tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post2881331410681325464..comments2023-10-12T14:09:33.965-07:00Comments on The Biblia Hebraica Blog: The Message of MalachiDouglas Mangumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-84242804190971081352009-06-01T15:01:16.139-07:002009-06-01T15:01:16.139-07:00Mike, thanks for commenting. I agree that 1:6 and ...Mike, thanks for commenting. I agree that 1:6 and 4:6 seem to be echoing each other somehow. <br /><br />You know you have a pretty famous name for someone interested in Hebrew Bible. For a brief second, I thought maybe my soon-to-be advisor, Michael V. Fox, had started reading my blog.<br /><br />Appreciate your input though.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-91391230489808381522009-06-01T13:47:29.095-07:002009-06-01T13:47:29.095-07:00good discussion. i think it's significant that mal...good discussion. i think it's significant that mal 4:6 echoes mal 1:6 ("a son honors his father . . . where is My honor?"). honoring one's father (and both parents, exod 20) is covenantal requirement. honoring YHWH is a major goal and purpose of covenant stipulations, like law, and testimony before the nations (1:11, 14). <br /><br />my personal opinion here is that mal 1:6 and 4:6 are not verses where rendering "father(s)" literally is very offensive. it's accurate and quite vanilla as far as offensive language goes. i would leave it literal, but i understand where others are coming from (sort of).<br /><br />like i said, good discussionmike foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04820630954659336880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-89086627902429290372009-05-30T10:31:02.503-07:002009-05-30T10:31:02.503-07:00Doug, I quite agree with factoring the legal neces...Doug, I quite agree with factoring the legal necessities of the covenant.<br /><br />I'm rethinking this whole thing now. Let me dig some more.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-58076939802639287932009-05-30T09:56:52.547-07:002009-05-30T09:56:52.547-07:00TC,
I'd left an earlier comment at your post that...TC,<br /><br />I'd left an earlier comment at your post that hasn't shown up that brought up that question - practically, is there a difference between "fathers" and "parents." Here's part of that earlier comment:<br /><br />The coventant context "still doesn't settle the translation issue since women were part of the group standing at Sinai who consented to the covenant just as much as the men were. But I wonder if their consent would have been considered necessary or legally binding in Israelite society. I don't know what evidence there is to help answer that question, and even if it's correct, it doesn't necessarily mean we should translate that way. I'm trying to decide whether using "fathers" specifically carries some valuable added nuance for the covenant context or not."<br /><br />I guess the issue is - what was the role and responsibility of Israelite women toward the covenant? Much of the what the Torah has to say about women's legal status in society makes them need the legal consent of their husband or father. <br /><br />I'm not saying that's ethically correct or that it should be preserved in translation. It's just part of the cultural background of the Bible that gender-accurate translations are trying to move away from as no longer relevant to modern Western society. I don't have a problem with the translation "parents." Translators have to make a choice, and "parents" is a legitimate choice.Douglas Mangumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267532075493569019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3613525030683671127.post-73929776993960943522009-05-30T09:22:41.962-07:002009-05-30T09:22:41.962-07:00Doug, thanks for this post. I do agree that the b...Doug, thanks for this post. I do agree that the book is quite covenantal.<br /><br />But what are the practical elements of this covenant in regard to his people? I suggest things like the family (2:13-16), tithing (3:8-11), and so on.<br /><br />So I do not think it strange that abot should be rendered "parent" at 4:6.tcrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02518043696892409099noreply@blogger.com