# Gen. 49:10 & Mal. 2:16 in the ESV



## pickwick (Mar 29, 2006)

Does anyone have any comments on the way the ESV translates "Shiloh" in Gen. 49:10? How about its rendering of Malachi 2:16?

I generally like the ESV, but I am perplexed by their translation choices here.

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 29, 2006)

I'll try to respond (though I'm no linguist...)

Mal. 2:16 -- We can begin by saying that the KJV certainly gives a plausible meaning to the phrase. My purpose is to try to explain why the ESV folks could translate the passage as they did.

The sentence begins "kiy-sahney' " ("for"+root). The root plus pointing can definitely mean "he hates" (Qal Pf. 3ms) _or_ be an active participle "hating" or "hater". The next word appears to be an infinitive construct "to put away". In this form it can often express _purpose,_ In other words,, the phrase could be translated "for he who hates in order to divorce..."

It is also somewhat difficult to go from "he hates" to attributing that language to the Lord. For the following words read "says Jehovah God of Israel..." Why does it read in the third person? One expects to see "*I* hate... says the Lord..." So, I suppose for these reasons the translators offered an alternative rendering.


Gen. 49:10 -- If you read especially the modern commentators on this passage, you find quite a bit of disputation on the "Shiloh" passage. It has more than "its fair share" of interpretive challenges. Most moderns, followed by translations, go with some variant pointing (vowel) and letter separation (changing spacing/ association) scheme in order to relieve what they see as tensions in the Masoretic layout. This is not so much an abuse of the ancient text (which may originally be written without any spacing or vowels) as it is working at coherence. (That the Massoetes themselves included an inviolate text (ketib) along with prefered pronunciation or reading (kere) is testament to the endless task of hermeneutics). The ESV goes with one of these various attempts at "clarification."

Personally, having preached this text in the past, I prefer to ignore most of the modern waffling, and stick with the older rendering of "Shiloh", and treat it as a proper name, with a meaning along the lines of "Pacifier" or "Peacemaker/enforcer". Theologically, as well as linguistically, I found this choice to be without objection and harmonious to the passage, as well as an early indicator of the type of Messianic hope in Israel. Needless to say, I am none too burdened by developmental hypotheses anxieties (what a lot of pseudo-intellectual rubbish).


Anyway, I hope this helps. Commentators can be a big help in explaining background to the text (as long as they don't overwhelm you with technicalia). They can help you see how various translations read differently according to selection, but usually not why (criteria). For this post, I used my memory (regarding Genesis 49 commentary), and BDB lexicon and a basic Hebrew grammar (for Malachi 2).


----------



## pickwick (Mar 30, 2006)

Thanks!


----------



## Randall Pederson (Apr 6, 2006)

The Septuagint renders "Shiloh" as "the things stored up" (ta apokeimena). It's possible that "tribute" or the like was in mind in the LXX. Maybe that's where the ESV translators got it from (?)

Randall


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 6, 2006)

Victor Hamilton (NICOT, Genesis, vol. 2, p. 660) points out that the LXX translators apparently had the same puzzle to figure out as modern translators. Their rendering is based on textual emmendation plus repointing.

True, an ancient version/translation is certainly a great aid in later translation. But it seems fairly clear that they had no less a challenge than today's translators. Hamilton closes that section with:


> Both LXX and 4QPBless {a Qumran text, BGB} would agree then that the phrase be understood as "until he comes to whom it [the scepter, the kingship] belongs." The Hebrew would have to be read as "until that which is his comes." If that is what Gen. 49:10 is saying, then we are faced with *a Hebrew grammatical anomaly for which the Hebrew Bible offers no parallel.*


(emphasis mine).

But definitely, the LXX may have had some influence on the ESV, no question.

[Edited on 4-6-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

Reactions: Like 1


----------

