NKJV on Genesis 49:6

[KJB1611reader]

Hello,

I wish to talk about the supposed 'new king james version.'

In the First Booke of Moses, called Genesis 49:6 it said 'digged a well' at the end.

The nkjv changed it to hamstrung oxen.'

Similar readings of the nkjv is found in the marginal note of the 1611, Luther's translation, one of the versions of the Wycliffe, Cloverdale and Matthew's Bible.

According to this, the kings men were not ignorant of the critical reading, neither didn't have other manuscripts with this reading.

Thanks for reading,

Shawn

 

[KJB1611reader]

Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word שור (shor.) (201) Some translate it “bullock,” and think that the Shechemites are allegorically denoted by it, seeing they were sufficiently robust and powerful to defend their lives, had not Simon and Levi enervated them by fraud and perfidy. But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they “overturned a wall.” For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage. - John Calvin

 

[Deacon]

"digged down a wall", ....rather clumsy English, imo

Robert Alter's translation of Genesis 49:6 (2019) follows the KJV's rendering of the verse with a note.

In their council let me never set foot,
their assembly my presence shun,
For in their fury they slaughtered men,
at their pleasure they tore down ramparts.

they tore down ramparts. With many critics, the translation here reads shur, a poetic term for "wall", instead of shor, "ox," as the Masoretic Text has it. The verb, if it refers to oxen, would mean "to maim" or "to hamstring." It was sometimes the ancient practice to hamstring the captured warhorses of an enemy, but it would have been foolish to hamstring captured oxen, which could be put to peaceful use. Moreover, since Jacob is speaking of the massacre at Shechem, the narrative there explicitly noted that the cattle and other livestock were carried off, not maimed.

Both Everett Fox, (in The Schocken Bible) and the JPS TANAKH, follow the Masoretic text by translating the passage as if an ox were maimed.

Rob

 

[David Lamb]

Hello,

I wish to talk about the supposed 'new king james version.'

In the First Booke of Moses, called Genesis 49:6 it said 'digged a well' at the end.

The nkjv changed it to hamstrung oxen.'

Similar readings of the nkjv is found in the marginal note of the 1611, Luther's translation, one of the versions of the Wycliffe, Cloverdale and Matthew's Bible.

According to this, the kings men were not ignorant of the critical reading, neither didn't have other manuscripts with this reading.

Thanks for reading,

Shawn

According to Strong's Concordance, that is the only place where (in the 1611) the Hebrew word is translated as "digged." It is also the only place where the Hebrew word is translated at "well." Elsewhere in the 1611, it is translated as ox, bullock, cow or bull. So it is not really the NKJV changing anything.

 

[KJB1611reader]

"digged down a wall", ....rather clumsy English, imo

Robert Alter's translation of Genesis 49:6 (2019) follows the KJV's rendering of the verse with a note.

In their council let me never set foot,
their assembly my presence shun,
For in their fury they slaughtered men,
at their pleasure they tore down ramparts.

they tore down ramparts. With many critics, the translation here reads shur, a poetic term for "wall", instead of shor, "ox," as the Masoretic Text has it. The verb, if it refers to oxen, would mean "to maim" or "to hamstring." It was sometimes the ancient practice to hamstring the captured warhorses of an enemy, but it would have been foolish to hamstring captured oxen, which could be put to peaceful use. Moreover, since Jacob is speaking of the massacre at Shechem, the narrative there explicitly noted that the cattle and other livestock were carried off, not maimed.

Both Everett Fox, (in The Schocken Bible) and the JPS TANAKH, follow the Masoretic text by translating the passage as if an ox were maimed.

Rob

And what is a rampart?

 

[KJB1611reader]

According to Strong's Concordance, that is the only place where (in the 1611) the Hebrew word is translated as "digged." It is also the only place where the Hebrew word is translated at "well." Elsewhere in the 1611, it is translated as ox, bullock, cow or bull. So it is not really the NKJV changing anything.

The nkjv didn't keep the KJB text and went with an alternative reading.

The kings men already knew that option, so was in the Luther, Cloverdale and Matthew's version.

 

[KJB1611reader]

According to Strong's Concordance, that is the only place where (in the 1611) the Hebrew word is translated as "digged." It is also the only place where the Hebrew word is translated at "well." Elsewhere in the 1611, it is translated as ox, bullock, cow or bull. So it is not really the NKJV changing anything.

So, did the translators just went with the earlier version of the Wycliffe (later version?)

The Luther, Cloverdale and Matthew had oxen; my thoughts now is why did the versions after change it to well? Going to Latin? Misreading?

What exactly changed?

Shaw.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Peshitta, Latin Vulgate & Aramaic Targumim, and the Wycliffe version of 1395, the Bishop's Bible of 1568, Douay Rheims of 1582, Geneva of 1587, Reina Valera of 1601, Italian Diodati of 1649 & a 1936 version of the Jewish Publication Society.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Whatever they thought, the text said wall not oxen. They rejected the option of oxen.

The verses were checked and inspected by comittes.

Shawn

 

[David Lamb]

The nkjv didn't keep the KJB text and went with an alternative reading.

The kings men already knew that option, so was in the Luther, Cloverdale and Matthew's version.

Like the 1611 translation, the NKJV was translated from the Hebrew and Greek. I don't know why the 1611 translators decided in that verse only to translate as "digged" and "well" word which everywhere else they translated differently. By the way, I think you meant Coverdale, not Cloverdale.

 

[David Lamb]

So, did the translators just went with the earlier version of the Wycliffe (later version?)

The Luther, Cloverdale and Matthew had oxen; my thoughts now is why did the versions after change it to well? Going to Latin? Misreading?

What exactly changed?

Shaw.

Nothing to do with Latin. They translated from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew word which even the 1611 translators translated as "ox" or similar in 68 of the 69 places it occurs.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Like the 1611 translation, the NKJV was translated from the Hebrew and Greek. I don't know why the 1611 translators decided in that verse only to translate as "digged" and "well" word which everywhere else they translated differently. By the way, I think you meant Coverdale, not Cloverdale.

Thanks for correcting my mistake, my mind keep mixing it up with a local city I knew.

 

[KJB1611reader]

Nothing to do with Latin. They translated from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew word which even the 1611 translators translated as "ox" or similar in 68 of the 69 places it occurs.

So, they probably saw something about vowel points.

Or they did use the Wycliffe or Latin rendering of wall.

Meaning they rejected the Hebrew on that verse.

Or they use the Phestta or some other reading? maybe some.manuscripts that is lost????

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks for correcting my mistake, my mind keep mixing it up with a local city I knew.

Don't worry - I am always making mistakes like that.

 

[Deacon]

And what is a rampart?

Uses of the word "rampart"

(1) “The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: He hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: Therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together.” (Lamentations 2:8, AV 1873)

(2) “Art thou better than populous No, That was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, Whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea?” (Nahum 3:8, AV 1873)

(3) The Star Spangled Banner

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous flight
O're the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming

Definition: rampart - a defensive embankment or wall of earth or masonry around a castle, hillfort, settlement or other fortified site.

Rob

 

[KJB1611reader]

Uses of the word "rampart"

(1) “The Lord hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: He hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: Therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together.” (Lamentations 2:8, AV 1873)

(2) “Art thou better than populous No, That was situate among the rivers, that had the waters round about it, Whose rampart was the sea, and her wall was from the sea?” (Nahum 3:8, AV 1873)

(3) The Star Spangled Banner

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous flight
O're the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming

Definition: rampart - a defensive embankment or wall of earth or masonry around a castle, hillfort, settlement or other fortified site.

Rob

Thanks

 

[KJB1611reader]

This is why I don't go to Hebrew, since we can't come up with a sastifstory defintion.

I am King James Only, that mean I take the English over the scholar or the lexion.

I can't defend this by the Hebrew.

Shawn

 

[David Lamb]

So, they probably saw something about vowel points.

Or they did use the Wycliffe or Latin rendering of wall.

Meaning they rejected the Hebrew on that verse.

Or they use the Phestta or some other reading? maybe some.manuscripts that is lost????

As far as I can see, and I don't know Hebrew at all, so I have to rely on concordances, etc., the Hebrew word which the 1611 translators render as "wall" here is exactly the same word as they render "ox" in the other 68 places where the word occurs. As I understand it, the 1611 translators translated out of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, not out of Latin or Wycliffe's earlier translation, which itself was translated from the Latin. (Tyndale was the first to translate the bible into English from the original languages. It started coming out 500 years ago this year.)

 

[KJB1611reader]

As far as I can see, and I don't know Hebrew at all, so I have to rely on concordances, etc., the Hebrew word which the 1611 translators render as "wall" here is exactly the same word as they render "ox" in the other 68 places where the word occurs. As I understand it, the 1611 translators translated out of the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, not out of Latin or Wycliffe's earlier translation, which itself was translated from the Latin. (Tyndale was the first to translate the bible into English from the original languages. It started coming out 500 years ago this year.)

They used all the versions they had, there are many times they went to the Latin instead of the Hebrew.

How do we know they used hebrew in 49:6?

They knew there was a option for ox. Its in the margin.

 

[KJB1611reader]

OXEN. Shor (oxen) is to be rendered as wall. We similarly read, Its branches run over the wall (shur) (v. 22). I have already explained in my work Moznayim that the cholam and shuruk interchange. *Therefore the fact that our verse reads shor and verse 22 shur presents no problem

From Meir ibn Ezra.