New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Baradin
in reply to a message by Christo
Hi, Christo!
Yes, the argument is: time. The Hebrew text is the original and the Greek text is a translation. As far as I know no changes were made from the latter to the former. The Jews were always very fussy about the bible text and if they had made any changes, they would most likely have noted them. And most important: it's the Hebrew characters that look alike, not the Greek.
So we would have to assume that the translators could refer to an older (more original) Hebrew text, which later was misspelt in the Hebrew bible. It would be interesting to see whether this passage is part of the scrolls from Qumran and if so, what we would find there.
What is funny: None of my bible dictionaries has either Barad or Badad …
The -in ending: If it was French and feminine, it should be -ine, so I don't know what other language it could be. Definitely not Hebrew.
Andy ;—)
Yes, the argument is: time. The Hebrew text is the original and the Greek text is a translation. As far as I know no changes were made from the latter to the former. The Jews were always very fussy about the bible text and if they had made any changes, they would most likely have noted them. And most important: it's the Hebrew characters that look alike, not the Greek.
So we would have to assume that the translators could refer to an older (more original) Hebrew text, which later was misspelt in the Hebrew bible. It would be interesting to see whether this passage is part of the scrolls from Qumran and if so, what we would find there.
What is funny: None of my bible dictionaries has either Barad or Badad …
The -in ending: If it was French and feminine, it should be -ine, so I don't know what other language it could be. Definitely not Hebrew.
Andy ;—)
1