Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 68:1 (NA 2017)
Article: ‘We Really Should Stop Translating נִיר In Kings As “Light” Or “Lamp”’ A Response
Author: David B. Schreiner

---

TynBull 68:1 (2017) p. 31

‘We Really Should Stop Translating נִיר In Kings As “Light” Or “Lamp”’ A Response

David B. Schreiner

([email protected])

Summary

This essay responds to Deuk-il Shin’s recently published ‘The Translation of the Hebrew Term NĪR: “David’s Yoke”?’ I contend that Shin’s argument does not do enough to counteract Douglas Stuart’s call to stop translating נִיר in Kings as ‘light’ or ‘lamp’. Among other things, Shin does not consider important contributions to the discussion, which therefore renders his argumentation deficient. All things considered, Ehud Ben Zvi’s suggestion of territorial dominion is most appropriate.

1. Introduction

In a recent article,1 Deuk-il Shin questioned Douglas Stuart’s insistence that continuing the translation of נִיר in 1 and 2 Kings (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19) as ‘light’ or ‘lamp’ perpetuates a problem.2In his argument, Shin interacts heavily with Stuart’s inspiration, a 1968 article by Paul Hanson, which argued that נִיר in Kings should be rendered ‘dominion’, based on a metaphorical understanding of the Akkadian nīru, ‘yoke’.3 Ultimately, Shin concludes that Hanson and,

TynBull 68:1 (2017) p. 32

by implication, Stuart are in error. Instead, Shin advocates that נִיר in Kings should continue to be rendered as ‘light’ or ‘lamp’.

This brief essay is a response to Shin. While some of his criticisms of Hanson are noteworthy, the overall presentation is incomplete, particularly since it failed to consider other important publications. I argue that the translation the נִיר passages in Kings as ‘light’ or ‘lamp’ is improper. Instead, rendering נִיר as ‘territorial dominion’ is preferred.

2. Shin’s Argument

Shin opens his discussion with a look at the original sources – three texts from the Amarna archives. Similarly to Hanson, Shin notes the relationship between the words nīru and ḫullu, but he ponders the appropriateness of Hanson’s conclusions. Shin questions whether nīru

visitor : : uid: ()