well excuuuuz meeee if you can't see a relationship between
vas•sal•age & king•ship
Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson
by ros 264 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
simwitness
Plum,
In our english dictionaries, and our usage of the words, I have no issue with what you are describing.
My question to scholar, is for his reasoning behind saying that is what the OT writers meant. IMHO, if they meant "vassal/king" they would have used a word that more accurately described that. (I am, of course, assuming that such a word existed).
I find it interesting that Scholar has yet to answer my questions, and his only response to AlanF's recent question has been to say "That scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to mean, it really means something else".
Scholar, If you do not intend to address my question(s) - as simple as they should be for you to answer, please say so.
-
Alleymom
Sim and Plum --
The thing to focus on is what the Hebrew word means and how it is used in other verses in the Bible.
Scholar would like to have us focus on alleged differences in meaning of two English words: "kingship" and "reign".
But what matters is the word malkhuth .
The NWT translates malkhuth in several different ways. If there is really a difference in "kingship" and "reign" then they should be used to translate two different Hebrew words, instead of the same word, malkhuth.
And if there is really a difference in the two English words "kingship" and "reign" then why are they used interchangeably in the NWT?
And if "kingship" implies vassalage then why did the NWT translate malkhuth as "kingship" in verses referring to Jehovah?
Hebrew is a tri-literal language, meaning the words are based on three letters, three consonants. The word for "king" is melek: m-l-k. That's why the name "Melchi-zedek" means KING of righteousness. The etymon of the word in Daniel 1:1 is m-l-k. Check out how the word "malkhuth" is used in all 91 occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures, and you will see that the meaning is always associated with being a m-l-k, a king.
While it is quite true that some kings may be client kings or vassal kings or co-regents, etc., that is something we can only find out if we are given additional historical information about that king.
Think of it this way: say you have a fragment of a letter written in Hebrew. The sentence is about some king, but the letter has been damaged at one spot, and the name is illegible. So all you have is the phrase: "In the third year of the reign of King .... " The Hebrew word is malkuth, so we would have, "In the third year of the [malkuth] of King ..."
My point is that if you know Hebrew, you should be able to translate this Hebrew phrase, even if you don't have the name of the king or know anything about him.
It is a matter of linguistics and translation.
But by Scholar's reasoning, we wouldn't be able to translate our hypothetical fragment at all, because we don't know who the king is or whether he was a vassal to some other sovereign. Scholar wouldn't know whether he ought to read the fragment as: "In the third year of the kingship of King ...." or "In the third year of the reign of King ..."
It's a moot question anyway, since the NWT itself translates "malkhuth" interchangeably as "kingship" and "reign" with regard to the same king. The alleged difference between "kingship" and "reign" doesn't exist.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice,
"whether you can make words mean so many different things."
The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that’s all."
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.If "kingship" and "reign" have such different meanings, as Scholar has said, then, to paraphrase Alice's observation, the question is whether you can make the word "malkuth" mean so many different things.
Marjorie
-
Earnest
While I agree with "scholar" that the chronology of Daniel is not altogether clear, I find his contention that the translation of "malkuth" demonstrates something unusual about Jehoiakim's reign to be as irrelevant as the Seder Olam.
Unless it is maintained that the NWT itself is inspired, the English word used is quite irrelevant. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word (in Theodotion) is the common word used to describe kingly rule throughout the OT. It may be true that the NWT Translation Committee did use "kingship" rather than "reign" because they had concluded he was a vassal king, but that in itself does not change the meaning of the original text...it only indicates the bias of the translators. But I am not convinced that they had that intention. Why not ? Because in Daniel 2:1 the same Hebrew and Greek words are used in reference to Nebuchadnezzar and the NWT translates it as "kingship" in that verse too.
Furthermore, I have not found this suggestion (that the translation of Daniel 1:1 as "kingship" indicates vassalage) anywhere in WTS literature. Of course, "scholar" is as entitled to his pet theories as anybody else but my opinion is that it has more to do with chasing hares than discussing chronology.
Earnest
-
scholar
Earnest
I read your post with interest and I make the following comments. It is true that some lexicons do give a variety of meanings for malkut which includes that of 'reign' but Hebrew Theological Dictionaries give such meanings as 'royal power', dominion, royal dignity, kingdom. One reference work says regarding malkut: "It seems as though a stronger emphasis is put on the activity of ruling in the case of malkut, it therefore also refers to the right or office of ruling as king, royal dignity, and even to the period of reign. NIDOTTE, 1997, Vol.2. p.957.
In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign. The fact that there is a semantic overlap for the two closely related Hebrew terms means that the translater must be caredul in how he renders malkut in both Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. In fact two Jewish commentaries apply the 'third year' to the latter part of Jehoiakim's reign or kingship. Clearly, the use of kingship rather than reign shows that this text cannot be used as a chronological datum with the sense of some absolute date but rather is of historiographical significance in establishing an important event in the kingship of Jehoiakim. In short, there is a strong Jewish tradition thsat supports the WT understanding that the third years was the eleventh year of Jehoiakimm;s rule.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
Alleymom
Scholar said: It is true that some lexicons do give a variety of meanings for malkut which includes that of 'reign' but Hebrew Theological Dictionaries give such meanings as 'royal power', dominion, royal dignity, kingdom. One reference work says regarding malkut: "It seems as though a stronger emphasis is put on the activity of ruling in the case of malkut, it therefore also refers to the right or office of ruling as king, royal dignity, and even to the period of reign. NIDOTTE, 1997, Vol.2. p.957.
Scholar -- Your message to Earnest puzzles me. Your reference to NIDOTTE is made as if you are suddenly providing new information, and as if that information somehow supports what you have been saying. But, in fact, I provided this information twice in earler posts, most recently on p. 8 of this thread in my post of July 23, 1:10 and I asked you a number of questions about it. I hope you are going to find time to answer, as that one did take me awhile. Did you see and read that post, from 1:10?
On July 23, 1:10, page 8, I posted this:
I looked at all 91 occurrences of the word "malkuth" = tWkl]m = Strong's #4438, in the NWT. I found that the NWT translators render the Hebrew word in the following ways:
KingshipReignKingdom
Royal
Realm
Royal Realm
Royal dignity
Royally
Becoming King (with a footnote)
Kingship and reign are used interchangeably. 2 Chron. 3:2 -- Accordingly he started to build in the second month on the second [day], in the fourth year of his reign.2 Chron 15:10 --- So they were collected together at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of A´sa’s reign. (NWT)
2 Chron 15:19 --- As for war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth year of A´sa’s reign (NWT)
2 Chron 16:1 -- In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of A´sa, Ba´a·sha the king of Israel came up against Judah and began to build Ra´mah, so as not to allow anyone to go out or come in to A´sa the king of Judah. (NWT)
2 Chron 16:12 -- And A´sa in the thirty-ninth year of his reign developed an ailment in his feet until he was very sick; and even in his sickness he searched not for Jehovah but for the healers (NWT)
2 Chron 29:19 --- And all the utensils that King A´haz removed from employment during his reign in his unfaithfulness we have prepared, and have sanctified them; and there they are before the altar of Jehovah. (NWT)
2 Chron 35:19 -- In the eighteenth year of Jo·si´ah’s reign this passover was held (NWT)
Ezra 4:5 --- and hiring counselors against them to frustrate their counsel all the days of Cyrus the king of Persia down till the reign of Da·ri´us the king of Persia (NWT)
Ezra 4:6 --- And in the reign of A·has·u·e´rus, at the start of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem
Ezra 7:1 --- And after these things in the reign of Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia, Ez´ra the son of Se·rai´ah the son of Az·a·ri´ah the son of Hil·ki´ah (NWT)
Ezra 8:1 --- Now these were the heads of their paternal houses and the genealogical enrollment of those going up with me during the reign of Ar·ta·xerx´es the king out of Babylon (NWT)
Esther 2:16 --- Then Esther was taken to King A·has·u·e´rus at his royal house in the tenth month, that is, the month Te´beth, in the seventh year of his reign (NWT)Please see the post on p. 8 for my questions.
Thanking you in advance,
Marjorie -
Alleymom
SCHOLAR SAID: In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign. The fact that there is a semantic overlap for the two closely related Hebew terms means that the translater must be caredul in how he renders malkut in both Daniel 1:1 and 2:1.
Then why, on 23 July, 00:27, did you say:
"The word kingship suggests vassalage by implication" ?
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign. The fact that there is a semantic overlap for the two closely related Hebrew terms means that the translater must be caredul in how he renders malkut in both Daniel 1:1 and 2:1.
What TWO closely related Hebrew terms are you talking about? We have only been discussing ONE Hebrew word, Strong's #4438. There is no "semantic overlap" of "two closely related Hebrew terms". There is only one term.
The words are exactly the same in Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1.
(If someone would tell me whether the Hebrew font I use shows up ok in these posts, I will print both verses in Hebrew and highlight the two words so that others can see that the words are exactly the same.)
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
In reference to the NWT translation of malkut as kingship, I have not meant to imply that this means vassalage even though Jehoiakim was in fact a vassal to Neco and Nebuchadnezzar for much of his reign. The fact that there is a semantic overlap for the two closely related Hebrew terms means that the translater must be caredul in how he renders malkut in both Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. In fact two Jewish commentaries apply the 'third year' to the latter part of Jehoiakim's reign or kingship.
Scholar --
But these are commentaries, not lexicons, and this is their interpretation rather than their translation. You are mixing apples and oranges. There is no philological justification whatsoever for your interpretation.
It is quite true that scholars have explained the apparent chronological inconsistencies and "errors" in the Bible in different ways over the years. But these attempts to harmonize the data are not based on any difference of meaning of "malkuth" in Daniel 1:1 and Daniel 2:1. Moreover, none of these Jewish commentaries, not one, supports your 607 date.
Does WT literature support you in this, or is it your own idea, as Earnest has supposed?
Marjorie