All of it has Araunah, O king, given to the king ..."

    Some have also suggested that the first “Araunah” in the text (2 Sa 24:23) was originally the word “the lord”. Both have similar looking letters that can be easily misread [ אדני “my lord” (transliterated as ‘Adonai’) / ארונה – “Araunah” ].

    Of greater interest IMHO is the difference the price offered between the two accounts, 2 Sam (50 shekels), 1 Chron (600 shekels).

    Rob
     
    #4 Deacon, May 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2007
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Translating this doesn’t force a meaning into something that isn’t there.
    It is a common way to translate the clause.
    For instance, the KJV (among others) translated “ha-melek” (the king) in the vocative case in 1 Samuel 17:55

    “As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell.”

    Rob
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe the differences in the prices David paid Araunah came about from a difference in what various witnesses heard. Most likely, David paid 50 silver shekels of silver for the oxen and 600 gold shekels for the land. And David most likely paid from his personal funds rather than from any national treasury.
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This NOT a clear case that the KJV is "right" here, and implying that most of the other versions are wrong. The problem is contributed by the KJV itself, since it does not use quotation marks to indicate which words are from direct speech and which words are narrative.
    Notice the KJV verse in context (2 Sam. 24:21-23) --
    And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshingfloor of thee, to build an altar unto the LORD, that the plague may be stayed from the people.
    And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what [seemeth] good unto him: behold, [here be] oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and [other] instruments of the oxen for wood.
    All these [things] did Araunah, [as] a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The LORD thy God accept thee.​
    There is some ambiguity in the KJV as to whether the phrase "all these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king" is narrative or should be included as part of Araunah's speech. Evidently, Araunah the Jebusite is speaking both before and after this phrase. Lacking an obvious reason to exclude this phrase from his speech, it is best considered as part of the direct quotation; and if this phrase is spoken by Araunah, it would not at all necessary for him to refer to himself as 'king' (especially in addressing his superior Lord).

    Now notice how these common and popular versions all use quotation marks to distinguish direct speech from narrative --
    “All these, O king, Araunah has given to the king.” And Araunah said to the king, “May the LORD your God accept you.” (NKJV)

    “O king, Araunah gives all this to the king.” Araunah also said to him, “May the Lord your God accept you.” (NIV)

    “Everything, O king, Araunah gives to the king.” And Araunah said to the king, “May the LORD your God accept you.” (NASB)

    “All this, O king, Araunah gives to the king.” And Araunah said to the king, “The Lord your God accept you.” (ESV)​
    These words, as part of Araunah's speech, can properly be translated in the Vocative sense ("O king"). The Hebrew construction does not seem to demand that melek refer to Araunah (the other two occurrences of melek in this verse clearly refer to King David). And there is no other indication from scripture that Araunah was a 'king'.
     
    #7 franklinmonroe, May 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2007
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I haven't seen this in any commentary but I think the discrepancy is probably related to monetary INFLATION :eek:

    Chronicles was written well after Samuel and the writter may have looked at the price and realized it was inappropriately small and corrected it to what the going rate might have been [I've never seriously bothered to research this theory though].

    A Shekel was a particular weight in silver during the time of the writing of the Samuels, perhaps by the writing of Chronicles it was in the process of becoming a coinage.

    The early commentator, Raffi suggests that the price was 50 shekels for each of the twelve tribes (=600 shekels).

    Rob
     
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Does anyone care to guess why the New American Bible (NAB) has this plus to the text of 2 Samuel 24 that is not noted in many other versions?

    Now Araunah looked down and noticed the king and his servants coming toward him while he was threshing wheat. So he went out and paid homage to the king, with face to the ground.
    2 Samuel 24:20 NAB

    Rob
     
  10. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    The highlighted phrase is found in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles.

    And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.
    1 Chronicles 21:20 KJV

    Now Ornan was threshing wheat. He turned and saw the angel, and his four sons who were with him hid themselves.
    1 Chronicles 21:20 ESV

    Flavius Josephus (~100 AD) notes it in his history.

    When God heard his supplication, he caused the pestilence to cease, and sent Gad the prophet to him, and commanded him to go up immediately to the thrashing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, and build an altar there to God, and offer sacrifices. When David heard that, he did not neglect his duty, but made haste to the place appointed him. Now Araunah was thrashing wheat; and when he saw the king and all his servants coming to him, he ran before, and came to him and worshipped him: he was by his lineage a Jebusite, but a particular friend of David's; and for that cause it was that, when he overthrew the city, he did him no harm, as we informed the reader a little before. Now Araunah inquired, "Wherefore is my lord come to his servant?" He answered, to buy of him the thrashing-floor, that he might therein build an altar to God, and offer a sacrifice. He replied, that he freely gave him both the thrashing-floor and the ploughs and the oxen for a burnt-offering; and he besought God graciously to accept his sacrifice. But the king made answer, that he took his generosity and magnanimity loudly, and accepted his good-will, but he desired him to take the price of them all, for that it was not just to offer a sacrifice that cost nothing. And when Araunah said he would do as he pleased, he bought the thrashing-floor of him for fifty shekels.
    Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews - Book VII

    And about one thousand years before the next earliest OT document the Dead Sea Scroll 4QSam a plus, places it within the text of Samuel.

    Rob
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    600 GOLD shekels was about 180 times the value of 50 SILVER shekels, so the difference was in WHAT was purchased, not inflation or a portion from each tribe.

    The small threshing floor (typically less than 30x30 feet) and sledge/ox team would be worth the 50 silver.

    The entire area, which Arauna owned, would be worth the vastly greater 600 gold.

    [BTW, about the op, the vocative "O King" would make the best literary sense]
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    1 Chronicles 21:20 (KJV) --
    And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat. ​
    If Ornan had the status of a 'king' he would NOT be directly engaged in manual labor. But I'm sure some one will excuse the plain reading of this passage by speculating Ornan's involvement as merely supervising the 'princes'.
     
    #12 franklinmonroe, Jun 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...