A look at Robert Alter’s translation: The Hebrew Bible

by Wonderment 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Wonderment, I remember a non-Christian Jew at a congregation of Humanistic Judaism telling me that biblical Hebrew is a story language (a language well suited for telling stories?). Today I searched for information about it being a picturesque language and I thus found the web page mentioned at https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/philosophy-of-the-hebrew-language.htm . It is quite interesting, but the ancient Hebrew way of thinking of matters is very strange to me (a Western style thinker, instead of an Eastern style thinker). I wonder though if the article has some inaccurate interpretations.
  
  Wonderment, when I read certain passages of the OT, especially when I compare Jewish translations of certain passages with Christian translations of the same passages I get the impression that the biblical Hebrew language is less precise and more ambiguous than Greek and English. I also get the idea biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means "of" and the meaning has to be inferred by the context. Are these impressions of mine correct?

  For example the phrase "Yeshua ben Yoseph" literally says "Yeshua son Yoseph" but is understood to mean "Yeshua son of Yoseph" ("Jesus son of Joseph"). Right?

  For another example, consider translations of the latter part of Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in a number of Jewish translations and in a number of Hebrew texts). In the Jewish translation by Isaac Leeser it (at 9:5) says "... and his name is called, Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace". In the 1917 translation of the Jewish Public Publication Society it (at 9:5) says "... And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom". That translation has the translators' note of "That is, Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace." The meanings of these two translations are very different for the first one says he is named counselor of the mighty God whereas the other says his name (the meaning of his name) merely proclaims that God the Mighty is wonderful in counsel.

  The 1939 Christian translation by Goodspeed and Smith called The Complete Bible: An American Translation translates the passages in a similar way as the above mentioned Jewish translations. It translates the passages as '... And his name will be called "Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace." '
  

  The 1992 Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha translates the passage (in 9:5) as "... and his title will be: Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.".

  The Catholic 1991 New American Bible (NAB) translates the passage as "... They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace." The translators annotation/commentary of that Catholic Bible says the following.: "God-Hero: a warrior and a defender of his people, like God himself. Father-Forever: ever devoted to his people." Notice that regarding "God Hero" it says "like God himself" instead saying he "is God".

  The 1901 ASV Bible translates the passage as "... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." The translators' note says "Or, Wonderful counsellor" (in regards to "Wonderful, Counsellor") and "Heb. Father of Eternity" (in regards to "Everlasting Father"). A number of other Christian translations of the Bible have a very similar wording of that passage.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  A moment ago I noticed that careful four years mentioned about the JB and possibly the NJB using a raised dot. I wish I had noticed that earlier, since that I would not have bothered to make my post about that feature, and thus would have saved some time.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I consider the 1953 NWT translation of Judges 14:3 as “Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes" as OK (though awkward) considering the awkward word order (for English) I often see in the KJV, RV, and ASV Bibles, in their literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek sentence structures. When I see "“Her get for me" I think of "Her, get for me" or "Her! Get for me" (as an emphatic statement) with the idea of Samson pointing to the woman when he says "Her". I thus agree with Wonderment's explanation of why the 1953 NWT in verse 3 said "Her get for me" and the suitableness of that wording.
  

  Isaac Leeser's Bible says "This one take for me". Notice that the same NWT edition in verse 2 says "... and now get her for me as a wife." The possibility of saying "Get her for me" in verse 3 thus possibly occurred to the translators of the 1953 NWT but they specifically chose to say "Her get for me" for some reason". Perhaps was to avoid infringing on the copyright of the 1917 JPS translation of the Bible. That Bible in verse 3 does say "Get her for me" and in verse 2 it says "now therefore get her for me to wife."
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I am really hoping that Wonderment will answer my question about biblical Hebrew. That is because I think Wonderment (who get the impression is Jewish culturally) knows how to read biblical Hebrew, and I really want an answer from a Jewish person who knows how to read it.
  
• 

  Wonderment

  Disilllusioned JW:

  I just noticed your message, since I usually don't check on this forum daily.
  

  First of all, I should mention I have no Jewish background (per your suggestion), so I cannot offer you the Hebrew expertise or perspective you may be seeking from a Jewish national.
  
  That said, I will briefly answer one of your questions.
  
  

  "...when I read certain passages of the OT, especially when I compare Jewish translations of certain passages with Christian translations of the same passages I get the impression that the biblical Hebrew language is less precise and more ambiguous than Greek and English."
  

  "I also get the idea biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means 'of' and the meaning has to be inferred by the context. Are these impressions of mine correct?"
  

  Your assumption on the first statement sounds correct.

  
  On the second one, you are right in concluding that biblical Hebrew does not have a word which means "of." Besides the usual consideration of context in any given narrative, it is also advantageous to consider the grammatical angle when there is a possessive relationship expressed between two or more nouns.
  
  I have seen a number of lists of Hebrew prepositions from various sources, and the "of" is absent among them. In contrast, Modern Hebrew does have "shel" used as an equivalent for "of," but biblical Hebrew does not."
  
  In the literal Hebrew statement (king the land), the construct chain is formed by linking two nouns, that is, the first noun "king" is called the "construct noun" and the second noun (the land) is called the "absolute noun." We thus read this as definite, by the presence of the article in the absolute: "(the) king of the land." Alternatively, these are often called the construct state and the absolute state. It should be stated that they can be indefinite if the context and a grammatical indicator dictates so.
  
  This is how Hebrew expresses the “of” (possessive) relationship between two nouns. The example you provided illustrates this as well. This may remind us of the Greek genitive construction too.
  
  Hopefully, I will address the other questions on Is 9.6 and Jg 14.3 soon.
  
  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Thanks Wonderment! After I had posted my question to you I asked an ethnically Jewish person of the Jewish religion who reads some of the Scriptures in Hebrew (and even now from an unpointed text) as well as in English, if the biblical Hebrew language has a word meaning "of". One thing she said is that it has the word "shel" but based upon your answer to me I now know she was incorrect to say the biblical Hebrew has that word, though modern Hebrew has it.
  
• 

  Wonderment

  Disillusioned JW:

  First, I will present a brief variety of versions of the Isaiah 9:6 expression of "Wonderful Counselor" (NWT 1984, "And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Bold letters are mine):

  Byington: "and he is named Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace,"

  LXX, “The Angel of Grand Counsel”

  Syriac Peshitta, “Wonder and Counselor.”

  The Chaldee, "The God of wonderful counsel"

  JPS, 1917: And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom".

  Tanakh (v5, 1988): "He has been named 'The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal

  Father, a peaceable ruler'--"

  On Isaiah 9.6, scholars are not in agreement on the number of names/titles assigned to the born child in question, in particular, where the first title is involved: the Wonderful-Counselor one - it showing the greatest divergency.

  Some believe that 4 names or titles should comprise the description of "the child," not five (Wonderful Counserlor as one title, not two). Here is a sample:

  The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition, Barker & Kohlenberger III): "The KJV has a comma after 'Wonderful,' but it seems likely that the prophet intends us to understand that the child has four names, not five."

  The Believer's Study Bible: "'Wonderful, Counselor' is actually one name instead of two."

  A sample of those who think we should have 5 names in Is 9.6:

  Pulpit Commentary: "Wonderful, Counselor. It has been proposed to unite these two expressions and translate, "Wondrous Counselor" (compare "wonderful in counsel," Isaiah 28:29). But Dr. Kay is probably right in saying that, if this had been the meaning, it would have been expressed differently. Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, and Vance Smith agree with Dr. Kay in taking the words separately."

  TCBL: "The names given indicate his essential characteristics. 'Wonderful' and 'Counselor' are not joined by ancient Hebrew scholars."

  Why the divergency?

  The next two reference works explain it very well:

  Cambridge Bible: "Wonderful, Counseller] Since each of the other names is compounded of two words, these expressions are also to be taken together as forming a single designation—Wonder-Counseller. The construction is either construct followed by genitive—“a wonder of a Counseller” (cf. Genesis 16:12), or acc. governed by participle—“one who counsels wonderful things.” Cf. “wonderful in counsel” (of Jehovah) in ch. Isaiah 28:29. On counsel as the function of a king, see Micah 4:9."

  NET Bible: Or “Extraordinary Strategist,” “a wonder of a counselor,” or “one who plans a miraculous thing” (HALOT 928 s.v. פֶּלֶא). Some have seen two titles here (“Wonderful” and “Counselor,” cf. KJV, ASV). However, the pattern of the following three titles (each contains two elements) and the use of the roots פָּלַא (palaʾ) and יָעַץ (yaʿats) together in Isa 25:1 (cf. כִּי עָשִׂיתָ פֶּלֶא עֵצוֹת מֵרָחוֹק אֱמוּנָה אֹמֶן) and 28:29 (cf. הִפְלִיא עֵצָה) suggest otherwise. The term יוֹעֵץ (yoʿets) could be taken as appositional (genitive or otherwise) of species (“a wonder, i.e., a wonder as a counselor,” cf. NAB “Wonder-Counselor”) or as a substantival participle for which פָּלַא provides the direct object (“one who counsels wonders”). יוֹעֵץ is used as a royal title elsewhere (cf. Mic 4:9). Here it probably refers to the king’s ability to devise military strategy, as suggested by the context (cf. vv. 3-4 and the following title אֵל גִּבּוֹר, ʾel gibbor)."

  On Judges 14:2,3, you compared the reading of Isaac Leeser's Translation of these two verses with those of the NWT.

  Leeser: [v.2] And he went up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnathah of the daughters of the Philistines; and now take her to me for wife.

  p, li { white-space: pre-wrap[v.3] Then said unto him his father and his mother, Is there not among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, a woman, that thou art going to take a wife from the Philistines, the uncircumcised? And Samson said unto his father, This one take for me; for she pleaseth me well.

  NWT 1984: " [v.2] So he went up and told his father and his mother and said: “There is a woman that I have seen in Timʹnah of the daughters of the Phi·lisʹtines, and now get her for me as a wife.” [v.3] But his father and his mother said to him: “Is there not among the daughters of your brothers and among all my people a woman, so that you are going to take a wife from the uncircumcised Phi·lisʹtines?” Still Samson said to his father: “Get just her for me [1953 ed., Her get for me], because she is the one just right in my eyes.”

  NWT 2013 (final part of v.3): But Samson said to his father: “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.”

  I don't think 'infringement of a copyright' applies here, since it is common practice for translators to duplicate or rehash phrasing from previous translations. There is, however, sufficient grounds at times for a translator to come up with an alternate reading to fit prose, context or grammar requirements.

  For instance, in verse two, in the Hebrew, a conjunctive waw/adverb (and now) and a verb (get) precede the direct object marker (her), whereas in verse 3, the direct object "her" is before the verb. Doing so in the later (v.3) is surely more emphatic than the previous wording in v. 2. Also, the Hebrew word for "she" needs more decided stress in the reading. Of course, this is not readily observable in traditional versions when they read: "Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well." (KJV)

  Now, let's place the NWT 1953 version in contrast with the KJV: "Her get for me, because she is the one just right in my eyes." "Her" is placed first in the declaration, thus being made prominent. Samson didn't want another woman from among 'their people' as his parents had requested. In Samson's eyes, it had to be "her." She must have been a very beautiful or delightful woman! And the "she" in the second phrase is given its rightful stress...she is the one.
  

  The translator was obviously aware of this construction. This may explain why Robert Alter in his translation did the same thing in the first part of the declaration, but failed to do so on the later. As to why Leeser translated, "This one take for me," I'm not sure, but he may have noted the presence in v. 3 of the imperative verb "get" in the masculine singular in the Hebrew - in combination with the "her" in the feminine singular. (There is no neuter gender in Hebrew. Inanimate things and abstract ideas are either masculine or feminine.) Or Leeser perhaps felt that having "this one" in the narrative is more emphatic than just saying "her." I am inclined to think that this last account is the more plausible one.

  I hope you may find this information helpful to you.