Why does the LXX translate דֹּדֶ֖יךָ as μαστοί in Song of Songs 1:2?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Song of Songs 1:2
Hebrew: יִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙ מִנְּשִׁיקֹ֣ות פִּ֔יהוּ כִּֽי־טֹובִ֥ים דֹּדֶ֖יךָ מִיָּֽיִן׃
KJV: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
LXX: φιλησάτω με ἀπὸ φιλημάτων στόματος αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἀγαθοὶ μαστοί σου ὑπὲρ οἶνον
Brenton Septuagint Translation: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine.
Why might the LXX translators have chosen to render דֹּדֶ֖יךָ as μαστοί σου, when this seems to be an inaccurate translation?
I have observed the following interesting points which might be "clues"
- דֹּדֶ֖יךָ is gramatically plural (which is why Young's Literal Translation says "better are thy loves than wine.")
- דּוֹד doesn't just mean "love." It can also mean "uncle" or "beloved".
What's interesting is that forms of דּוֹד appear throughout Song of Songs but the LXX doesn't always translate them in the same way. (compare 1:2 with 7:11, for instance)
hebrew word-study translation-philosophy septuagint song-of-songs
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
add a comment |
Song of Songs 1:2
Hebrew: יִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙ מִנְּשִׁיקֹ֣ות פִּ֔יהוּ כִּֽי־טֹובִ֥ים דֹּדֶ֖יךָ מִיָּֽיִן׃
KJV: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
LXX: φιλησάτω με ἀπὸ φιλημάτων στόματος αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἀγαθοὶ μαστοί σου ὑπὲρ οἶνον
Brenton Septuagint Translation: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine.
Why might the LXX translators have chosen to render דֹּדֶ֖יךָ as μαστοί σου, when this seems to be an inaccurate translation?
I have observed the following interesting points which might be "clues"
- דֹּדֶ֖יךָ is gramatically plural (which is why Young's Literal Translation says "better are thy loves than wine.")
- דּוֹד doesn't just mean "love." It can also mean "uncle" or "beloved".
What's interesting is that forms of דּוֹד appear throughout Song of Songs but the LXX doesn't always translate them in the same way. (compare 1:2 with 7:11, for instance)
hebrew word-study translation-philosophy septuagint song-of-songs
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
add a comment |
Song of Songs 1:2
Hebrew: יִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙ מִנְּשִׁיקֹ֣ות פִּ֔יהוּ כִּֽי־טֹובִ֥ים דֹּדֶ֖יךָ מִיָּֽיִן׃
KJV: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
LXX: φιλησάτω με ἀπὸ φιλημάτων στόματος αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἀγαθοὶ μαστοί σου ὑπὲρ οἶνον
Brenton Septuagint Translation: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine.
Why might the LXX translators have chosen to render דֹּדֶ֖יךָ as μαστοί σου, when this seems to be an inaccurate translation?
I have observed the following interesting points which might be "clues"
- דֹּדֶ֖יךָ is gramatically plural (which is why Young's Literal Translation says "better are thy loves than wine.")
- דּוֹד doesn't just mean "love." It can also mean "uncle" or "beloved".
What's interesting is that forms of דּוֹד appear throughout Song of Songs but the LXX doesn't always translate them in the same way. (compare 1:2 with 7:11, for instance)
hebrew word-study translation-philosophy septuagint song-of-songs
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
Song of Songs 1:2
Hebrew: יִשָּׁקֵ֙נִי֙ מִנְּשִׁיקֹ֣ות פִּ֔יהוּ כִּֽי־טֹובִ֥ים דֹּדֶ֖יךָ מִיָּֽיִן׃
KJV: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
LXX: φιλησάτω με ἀπὸ φιλημάτων στόματος αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἀγαθοὶ μαστοί σου ὑπὲρ οἶνον
Brenton Septuagint Translation: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine.
Why might the LXX translators have chosen to render דֹּדֶ֖יךָ as μαστοί σου, when this seems to be an inaccurate translation?
I have observed the following interesting points which might be "clues"
- דֹּדֶ֖יךָ is gramatically plural (which is why Young's Literal Translation says "better are thy loves than wine.")
- דּוֹד doesn't just mean "love." It can also mean "uncle" or "beloved".
What's interesting is that forms of דּוֹד appear throughout Song of Songs but the LXX doesn't always translate them in the same way. (compare 1:2 with 7:11, for instance)
hebrew word-study translation-philosophy septuagint song-of-songs
hebrew word-study translation-philosophy septuagint song-of-songs
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
asked Dec 30 '18 at 16:02
Pascal's WagerPascal's Wager
691113
691113
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The consonantal text, דדיך, can be read דַּדַּיִך, from דַּד "nipple" (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21). This was the reading used in translating דדיך as μαστοί σου.
The meaning "beloved" is consistently spelled דּוֹד in Song of Songs. The lack of the letter ו in this and all other cases in the book (1:4, 4:10, 7:13) renders all of them ambiguous between "love" and "nipple."
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function ()
StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
);
, "virtkeyb");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "320"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37954%2fwhy-does-the-lxx-translate-%25d7%2593%25d6%25b9%25d6%25bc%25d7%2593%25d6%25b6%25d6%2596%25d7%2599%25d7%259a%25d6%25b8-as-%25ce%25bc%25ce%25b1%25cf%2583%25cf%2584%25ce%25bf%25ce%25af-in-song-of-songs-12%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The consonantal text, דדיך, can be read דַּדַּיִך, from דַּד "nipple" (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21). This was the reading used in translating דדיך as μαστοί σου.
The meaning "beloved" is consistently spelled דּוֹד in Song of Songs. The lack of the letter ו in this and all other cases in the book (1:4, 4:10, 7:13) renders all of them ambiguous between "love" and "nipple."
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
add a comment |
The consonantal text, דדיך, can be read דַּדַּיִך, from דַּד "nipple" (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21). This was the reading used in translating דדיך as μαστοί σου.
The meaning "beloved" is consistently spelled דּוֹד in Song of Songs. The lack of the letter ו in this and all other cases in the book (1:4, 4:10, 7:13) renders all of them ambiguous between "love" and "nipple."
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
add a comment |
The consonantal text, דדיך, can be read דַּדַּיִך, from דַּד "nipple" (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21). This was the reading used in translating דדיך as μαστοί σου.
The meaning "beloved" is consistently spelled דּוֹד in Song of Songs. The lack of the letter ו in this and all other cases in the book (1:4, 4:10, 7:13) renders all of them ambiguous between "love" and "nipple."
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
The consonantal text, דדיך, can be read דַּדַּיִך, from דַּד "nipple" (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21). This was the reading used in translating דדיך as μαστοί σου.
The meaning "beloved" is consistently spelled דּוֹד in Song of Songs. The lack of the letter ו in this and all other cases in the book (1:4, 4:10, 7:13) renders all of them ambiguous between "love" and "nipple."
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
edited Dec 30 '18 at 16:27
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
answered Dec 30 '18 at 16:22
b ab a
1,7211321
1,7211321
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
add a comment |
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
3
3
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
And now I'm fascinated to learn how many other double entendres I'm missing in the Hebrew text.
– chrylis
Dec 30 '18 at 21:47
1
1
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
@chrylis The 'double meaning' of the whole of the Song of Solomon - the Song of Songs - is a matter of Christ and the church. Miss that, and one has missed everything.
– Nigel J
Dec 30 '18 at 23:03
1
1
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
Fascinating! So when it's spelled with a vav it's unambiguous, but when it's not it can be read either way?
– Pascal's Wager
Dec 31 '18 at 2:20
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
@Pascal'sWager With a vav (in singular or plural) it means "beloved," but not "love." Without a vav and in plural it can be either "love" or "nipples." This is just my observation from looking at a concordance for the entire book. It holds in some other places too, but elsewhere in the Bible, the homonym "uncle" is spelled inconsistently with/without vav
– b a
Dec 31 '18 at 9:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37954%2fwhy-does-the-lxx-translate-%25d7%2593%25d6%25b9%25d6%25bc%25d7%2593%25d6%25b6%25d6%2596%25d7%2599%25d7%259a%25d6%25b8-as-%25ce%25bc%25ce%25b1%25cf%2583%25cf%2584%25ce%25bf%25ce%25af-in-song-of-songs-12%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
