An eloquent statement, with which I can agree wholeheartedly.
Badgers or sea cows/seals
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Oct 24, 2006.
Page 6 of 8
-
-
-
-
-
The KJV has:
-
-
-
-
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.
-
A.F. -
Inadequate in Myself MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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? -
-
-
-
Perhaps you can shed light on why these translators chose to use badger at this point (per Rosenberg).
A.F. -
-
-
Inadequate in Myself MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Inadequate in Myself MemberSite Supporter
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.
Page 6 of 8