Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: LXX

  • Psalm 119:58 – Favor

    Psalm 119:58 – Favor

    I seek your face with all my heart.
    Show me favor according to your word.

    A friend commenting on Facebook mentioned ancient translations, so I thought I’d mention a few of these over the next few days just to give a flavor. If you’re not that interested in this kind of detail, skip the section between the divider lines.

    I looked at the Septuagint (LXX), the Vulgate, and the Peshitta (Syriac). In the LXX, the Psalms were likely translated in the 1st century BCE, while the Peshitta for the OT is 2nd century CE, and the Vulgate 5th century CE. All these dates should be regarded as tentative and approximate. How’s that for a line … tentative approximations.

    In this passage, the differences seem to me to be in the emotional sense. The Hebrew text suggests wearying oneself to illness through seeking God’s face, with the request for God’s favor. The relationship between the two lines is not marked in the text. This is common in poetry. It is not necessary to assume, as some do, that the implication is that God should give favor because of the extreme nature of seeking.

    As I read the LXX, while seeking is still “with the whole heart,” I don’t see quite the same emphasis as in Hebrew. “Give me mercy,” or “have mercy on me” has a semantic range close to that of “show me favor” as in Hebrew. The Syriac uses a word that emphasizes to me the force of the search, rather than a result, while asking for pity in the second half. (I would note that my Syriac reading is slow and rusty, and I don’t trust my own sense; this seems to be in accord with the lexical aids I’m using.) The Latin follows the Greek of the LXX here closely.

    While there are different nuances, these are not serious difficulties. What should be noted, in my view, is the similarity. We’ll observe if that continues in the next few verses.

    Alden Thompson, one of my undergraduate professors, from whom I took 2nd and 3rd year biblical Hebrew, titled a chapter in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? “What kind of prayers would you publish if you were God?”

    Answering that question can help us understand how to read the Psalms. In addition, we might ask what kind of hymns, laments, and so forth. The Psalms have people talking to God in various ways.

    I spent a good deal of time today thinking about just how the two lines of this verse relate. How vigorously do I have to pray to God in order for God to keep a promise God has already given?

    If I pray more, will God do more? It seems to me that many of us operate on this basis. The more people are praying and the more time they are spending in prayer, the more likely it is that God will act. In this model of prayer, God is reluctant to be faithful, but if we are adequately persuasive, action will result.

    So am I advocating less time spent in prayer by less people?

    As Paul might say, “Let it not be!”

    What I am saying is that I think we need to detach our prayer performance from God’s promise keeping. It’s not our diligence in anything that makes God gracious. Unfortunately, we tend to go to the corollary, which we assume to be that if our performance isn’t going to make God do things, we needn’t bother with it at all.

    This brings me to the purpose of prayer. It’s a conversation. It’s two way. There’s a need to hear from God and to open oneself to the favor God bestows. I frequently see the saying on signs: “Prayer changes things.” We should first improve it to “God changes things.” But even more importantly, “Prayer changes me/us.”

    I don’t deny that the Bible indicates that God has chosen to respond to prayer. God has also chosen to use human agents to accomplish much of God’s work on earth. I don’t know what the relationship between the two things actually is. I’ve simply observed that prayer is a time when God works on me.

    What do you need God to change in you?

  • A Problem in Translation: Isaiah 3:12

    A Problem in Translation: Isaiah 3:12

    In a post on Facebook by Bob Edwards, I encountered an interesting case that illustrates some of the issues Bible translators face in choosing what precisely out of the meaning of a passage to translate and how to accomplish that. My point here is not to critique the critique of the ESV, but rather to look at this particular passage and how it highlights issues faced by translators.

    Biases Up Front

    First, my own biases, especially as they relate to this passage:

    1. I’m egalitarian in that I believe all people, irrespective of gender, should not just be allowed, but should be encouraged to serve in whatever capacity they are gifted for. In case anyone is in doubt, I do mean leadership roles, including pastor, bishop, or whatever title a position is given.
    2. I believe that the Bible conveys to us a message that is inspired by God.
    3. I believe the message is related through the experience and in the cultural matrix of those who receive the message. Thus to get God’s will for my own life, I need to hear God’s message in my cultural matrix. This message may call, and indeed I think it does call for a disruption of the prevailing culture.

    The Passage

    I’m going to ignore further heremeneutical points in how I develop #3 in order to address the issues of this particular passage.

    As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

    Isaiah 3:12a (KJV, emphasis mine)

    The key word is “women,” which is translated in this way by a large number of Bible versions. The NRSVue changed the word to “creditors,” but prior editions also read women. Versions that do not read women include the NET and the CEB.

    So what is going on here? What leads to a particular translation of this word?

    The Text

    Well, the technical issues are rather straightforward, but one’s views on textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible will have some impact. The dominant position among translators has been to give priority to the Masoretic text (MT). There are some who argue for a higher priority on the LXX (Septuagint) and versions translated from it, such as the Syriac.

    In this case, the MT clearly reads “women.” The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation (which I read from their excellent Jewish Study Bible edition), reads women in the text, with a footnote indicating that an emendation would produce “boys.” An emendation is a correction of the text based on internal factors, i.e., without full support of any manuscript. It’s a sort of proofreading of the text looking for things that a clearly copyist’s errors. In this case, the JPS translators did not think the emendation was well supported enough to be in the text, but thought it was worthwhile to let the reader know that there were alternatives.

    The variant translations in other English translations, however, are based on the LXX, which results in “oppressors” and “creditors,” with “creditors” replacing “women.”

    Those are some nice options. I like them. I much prefer them to “women” in the text.

    But what I like doesn’t settle a textual issue. Most of the translators are giving priority to the MT, and likely doing so because they consider that the most probable original reading. One can debate whether they are right, but what one believes about the rights and value of women should not be a basis for deciding on the text.

    I am absolutely not accusing those who have chosen a different reading to translate of allowing their biases to determine the translation. The LXX can reflect an earlier Hebrew reading, lost in the Hebrew manuscript tradition. It would take too long to go into details here. I’m looking at the choices translators made.

    First the Text, then the Translation Thereof!

    The first choice, then, is the text to translate. In this case, you have at least two options, along with some possible emendation of the text. (Note that one possible justification for a conjectural emendation is that there are multiple readings and these multiple readings may have grown from a difficult original which has been lost.)

    For those translators who chose to use the LXX text, conveying the meaning of the chosen text is fairly straightforward. There may be multiple views on what having creditors rule over you means, but it’s fairly easy to translate.

    But what if you believe the text says that “women rule over you” as part of a litany of the problems of God’s people?

    Clearly, most translators have chosen to just go with the word and perhaps provide a footnote. I’m not going to review interpretive notes in various editions, but they doubtless have some explanations for what they believe the passage means.

    Let me give just two options to illustrate the issue:

    1. A literal translation that may be misunderstood in a 21st century context
    2. A figurative translation that obscures the culture of the time in which the passage was first spoken/written

    If we go with #1, we convey accurately (assuming we made the right textual choice) the words that were spoken, but what happens in interpretation? It looks clear to me that this passage is not addressing women in leadership positions directly. Rather, it assumes that the audience will find being led by women to be objectionable, and thus uses this to convey the sad state of the country.

    My problem with this would be that we convey the source culture into the modern context without giving the reader adequate help in understanding the metaphor.

    If we go with #2, we then convey the way in which we understand the passage, but we obscure the original cultural context, and deny readers the opportunity to hear the Spirit speaking through the text in its original context.

    Adding a footnote is good and constructive with either option, indicating what one has done. Unfortunately, footnotes are much more often ignored than read.

    Conclusion

    Either option has the potential to lose some of the meaning. Depending on your primary concerns with the text, you will likely prefer one or the other, possibly vehemently. The difference, however, is in what the translator is most anxious to convey in translation.

    Here’s The Message for reference: “Skinny kids terrorize my people. Silly girls bully them around. My dear people! Your leaders are taking you down a blind alley. They’re sending you off on a wild-goose chase.”

    Ummm.

    Something is always lost in translation. The question is, what?

  • Translating Psalm 40:7-8

    Aside from numbering problems, Psalm 40:7-8 appears to be quite straightforward on first reading in Hebrew (where it is verse 8-9). The numbering problems include chapter numbering (39 in the LXX), and verse numbering (8-9 in Hebrew, 7-8 in English). Of course, we all know that verse numbering is not inspired; it is often positively uninspiring.

    The reason I wanted to bring it up, however, is to show how our approaches to interpretation might change what we see as a translation problem. Few of the English versions I consulted see any obscurity in this passage at all. The NRSV translates it thus:

    7Then I said, “Here I am;
    in the scroll of the book it is written of me.
    8I delight to do your will, O my God;
    your law is within my heart.”

    There is a footnote that tells us, “Meaning of Heb uncertain” but does not provide any alternatives or any discussion. A number of English versions, including the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=REB”>REB and the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NLT”>NLT mention no difficulty at all. The http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NASB”>NASB provides the note “Or, prescribed for,” with is actually quite helpful. Yet in general if you read this book from the various English versions done mostly by Christian translators, you won’t get a sense that there is any translation issue here. Even the LXX translates it pretty much the same way.

    This is one reason I enjoy reading both the New JPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible. First, they provided a clearly marked footnote on this, and then the notes provide a good explanation of the issue.

    7Then I said,
    b- “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me.” -b
    8To do what pleases You, my God, is my desire;
    Your teaching is in my inmost parts.

    Note b reads: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” The notes however tell us that the NJPS translation is interpreting this as “the psalmist’s hymn or a record of his experience.” Alternatives include the Torah (which fits with verse 9 in Hebrew very well), or the book of life, in which case the psalmist is thankful that his name is written there.

    I think the problem here is not major issues such as whether there is some sort of Messianic prophecy or not. Rather, we’re used to hearing this more frequently from the quotation in Hebrews 10:5-7, which has its own variations. The quote begins with verse 6, for one thing, in which we have the word “body” (as in the best mss of the LXX) rather than “ears” as we have in the Hebrew (and some mss of the LXX). Nonetheless, in general the text doesn’t have to be specifically Messianic to be used by Jesus. At the same time its common use in quotation may blind us (or might I say blinded me?) to the alternative understandings.

    The use in Hebrews 10 suggests that the writing is about the person speaking. Thus Jesus is saying that it is written of him in the Tanakh. Yet we have seen three alternatives. It might be something written by the speaker about himself. It could be the instructions of the Torah itself, connected to his expressed desire to do God’s will (v. 8), or even yet the book of life. I do see this last as the least likely in connection with the theme of the Psalm.

    It is such little things that make me really enjoy reading both the NJPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible.