NWT Oddities

by snowbird 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mebaqqer2

  Leolaia, Here are just a few examples of the infinitive absolute with another verb of the same root:

  mot tamot (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) – “you will surely die”
  Gen. 2:17; 20:7; 1 Sam. 14:44; 22:16; 1 Ki. 2:37, 42; 2 Ki. 1:4, 6, 16; Jer. 26:8; Ezek. 3:18; 33:8, 14

  shob ‘ashub (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 1cs) – “I will surely return”
  Gen. 18:10 (NWT: I am surely going to return)

  barek ‘abarekcha (piel infinitive absolute + piel imperfect 1cs w/2ms suffix) – “I will surely bless you”
  Gen 22:17 (NWT: I shall surely bless you)

  harbah ‘arbeh (hiphil infinitive absolute + hiphil imperfect 1cs) – “I will surely multiply”
  Gen. 3:16 (NWT: I shall greatly increase); 16:10 (NWT: I shall greatly multiply); 22:17 (NWT: I shall surely multiply)

  There are many more examples, however, the above examples should adequately show that the New World Translation understands quite well the use of the infinitive absolute with another verb of the same root.

  Examples of the use of the perfect with waw-consecutive (6,138) is not nearly as numerous as the imperfect with waw-consecutive (15,033). In a search for other examples of the perfect with waw-consecutive used in conjunction with an infinitive absolute other than Daniel 11:10, I have found nothing that is conclusive. For example:

  One who strikes a man so that he actually dies is to be put to death without fail. (wamet mot yumat)
  -Exodus 21:12 (NWT)

  Here the perfect with waw-consecutive (wamet) occurs in a passage with an infinitive absolute (mot). However, the infinitive absolute here is working in conjunction with the hophal imperfect 3ms (yumat) that follows it rather than the waw-consecutive perfect. This is proved by numerous passages where the phrase mot yumot occurs. (Gen. 26:11; Exod. 19:12; 21:12, 15ff; 22:18; 31:14f; Lev. 20:2, 9f, 15; 24:16f; 27:29; Num. 15:35; 35:16ff, 21, 31; Jdg. 21:5; Ezek. 18:13) Thus, this passage should be translated something like “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies, he must be put to death.

  The New World Translation translators similarly connected the infinitive absolute with the hophal imperfect to make “is to be put to death without fail.” This is yet another example that shows the New World Translation understands how this construction is used. Why then does it translate wamet as “so that he actually dies”? This is no doubt due to the understanding of the perfect with waw-consecutive as a perfect in a context that is future. As explained in my previous post, the New World Translation ignores the waw-consecutive and takes the use of the perfects in future contexts to show “future certainty” thus yielding the translation “so that he actually dies” here. This example, then, is not parallel with Daniel 11:10. Another example is Joel 2:26:

  And YOU will certainly eat, eating and becoming satisfied…(wa‘akaltem ‘akol)
  -Joel 2:26 (NWT)

  The sense of this passage seems to be “And you shall surely eat and be satisfied…” with the infinitive absolute (‘akol) working in conjuction with the waw-consecutive perfect (wa’akaltem). The New World Translation, however, connects ‘akol with the infinitive absolute that follows (wesaboa’). Then, once again ignoring the waw-consecutive, renders the perfect as showing “future certainty” giving the translation “and YOU will certainly eat.”

  Thus, Daniel 11:10 seems to be the only example I can find with an infinitive absolute used in conjunction with a perfect with waw-consecutive. But the main point is not the waw-consecutive. If one were to find a perfect, even without being waw-consecutive, that is used in a future context with the infinitive absolute, they might be able to find an analogous example with Daniel 11:10. I am not sure if one would find such examples however.

  Mebaqqer
• 

  Narkissos

  Characteristically, the NWT systematic rendering of the infinitive absolute as intensive ("surely" etc.) ignores (1) the stylisticdimension of the Hebrew construction (as shown by its concentration on specific verbs and in specific contexts) and (2) the variety of nuances its residual semantic force can carry (besides emphatic, adversative or concessive, for instance). Cf. Joüon § 123, note the remark in 123d (my translation):

  Frequently enough, the nuance added by the inf. is too subtle to be rendered without exaggeration in a literary translation. In the grammatical translation of the following examples we sometimes had to overload the nuance to make it perceptible.
  
  The nuance added by the infinitive may only be gathered, in any case, from the context. Most often the emphasis doesn't apply to the verbal action itself, but to one modality which is thereby strengthened. For instance, in an affirmative sentence the affirmation becomes stronger; reversely, in an interrogative or conditional sentence, the dubitative modality becomes stronger; Consequently, the same phrase may, according to the context, express the nuance certainly or the opposite nuance perhaps. The same is true of the opposite modalities can or must.

  When the stereotyped overtranslation of the infinitive absolute as emphatic of certainty meets the arbitrary rendering of the consecutive future perfect as equally emphatic of certainty, a clash is bound to happen, resulting in formal inconsistency, as mebaqqer pointed out. But the underlying semantic analysis is flawed on both sides imo.
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  I agree that the infinitive absolute when used in conjunction with a verb of the same root does have other uses besides. In line with Joüon-Muraoka, (your reading it in French, thus just Joüon for you ), Waltke and O'Connor's An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax states:

  Because in this use the infinitive absolute shares the verbal root and (usually) stem of the accompanying finite verb, the use is said to be paronomastic, that is, based in word play, or to exhibit the schema etymologicum. By bracketing the paronomastic infinitive with the verb, the verbal idea is intensified. The effect of the infinitive refers to the entire clause, whence comes the term absolute complement. When the verb makes an assertion, whatever its aspect, the notion of certainty is reinforced by the infinitive (e.g., with affirmation, contrast, concession, or climax). By contrast, if the verb in context is irreal, the sense of irreality (e.g., dubiety, supposition, modality, or volition) becomes more forceful. Both verbal conjugations may express either assertion or irreality. Usually the intensifying infinitive with the perfective conjugation forcefully presents the certainty of a completed event…With the non-perfective conjugation the infinitive absolute often emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place. Since the non-perfective is used for irreality and volition, the infinitive absolute can intensify the sense of irreality in connection with that conjugation. There is, however, no precise match between the infinitive's force and the finite verb's conjugation. Both conjugations may represent a situation as real or irreal and therefore the infinitive may emphasize either sense with either conjugation.
  -Waltke and O'Connor, §35.3.1b [p. 584]

  Thus there are two basic categories: assertion and irreality. One example of the infinitive absolute used in an irreal context found in Waltke and O'Connor is Genesis 37:8. Note how the New World Translation handles the passage:

  And his brothers began to say to him: "Are you going to be king over us for certain? or, Are you going to dominate over us for certain?" So they found fresh reason to hate him over his dreams and over his words.
  -Genesis 37:8

  Here both hamalok timlok (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) and mashol timshol (qal infinitive absolute + qal imperfect 2ms) are translated "Are you going to be king…for certain?" and "Are you going to dominate…for certain?" respectively. This rendering puts more of the focus on certainty of "being king" or "dominating." In this context, however, a translation such as "Will you actually reign/rule…" would have been better to show the "doubt or the improbability of an affirmative answer," as Waltke and O'Connor put it, because the emphasis is not on the act of "reigning/ruling" but on the doubt of of the speaker. Thus your statement that "[T]he NWT systematic rendering of the infinitive absolute as intensive (‘surely’ etc.) ignores…the variety of nuances its residual semantic force can carry (besides emphatic, adversative or concessive, for instance)" is surely warranted.

  The context of Daniel 11:10, however, favors the understanding of "and he will surely come" because here "the verb makes an assertion" so "the notion of certainty is reinforced by the infinitive (e.g., with affirmation, contrast, concession, or climax)." The only idea here that works is affirmation. But as already mentioned, The New World Translation's denial of the waw-consecutive coupled with their understanding of the perfect in future contexts means that they have to assign a notion of certainty apart from the notion of certainty found in the infinitive absolute. Using the translator's own logic, it should read something like "and he will absolutely, positively come without fail" to express this excessive emphasis on certainty. But we can all see that this doesn't work. Thus I would agree that the the New World Translation's handling of the prefix conjugation (with waw-consective) is flawed as well. Verses like Daniel 11:10 demonstrate why.

  Mebaqqer
• 

  Narkissos

  mebaqqer:

  There are many cases where neither assertion nor irreality is carried by the inf. abs., and this is sometimes (inconsistently) reflected even in the NWT.

  For instance, in oppositions (whether adversative or concessive):

  Judges 15:13 NWT! "No, but we shall merely tie you".

  2 Samuel 17:16 "Do not lodge tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but cross over..." (which the NWT renders as "Do not lodge in the desert plains of the wilderness tonight, but you also ought to cross over without fail.")

  Cf. Joüon §123i, "Une opposition quelconque étant suffisante pour motiver un inf. abs., il n'y a pas lieu de chercher, en plus, une autre nuance." (Any kind of opposition being sufficient to warrant an inf. abs., one doesn't need to look for an additional nuance.)

  Another interesting case is authorisation:

  Genesis 2:16 "You may eat of every tree in the garden," NWT "eat... to satisfaction" (semantically viable, but most likely an overtranslation).

  Deuteronomy 17:15 "you may set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose," plainly mistranslated by the NWT as "you should without fail set over yourself a king whom Jehovah your God will choose".

  As regards Daniel 11:10,13, it is questionable whether any semantic nuance is meant. Joüon 123l, 3°, mentions a possible nuance of duration but considers it "très douteuse" (very dubious).
• 

  Mebaqqer2

  Narkissos:

  At the outset I should say that I never doubted that the infinitive absolute has a variety of uses, or that these various nuances are poorly/incorrectly understood at times in the New World Translation. It was in the interest of brevity that I did not discuss all the possible nuances that may be found in the use of the infinitive absolute. I merely wished to discuss those instances which were analogous with Daniel 11:10 in terms of syntax. Unfortunately, I do not have access to Joüon(-Muraoka) to read all he has to say regarding the infinitive absolute. Nevertheless, I will use what I do have, Waltke and O'Connor, and try to review what you wrote:

  There are many cases where neither assertion nor irreality is carried by the inf. abs., and this is sometimes (inconsistently) reflected even in the NWT.
  For instance, in oppositions (whether adversative or concessive):
  Judges 15:13 NWT! "No, but we shall merely tie you".

  This example is mentioned in Waltke and O'Connor. Note what they say:

  Affirmation is the most straightforward role for an infinitive absolute…The affirmation may form a strong contrast to what precedes [2 Sam. 24:24; Num. 23:1] or follows [Isa. 6:9], or infinitives may be used in both members of a pair [Judg. 15:13].
  -Waltke and O'Connor, §35.3.1f [p. 585, 586] Bold mine

  Thus for Waltke and O'Connor, this contrastive usage for the infinitive absolute falls under the category of affirmation which in turn is a sub-category of assertion. (see previous post)

  This does not mean, however, that ‘asor ne’esarcha…wehamet…nemitecha , should be translated in such a way that the verbal idea is intensified like the New World Translation which has "we shall merely tie you…but we shall by no means put you to death." This is evident in Waltke and O'Connor's own translation:

  "We will only tie you up ... ; we will not kill you."

  The New World Translation translator(s) probably thought that since such contrastive uses of infinitive absolute occurs at times without paired infinitives, they were justified in intensifying the verbal idea in the second infinitive absolute. However, unlike the New World Translation which overtranslates by putting emphasis on the verbal idea in the second instance of the infinitive absolute as well, Waltke and O'Connor show that the emphasis is in the contrast itself (i.e. a strong contrast), not the verbal idea.

  2 Samuel 17:16 "Do not lodge tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but cross over..." (which the NWT renders as "Do not lodge in the desert plains of the wilderness tonight, but you also ought to cross over without fail.")

  The pertinent phrase here is ‘abor ta’abor, which once again occurs in a contrast. The New World Translation most certainly is overtranslated here. The reasoning behind this passage may have been as follows: "you also ought to" here is probably linked, not to the infinitive, but to the particle gam which they took as intensive here (probably should not be translated at all). The infinitive, then, is to be connected to "without fail." Following the view above from Waltke and O'Connor, here we should expect a strong contrast by the use of the infinitive. Note that the RSV, ESV here also attempt to bring out the emphasis of the infinitive with "but by all means pass over." JPS85 also tries to bring out this force: "but cross over at once."

  Cf. Joüon §123i, "Une opposition quelconque étant suffisante pour motiver un inf. abs., il n'y a pas lieu de chercher, en plus, une autre nuance." (Any kind of opposition being sufficient to warrant an inf. abs., one doesn't need to look for an additional nuance.)

  I would be curious to know if Joüon means that there is no emphasis at all because of the oppositional use, or if that since the opposition is itself intensified (strong emphasis), that one should not try to add additional emphatic nuances to the verbal idea. I mean, one doesn't need to use the infinitive absolute to make a contrast. (e.g. There was famine in all lands, but throughout the land of Egypt there was bread. -Gen 41:54) So wouldn't the use of the infinitive absolute add something to the opposition being made? Perhaps I am missing something.

  Another interesting case is authorisation:
  Genesis 2:16 "You may eat of every tree in the garden," NWT "eat... to satisfaction" (semantically viable, but most likely an overtranslation).
  Deuteronomy 17:15 "you may set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose," plainly mistranslated by the NWT as "you should without fail set over yourself a king whom Jehovah your God will choose".

  Concerning the use of infinitive absolutes in this way, Waltke and O'Connor says:

  The intensifying effect of the infinitive absolute is found in a variety of non-affirming (i.e. irreal) contexts. In impassioned questions the prepositive infinitive shows doubt or the improbability of an affirmative answer [Gen 37:8; 2Sam 19:43; Isa 50:2]. A preposed infinitive may also be used in a conditional clause [Num 12:14; 1Kgs 30:39; 1Sam 20:21] or a counterfactual expression ('O that ... , if only ... '; 1Sam 14:30; Job 6;2). Various modal nuances are also associated with preposed infinitives absolute [Gen 43:7; Job 13:5].
  -Waltke and O'Connor, 35.3.1g [p. 587]

  What you concretely term "authorization" falls under the rather vague "various modal nuances" in Waltke and O'Connor. This category itself falls under the irreal category in Waltke and O'Connor. The passages you cited fit this category and indeed rendering with modal value (here, may) is the best way to translate. Notice too that the New World Translation has a double reading in Deuteronomy 17:15 by translating modally -should- and emphatically -without fail- It is, as you say, "plainly mistranslated." I will have to look into this usage of the infinitive absolute a bit more.

  As regards Daniel 11:10,13, it is questionable whether any semantic nuance is meant. Joüon 123l, 3°, mentions a possible nuance of duration but considers it "très douteuse" (very dubious).

  I, however, do see emphasis here mainly because it does not fall into any of the categories that shift the focus away from the verbal idea. We do not have here an opposition or authorization. Daniel 11:10, 13 are simple, affirmative contexts so I take the infinitive absolute here as one of emphasis. Perhaps the best commentary available on Daniel, John J. Collins' Daniel: a commentary on the book of Daniel from the Hermeneia series (just my opinion?), agrees with this understanding with its translation "he will surely come" (10) and "he will surely come" (13).

  In the end what is important is that when we approach the text, we come to it with the possible ways the grammar can be understood and try to narrow those possibilies down based on the context, etc. I am sure you would not view my understanding of the infinitive absolute in Daniel 11:10, 13 as outside that realm of possibilites. Further, I think that we can both agree that a rendering such as "And in coming he will certainly come" shows definite problems in the New World Translation's ability to formulate realistic possibilities to reach that realm.

  Mebaqqer