Essays on Biblical Method and Translation

AND

AND

ESSAYS ON BIBLICAL METHOD AND TRANSLATION

1989

Brown

All form or

may be eXl:)resisly permit;ted Judai.c QI"IJIU1\;:'l:',

or retrieval system, or in from P.,.n,,,intl,nPA RI 02912.

COJ)yright Act

C0l1l2reSS Cafalloging-:in-I'ubllication Data

;relens,telJO, Edward L. on biblical m.ethod and translation. Judaic studies; no. 1. Bible. O.T.-Herm.eneutics. 2. Bible. O.T. Trl:lnsilatlng. 1. Title. II. Series. BS476.G73 1989 221'.07 87-6018 ISBN 1-55540-122-8

Printed in the United States of America on. acid-free paper

§

nn)~o"',('

Samuel and . . . L"",",'VUI.J. a critical of different modem to Bible tranislatlon, questioJlls of su~~ge:st that we have here one in Biblical and

and presutltpof;itic)Os. the nntiprlulniO! pJr1nc:ipl~~s how atte,ntlc)O a more pllJlfa11stiic

some of

pOSltlOJ[lS

is a nnlm~l1-V Knlow'lens ore:selllteUcal BiOr

Btt~ltojthe(,;a Orientalis

BR

Review vUl~'WI'~L

Biblical

]ufl,.t",.I"

Central Conference of American

IEJ

JBL

JJSt

JSOT JSS

Journal

JTS

Journal

KJV MT NEB

James Massoretic Text New .f:,;ft.J:!UJrn

NJV

New

RB

Revue HltJIllOlle

SBL of Biblical Literature SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

- xv-

xvi

S VT

on Biblical Method and Translation

to Vetus Testamentum

TEV UF VT ZAW

Vetus Testamentum

Part One AND METHOD IN BmLICAL CRITICISM

Chapter One The State of Biblical Studies, or, Biblical Studies in a State in mSllgl1l:S, plraCltll1()nelrS have struck out cel1ltrit'ug,llly extlending the field without nec:ess~ariJlV ermallcll1lg While on the one hand the exposure to new and different (llSClpl1n::rry aPt)rOc:lcl1c~S blespeal~ a maturation as an on the it reflects a more more "crisis" in our faith in the meth.ods have been our own In the essay I shall examine the and nature of the The Crisis in Criticism: (BClutirnoI'e: Johns 1101;)l:U1S Alc:nw:u A. Shweder. eds.• Me~tathel')ry his on the prc~bll:~m: does not consist in criticism of the have C0J1ICeJll1J1lg their status as M. sciences"; see Bible: A Crisis in

Disorientation: Studies

4

and Method in Biblical Criticism

"crisis" state in the Biblical field and the foundations the sorts of historical and ahistorical that various scholars take. Rather than lle[nO~ln an of I shall in the end new PO~i:sit)mljes that up to us for the construction In 1964 the Anchor Bible volume in its POI)uJ~U' In one of his most Ortlgm;a] S1i1gg:est:loI1IS Spleisc~r contended the in Genesis 14 of the battle the North and East and the five from the Dead non-Israelite repres(mts a Hebrew transformation of an from a close to the events chroni,cle, prc)bablv cOl1noosed in "The "N"lC!~'r cCDnclud..e d, hisl;oric~ity ..4 the foundations on which

E.

It

protag()nists in the so-called ChcedoirlacDmcer Texts since the pre~Se[ltin.g this

e.-"-"-"

lines of inv1esti,gatilon.

'Vv.,.v""."" 14 with specimens

he the onomastics and typOiOjitleS to reflect a genre of late date in The which Astour connects with the Biblical text, come from the second than the renresent Ort~~malS that cannot be dated is not a gel1lullle hllstoirtc:al QCDCUmelnt of no Bit)ilC:al S(:hOlIarShlP knows well

narratlves is aili>U'I.V.

laec)IO~ty

a student of to reconstruct what He avers the tendentious stories that read back into the earlier is CharaClJer named Joshua ben~Nun

EI at of the ascnDc~S to the sources of that later historilographic COI1£lPCtSltllon. ·leJllmglY HaJlpelrn writes of Deborah "marks the the recovery Isr~leUlte sources are of historical For similar reasons G. W. Ahlstrom locates the oog;mnmg of the national the named Israel in the of Saul, the first who to

.. Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 2, 69-109. Note the see, too, ,"-uaUL'.-' in Canaan cf. p. 8.

CA: Scholars

The

7

that took upon itself the name It is a coincidence that Ahlstr(jm the Biblical trac1itilons about Saul to be the earliest that are hisltoncallly reliable. modern Biblicists the overall of the narratives mOlnarc~ny on. In measure this is because so many believe that the and succession to his throne was close to the the era of ::>OJlOmion. been understood by many as an version that served as a nnlm~:u1"U source for the is bound up with that Israelite formany in the era of David and Solomon. who from the Bible's account of the COllQUlest and settlement of the Bible's account monarl:::hy with a Gottwald as a in his 5:vrlthf~5:15: PattlClulwrs of the Biblical sources. Israelite to the A connected story of Israel's from the creation of the world to at least the of Israel's entrance Canaan was ca. 960· 930 D.C.E.. the of Solomon. in the view of many scholars. altl!lOlJl~h others it later as much as a or more....We do the name of the writer. was someone in go',enrunlent:al favor if not actual government service - who T\1"f".vut",t1 of "national for the young of David and =SoJ.om.oo.

conventiol1181 SChO"lfShIP. is rete:mng. W. Ahlstrom. Who Were the Israelites?

{Ptlll)81c1eJ1Phla: Fortress ""+Grott'wald. The Hebrew Bible, p. this recent summary of COIlternprIu-:y reason to argue that J was created for

ttll1nltmJ~:

course. to

Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns.

'There seems to be of enthusiastic achievement of

8

and Methexl in BibllicaI Cri1liciSm

A who more than most exhibits the Gunkel is R. In his recent The Old Testament: An tntirOtlCUc,tIOJ'l" Rendtorffs historical to the enllLea,rors to traditional source criticiS:m Fnllnw'ina Noth and von earliest sources in the tradition as the em"ne:SI

is touna€~ remains our source for the What the texts do not we do not know: texts tnelmsc~lv(~S not matter" so that in my a tollerable bisltoli,caI rec:onSml1ctlon is n32 How do we know when the text is autnerlUC account of a tradition? Here Rendtorff trusts in the If two passages the same the truth of the be a(1(lucc~(1.· this purpose documents may asserts that "the into divides is that oo~wel1ul confirmed in all KelJlato:rU's blst,oflcal

re~Ol1lstr[lctl()D

Davidic-Solomonic nationalism. To date it Divided and even after from into the seems than sati,slalctolryn; "A Review of Recent in the Tradition H. ed.. Biblical Literature 459-502 at 500. Testament: An Introduction. trans. John Bowden of tradition historical work. see now De "A Research" n. 25 De Vries is far more conven.tional Ke:natortt. however. and remains at the latter's from nnTTnAltlVA source """l(,en]!ICaI Cn1ticism

the historical atllthellticity through the so·cmloo was no exodus of masses of Hebre~ws century, no in the Sinai wilderness, the by Israeli and scholars in the . . . partIctJlar tndicalte that took up residence in had no To many, including the Israelites were moved to the hill country and because those were sparSeJly D4[)Dulatt;~ areas them little resilstallce. AClcoridin.JUY DelJlevecltive and different sources but it is

In Search

e.g., pp. 40-49

the Index there for further

The

Bit~IiClal

Studies

17

this Thi.s aPlJrOllCh must be reversed. First of all we have to take the text as a have to try and understand its structure and

reI111ac:e the

of source anaLlvSlS with the the text from a pre~surnption of is no more or less theoretical than the text as a COIDpc)Sue. He is oPl>osing a newer to the older Iml>or1ant ten(lellcjc~s among Rendtorffs oos;itiC)D dis;ltlectiC)D from of many COl1ltelllOOJrary atte~ntJlon to the unity, or, to the final form of the are in or reSltles:sne:ss is in Christ,ian terms, the "Old conrtplicatc~ and obsc;ure ana~lysis

of the literature cannot dates for biblical books to examine them hlstOfJ.cal sequence are doomed from the start. It has increasmgly clear that no of the literature far, no suitable criteria exist which to separate and every to UpdlatlIlg ancient tra(llU(ms.

seI~tu~lgil1lt,

more have

18

and Method in Biblical Criticism

in order to evaluate the Massoretic Text and correct it where been in for reasons seemed to necessary with There is now, a newer to view the as lD<Jlepcmdent tralC1ltllons. The too, is a textual ~""'......""" as a total structure a text like the sel:>tlll:lglillt the Massoretic or with a Dead Sea for matter. M. urleerIDe.rg, in an examination the Massoretic and Greek texts reJl~CIS each as an "we have two each with own for the of the and its own coherence. Out of rec:ei',oo text is in order to trace the tOlJlOWlD2 conclusion from a recent replreS€mts a textual tradition that is very close to that Masso'retJlC text. from a base very much like one or several scribes the result that Massoretic tra:gmentary state have six or

lml;>lic:it in these remarks are the MT is a distinct text; the is in is a text; material in the former is the result in rather than in source; most there is a historical connection between the MT and texts. We may tend to that the that we take for gralllte~a are the of our and We do not we draw them. Our are see the not the naked new research. are at perspectn,es," a different way of sYllclllrolrUc vision is most evident in our aPI:>roaclles dlSIClp,(lD~'S cu'hnlo1"" work in - whether ant,hr()PolloJl~Y more and more the Bible as a COfltaiJllOO cornp()Oeltlts. The many BU)llcists adOOUrlg are Strllctural, paradiJ~m~ltic. ,""UIIU1"IU

Script1ure:s," in Robert A. Kraft and and Its Modern

pp.

trans. Polzin,

EX4~ge.fts.

The State of Biblical ..n,W.llvi:) sVl1lchJ"onic methods of ..........'......."'.'''' life and a

19 is anaJogious to the of that

FisJhbalne, rather than reconstruct the de~reloipment has SUIl!lm:an~~ed a Biblical prclphl~Y ""I"",,,,•..,•.,. it in the context of other elements in the Bible's as covenant and

"Reflections and His of Isaiah's

Isaiah of text's assessment of the evidence" the criteria that he sets .."".."".....'.... a different conclusion. Greenberg. Ezekiel 1-20, p. 26. l'''l')nlr,,,r,,

and

t'el"SUiClSlion,

his "critical

and Method in Biblical Criticism and the me~mjl1lg The Sigllifi(~anc~e of the determined in their function within a social or Various forms of fmd texts in the Img;UlStlc C()DtIJgunltiOlils and or and structures that are a wave touched off by new and differlcnt Biblical Studies has of late reacted vU)]ratiC.lns. We have nothing like the wl(leSI)f~lCI lSl[UlCliU SI:udiles that would, Kuhn's ten1rliDl)IOj~Y but if there is any apJUlc:atiCtn of modes of hlSltoolcal apl)rOaCl1les, SYI1IChJ~On]IC alllal'J~I~ is often StnJltul1rl, as 1..1..... 1'7...000 and Van per'hal)S the """...lA'.. - the study of Biblical

O°f\;licllael Fishbane, "Biblical Green. ed., Jewish \;n1.l"itlJlnliir'U

Prolnhl~CV

KeJllfr1:1IDUS Phenomenon." in Arthur the Middle York:

York: Schocken and II Raritan K, or of York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, James A. Torah and Canon Press, S. Childs, Introduction to the Testament as (t'llula.delphi.a: Fortress In canonical criticism the text is read its the of the faith that created it. Childs' somewhat Sanders' in that the former is more concerned with mellmulg of the final form within the faith traditions that have and rUl1l1l:ll11Uill,

The State of Biblical .:n.W.l1C:S

21

we must fust many feel more comfortable with the rpt',,,,iu~:>ti Blt)llc:ISts are only recently t>c~gumn:lg to the hyt)QtbeUC,&1 an they The matter has been put Biblical "methods" are theories rather than m.ethods: theories which of intuitions about the of result from the biblical texts. Texts are certain sorts of me~an]ing or. as as certain vague eXl~cltatilons CllSlilppomteCl and frul;tralted. which are either ClanUefp>f'flvP>

Broth.er William: answer to your que:sticms'("

Ulec)10~~Y

in Paris.

have the true answer?U

UWilUam said. Ubut

are very sure of their errors.U

the works of Kaufmann cited in n. 66 above. e.g.. A. uWellhausen and Kaufmann. Midstre.am. December to

Bar-llan This observation can be a rec,ent]lv plUblJlSIU~ rep,resenting the Hebrew of Biblical in 1986 n. own conclusions corlcelmU12 volume accord with those of Ze'ev Weisman in review in Tarbiz 56 291-95: u'tQ~'n "1'l:)'1 '~'1 '»." The two common areas interest one Can discern among the seventeen contributions are Biblical law and the and historical of the received text. Two of the be as criticism. The fact that the not less to do with the lnorn-JlUstoIllcal uJerusalem of uBiblical l. • ."t......" .. Jewish the ancient Near and arcnac~1()gy to the volume. claims that what unifies the is its blend traditional Jewish text with modem modes of criticism. As Wf'!,~n'lAn cOITec:Uy observes, however, Hebrew Bible research shares a in. common with elsewhere, too. loe. cit.

,sn

The State of Biblical Studies ..And you," I said with childish

27

"never commit errors?"

.. he answered. "But instead of many, so I may become the slave of none.

one, I

Im~lgll1le

The newer in Biblical Studies is open to new disciplinE~s and COllcelPtwal as well as to discovered tells and texts. IUVUVIe,,;).

The Name pp. 367-68.

Rose. trans. WiUiam Weaver

York; Warner

Chapter Two The Torah as She Is Read explaIn the

of a

text, such as a into its prElsellt it was tnOUgl1lt, we in .....,-,••,-,;:u,,,, rht't'",.'"'Onrr for are there two accounts of and A answer is: the two accounts were dItlerelnt contexts, A the of must, be read have different and distin(;t mleal1ling:s. What about the fact that someone has taken a deal of trouble to inoomorate both accounts, and in a certain seQuence'l The becomes acute when we consider the Flood criticism argues, two texts have been splice~d Should each source, J and be read on its own even after a redactor cn.1r\lUc.n

as

Me~mCl(l

30

in Blt.Uc:al Criticism

SCrlptUlre that

redactIon as epi,gramrrlaUcallly e'{J)r(~sse~a in the formula of Buber and Franz l'U()lns. 16. and the two contliclting ruiUUOUIllClt reference to its molecular structure in the a alSlcrelte so to I would read the text str;:ligtlt, auttUalDOID,81ntngullty and and the effects of my I have reaclin~ in my of the of There I deal in detail with Genesis and sUIJ~seCIUeJilt passages that the circumstances in which went down to The crux is familiar: did the brothers sell him to or did him The narrative seems to intertwine two so that it becomes to I an[)rOclCh me:aningltuJ; I allow that the redactional process is mann&of andtheasslu~pticm i>J.l€>UGJ.i>,

Ro:senberg, "The Garden

Forward alld

Ha4~k,,~ar4:l .

I(,ose:nbc~rg. "The Garden 20. It should be noted that such a is of Friedman, cited above. Friedmall, however, akin to the source-critical recombines components various into sources, while Ko:sen,bel'g mlspc~cts the components ....."'n... of the Pentateuch" E0111VCtcal l'.e~IUU:lg of the Sale .:10

I".... '"

The Torah as Sbe Is Read

39

po:tntllng to a similar narrative structure and thematic effect in Numbers We have wbat Bartbes bas called a tffriction between two ..43 Wbile it bas been in Biblical criticism to settle for one intc~lliJ~ibJiIit~'{" at tbe expense of the otber and insist tbat the two narrative sequences be read the of tbe redactor to combine or t11rl:l'.t'tl!v and with the Intc;~~nlted int€~roretaljon of the that text in dUlerelnt from tasks at band. seeks to its dvl1~flir. fc;~tulI'es as well as its overall particillar episteltllollogJicai stance: the way to text is to observe its pattenlS and to see bow it and bow it It is beld tbat these factors are the clearest cbannels for beld sway decades. Tbe that to know the text I examine it in contrast with other texts. To know Genesis 1 sbould, witb and others bow it is d.1Stin:guiSh€~ Enuma Near Eastern account. A nIPlr~nT_ Biblical Na.r,.atl\n~l compares same texts, n.30. this I do not mean to discount the pol;sit~ilil;Y of accidents in scribal traI1SmllSSllon. I would not what I to an error. The act of sense presumes an intention to mean To scribal as not to say t.ext, is to the of a

40

and Method in Biblical Cril:icism

In recent years a number of that has SlJtmJ:llCaJllce beneath the surface of the is structural antltlrojpolc:>flY corltril)utiion. one must understand what anthropologi.sts. but as

through paradiJ~m~itic narrative and not nat)pelrle<J in its

The Torah as She Is Read

41

!:
dallghlter turns out to be a relative thrl)u~;h too. for who is Jacob's cousin mother. Women in such an are dalUte:rOllS sttucture because could lead to a rellh,l>lrO them. was in the COllllp,lre, for example, this Pyp,Fl'rnr

nh\llnl'IQ'lv

of Moab.•.made this he has all many years, for Che:mOI;h

J,Y.l!IJ'~VJI ••• lJ"""'Cl~U""

and

The destruction of the northern IdnJ~aolm of Israel by in 722 a similar fate for the southern Judah. YHWH would do to land what Chemosh had done to and what YHWH had done to northern k1nj~t-'U'lnl1'

,-,"'I."'''.''. Everett COIlttimlity cnrlve'V'f"A1 most cmlcrc~teJtv The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions {Miss01ula: Friedman. Who Wrote the Bible?

Israelian Thc~l(lJglCal Siemiimu-.v

Judaism

York: Jewish

of America.

Theme

JSOT

The

47

as She Is

With all its attention to continuity t "the not to life and its but rather to its ""''''l''''''',.'' and the Torah as a of exltmc:ttoiD as forever also reassure the

firstborn but in

mOlc·alte a

York: Schocken xxxiv. Miner. "Claude Brauner. ed.• Shiv'im

pp.

xxxiii~

Uvi~Strauss

and Genesis 37~Exodus Reconstructionist Rabbinical .... VJlL...J;....

21~52.

L. Cohn. "Narrative Structure and Canonical pp. 3-16. p. 13.

25

in Genesis.

48

and Method in Biblical Criticism tbat tbey by

How? is not the rea:ssu):,mg Former Pr(J,ph~ets.

to detect pollutalnts and contain tbem. The kee~plJltg the out of their camp, to nrc)f.e(:ti\l'e presence among them. Just in case unbeknownst to the the wnl~tnl~r it needed it or not, on KaulflflaJItn eJlpl~UO€~ in a retort to

reulindling me of this fact. See now W. Holtz

'\n"rllli'I'1l/1rV

.. esp.. pp. 89-95.

York:

Devotional and 1 York: L:rC)SSlroai(J•

The Torah as She Is Read

49

the Wellhausian claim that c",,~n C''' was instituted in the sinfulness of the What constitutes the extensions Exod.

the organs of the iml1lainnents re:pailred. The other

Moshe

Beth MEkFa 89-90

and Methoo in Bibllical Crilkicism God created the various

and humans must those by or them be tantamount to to oneself divine powers. To the categ()riE'S within their the way God created them, is a sort of imitatio The in Torah's of the taboo on result from hvl'\n£llO: was first by Bekhor the tw€~lftb-centurv French The reason Israel should not mate ;)1J~Nl~;;;) Wt2ether is that "you would have act of mallang VOllfseU like a 1184 What would happen veg;etal!>le'l Deut. 1 turruShles creaition is God's prelrog.ative, "",ot.",...I"\'''.''' To violate those

in

cate~gol[1es

verb may eat that do not to one of three classes. The langwl2e in an

lana-jtntl:er:s, the airmappc)sUely for which is 1"'>.. "'....,,..., cannot l:ln!lllvC!lC! of He is the same

It the Lord your have divided divide between the pure animal and

from the Vl;i\)'Vll;il). So tainted one,

will tainted

The Torah as She Is Read

The

V"VI.UV~ (IItJtus~~d

and disloer:sed empuce; and their laws are worked. The it may remember old concerns. But the form in which it was addressed the situation of the exilic the one that first made it Torah e.g.~ Ezra Nehemiah 8, The the Torah is not in itself new~ as the comment by a Jewish The Torah is eternal; it refers to all times and to It existed afterwards took on the stories about before the world~ and Isaac. and Jacob events in time. While the Torah took on the stories of their lives. The same sbould Torah is so called because it teaches or the

The Torah remains a sacred book because it can be read the of current concerns. But it to the Exile in form and function it reSl00nlded to the of 587. The Torah as she is read critical eyes~ can mean on different levels SlBlul1:anc~usly Chiem,ob),l,

tr'~'JI "'MQ "'D:)

Book of the of Paulist p. 249. For a see Michael Fishbane, ''The Sacred

Cbapter Three Theory and Argument in Biblical Criticism "It is the

vie'Wn(,int

that creates the

de saUSSUl'e.

oiecl1pener, and read additional su~:ges;teMlS nlhWl'f'V~:ltir,n too, new new evidel11Ce_ Van work IDt€~rests assulmotions and meUlOdS a diUerelnt CClnC.luSlon, hOVl/eVf.~r. of the oab~iarc;hal narrative~ on his how the perltateuC:h was COrnoc)sel(J. cornoc)sition not as a redaction cornoc>sll1lg new malteri:al is Put ,:)c\;Ulllll. he it should or.

h!,~VI'po,w'

Dennis Pardee. Review of Abraham in J. J. M. Roberts. Review of

in

pp. 109-13. ab~!rU.'!tel·un,eSResc'UChtll:Che Problem der Pentateuch

of Pentateuchal Criticism."

and Argument in Bit.Uc:a.I C:riticislrn

67

named Astruc used ......... alone as a for utAnhf".,u'," sources in the Pentateuch. The uocurnelltaly HvtX)tbt~is also started small. We can further aDl>rClcialte the role that our Dre:sulPJ)()Sll,lOrIS argum,entau(Jln and rhetoric or decons,tru'~tinjg, the JanJ~uaJ~e in our criticism. To take one exa,mDle four reviewers contended with .._A'......'..... in a dUlel1ent dm~ctlon. to critjicisln. '11.....,;)1.,;)

Acc:ordltnj;t to all v ..""• ...." in Num. it as follows: ,,, toward you, and may he you peace. (tnltenllloflalJ confIation of the latter two in seems to so, as he compares the benediction in Ps. of the first two in Numbers It is also DOs:sible the of to the as the first half of each ends with the same '''2), face toward you. It would then be a case of one of the commonest errors. Which is more I.

' U . " " T - ,,"-'U.

,"'R

tI

p. .. pp. 6-7.

68

and Method in Biblical Criticism

whole text or a defective one involves a range of or beliefs. To engage in means we must our beliefs. to a Does this mean that we cannot to a or any other - we share common Within the academic assum:ptilons with that enable us to COlJ[)ml~ni(~ate each When the one of the COnrlmtlnltles) V\ofI.VUjl:o. or choose to a set of assumptic:>ns take them for and build our upon nmethods" in which Biblicists are from cornV~ltative to to sequence Bit)lic;al "1,UUll"'''. we have the old have been challellgel:l. objectitlcati()n of earlier hyt)()tl1lese:s. unpctsitions, Berlin here axlomlaUlcally SYfllchJronllC Vllev.momt. which the unified text as a diagrlflphlC citations and other refe'ren,ces, see

5 and 22.

Dn.

74

and Method in BittUClal Criticism Exodus that antedate the Common

much less the l'fO[}-iJ...SS'VTum

scholars such as W. F. /u(J,ngluL SUl1lll8Jntues between the Bible and other differelrlt as:SUI111ptions from James may the conilparaUvlst may no more than demur from the

,"U.",I\.IU"

who are Near Eastern Gibson and in

cornp~U'aljvisrs

Part Three: in Biblical Hebrew Does the Hebrew Bible have more than share of signif:LcalrlCe does the amount of Que~SUI::>ns that this revised 1977 als;seritatlon~

COI1>U:SJ and seem unrelated to nt}'G01"l11ic~GO Frederick Grc~ens:patln examines 289 verbs meet toll.owinl! conclusions: the Hebrew Bible is unc~x1JleCl:ed]ly c0I111pariscln with other litelratures; concentrated in than in prose; and rare diction serve as a styllstLC device in the Bible. Uneensmlhn wants to offset what he asserts is the modem notion that leRjOmena are to He does not document this modem attitude very article from 1930 as evidence n. feature of this is that le~tOn1ellta are not as a class of words from a phlloll()jtlcal stan01DOln1. The ways that scholars from ancient to modem times have these words are the same as the ways have tackled other words. Urleensp2lhn makes the that modem have not any new methods for He underscores of modern ",\.IIlY'-iU

an LeJt.~omena

in the

How

Matters

75

and eXl111aU1S

In

the diS2lppc)intJ:nen,ts conclusion on the me~amrlg tak.es no stand. His aeC:ISIC)OS, follow conservative pnJ1CJlueS and He eschews unless there is ancient manuscril)t or a root does not conform to the phCJnc)lOJ~lc.al par'ametelrs of He assumes the of the Pentateuch as a of sorts, argues Aramaic in aU cases. These On the one hand he will claim stands often lead Hebrew texts 104), while on the that there are other he will was written before Aramaic could have with pure in 31:47 I influenced Hebrew What he don't know. Rather than allow an Aramaism in Exod. would con:tencl1, on the basis of ad hoc that mn is a means lt

1

After on the basis of these prillcil1~Jes, that Urceen:sp,lIln concludes that are fino more than "vv"",.... are very few of textual COITU1>tiC)O 'VQU

now Cohen's review of book in JBL 105 102-4. I contend in Three, is the nature of aU scje:nUfjc inives:tlg~lt10Jn: does not so as look for. the discussion of diverse to textual criticism and their ""'v.....'""..",. pre:SUllpOSltlons above in

76

and Method in BibJlical Critlicism

181). His ""••..,"".,,"

in order to lend his at1e:mpts to argue in a pseudoeXflml)le, he sets forth the of statlSUcalJly hapax over leRiomena cornprlse less UrleefllSP~lhn

third the number of Biblical are problem by beg;inning and conunllUt his COJ1lClu,siOlrlS auticms. universalitv of the human must learn that one's Those who want to know what the other person is lantgu:age or a translation. The vast of those who want to hear what the Biblical God is take the latter alternative. The Hebrew or been rendered into two and in Bible To some this trend may with a to learn a langU~lge, eSDecilallv a classical one. But more seems the to measure of truth. Different translations various funds of vn(\'[111pncrp and to bear on of the may a different slice of the truth. As everyone translation means Not different uncler:Stallc111rlgs methods the rex 4 but In the 19608 the Jewish Publication new the or NJV), wrote of to translare to retranslare - the Bible. As it in when a surge in (the classics was COflsidlera,ble attention to the art and nature of translation as an the recent wave of has been by its proper n.H:UU~;••

"The 'Babel of

·.·A'..."'.......·•

A Sumerian

.,ro""..""

lAOS 88

86

and Method in Bible Translation

cornplimictn and critic: the of the of Bible translation. The subtitle of OrlinsJ,y's essay t "Toward a New PllllOSl()pl1ty of Bible II is only one indi,catofrs of the that Bible tnu1lslallOrs task. The merit of any rests not only on the skill of the translator but even more upon the that it. of theories Different It is customlary t

87

Modem art is

an of as sculpture matter and spare. If one if one loses the loses the the art, just as one 1 But a devotion to there are tones or the two other more literal translation. The one is stYJlIStlC. The passage may hinge on repetition a word or an allusion. For in 2 7 the word n':l " intc~f\1I;'ea'ves themes: King David had and was dw'elliin2 . the his God, was then dwelling in a not in a win the Lord a and the Lord will assure rJV"/'lt"iN which is in Hebrew by rr:a, rendering of the King James (or AUltl101ized) V,~U',n cOl1isisl:ently as "house" so that the literary The more idiomatic rendering as "bouse" when it "f'ftl"nlh." when it refers to litl'l'rQ"V

Slle~ncc,s and as

Investiigal:ion of Rhetorical Universil:v Michael J:'ils.tlbllI1e, texts than verse;

langu~lge can

Artful

be replacEld

of

an Renaissance Translations of the to the Bible fC'alrnnnti""" TEV is discussed Moshe argues that ?1f"lIr ~ must be rendered "sons of Israel" and not "Israelites" in Ezek. 2:3 in order to its correlation with the .. of the Use of the Ancient Versions stubborn 0'3::1, for the Hebrew Text: A from Ezekiel ii I-iii 11," SVT 29 for another p. 131.

and Method in

Translation we pause to note that this of translation nec:essary to state the oh\riou:s~ idi()m~ltic translators and content

In to this ooslture of art as the total assimilation of fonn and sense. This unclers:tanldil1ig cornfclrtably ensconced in Romantic as the IOlllOWlDll by von the ninete,entJh-clentlllry llnJ~Ul:;tlC Ollilos()ollier attests: The work of art is a whole; it particll1ar form. Yet form and idea are so no be art. is what is essential.

a can

attllUd,e•. the voice of a sneakeir. eigllteenth-century French put U.NJ.JJU.F..

The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible H. IL: who contrasts Good ,..""',,, ••"'. '" "content-oriented" translation as the "two ways of "form-oriented" pp. 47-67. and Charles R. Taber. The and Practice 1. Nida's more recent rhetOIllcal features of see now Jan de LalIRu,"Re to Another: Functional /:f,Q,uiv,ale,nce

Hoberman. nrrransl:atirlg the " The Atlantic is that this defmition of imlJOrltanC:ie has been attached to gramn:tatilcal features, so on. von Humboldt. "On the ImllgulatlOn." trans. R. R. Read in German Romantic Criticism. Cf. the remarks of Ernst Behler in the "Foreword" to this book Romantic critics...saw the of a work as an with itself:' 1::r"V'll,...l1rn

89

Theories of Modem Bible Translation "is the man."20 In cOIltelnD(>raJry criticism the to the whole the with Ulelmatic c(>l1eJ·enc:e. FisllbaJle has the motif of soe,alcll'lR motif is in very fIrSt verse:

m~mll1lg

of the vault lelia.

TheTEV How How

motif in

reveala God's what he has

The in~~paJrability of form and content informed above all the translation method of Martin Buber Franz who to the Bible into German in and it accounts in what at blush to many as a word-for-word In their essays on and the false division between content and That aODtarent than in reoetit,ive oattenlS repetltJlon, not the selllantic

and th.at to have to un(len~tarldtrlg that in the that we in see

Lecturea in America 67.

York:

L.

pp. 166-

and Method in Bible Translation intc;~rruptctl.

and or ex~nded in the second It is interruption of the position prior to repeatc;~ m:a~l:ml. that creams the example in Ps. KJV render's: more then

SUS~pelBse·-prodIICill!

For 10, thine 0 Lord For 10. thine enemies shall all the workers of

The "1d.llomiaU(:" vc~rslons

NEB and TEV render:

Cfis:sol"e the pattern aitogetlller. A second basis SU{)poruflg is anthropol1ogllcat.

trmlslaltiolB. in addition to the we say it. a li~raI an American novelist renc:lerings of some SCI'ipt ures. rc~nd.erlll!S relfllDl.scelBt of the Buberf*nt'lueo.utrll'Y in tral[lsl~ltic.n Onl!~lnaI'S ullDgtJa~e. "Failure to convey that idi()m~ltic camp would point to its pre~lflinc~nt ancient Near East 1

"""llJiVllf.A.-,

...scholars [who] translate...texts in a more or less 'oriental Biblical in which the idiom does not sound out adds 'color' to the of the text...are

He reasoned further that: us~rchl)lo;litic:al

effects of this pattern in "Two Canaanite and Their esp. pp. "One More

on contrast to the more in James B. ed., Ancient Near Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton "idiomatic" of Michael David ...... VIJj;;.A:U.

H. L. Uinsbelra to tke see the more Ancient Canaan

·I·h,~"""",.....

of Modem Bible Translation

91 his own lan:gua,ges and,

resort:ina to literal tral11Sl11tlCfnS, to accept the existence of a with it, cf the gap between the two civiUzaticl1l1S. i(1i()m~ltlC

tralllsll:ltlCtn can bridge the common ground among literal mode that out the distinctive renlarlc:abJly elJecILJ.ve idiomatic translator, J. B. Phillips, into corlternJX)rw"V hngllsn

This is what the Lord says: Because of after outrage committed Damascus I will not For have battered threshed her with iron-studded i:IIl,",'l~,",~" VUJ,,",".e.v

We wouldn't say it that way but Amos more or t

A more an alien

of the the realia of the

Bible," which tends toward

did.

can

shed on the realia of case, in which even the KJV in Lam. 2:4a:

He hath bent his bow like an he stood with his hand as an adv'ersarv

and J. M. Pcwis The: Short Bible:: An American York: Modern p. 4. For a discussion of the see, e.g., The New method of this 88-101. KllPh~lel. "The J.'rn'nhptlil in Modern Omtinenlfary 67/3

GOI()ds1>e(;~d

contrast the

which alters the

"In

he

92

and Method in Bible Translation on his bow, which "he longbow with one's left hand, SecunCl£t the arrow back in the hnlwC!"rina "PlctulreS;Que," contra UPP6rlheun, If

anthro'pOllogilcal autJtlenticilty bas resurfaced most COClSPI,CU()usJly Dll:UU;:'ll tranSlation. The lmlnment ,n,"" J'~ K~'ll"U'~ SltaDclard v PT~",nn by the National ,""v'uU\."U anllC11pation in its the J:ielOrew rD'M as it is mamtlin(~ to in verses in which example is Ps. 1: 1. The KJV rendered: Y""'1''V\Y''t",rt

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the

The mv cjrc:nmvenlt~

un,rodllv

here by tranislaljng:

are those the advice of evil men...

oci:nciole the

mv opposes "any attc~m]pt

to modernize the "40 but it of the Hebrew Bible nOl1lestJly trarlsmlttte~ it. The corlcellt cOilnoltatJions, may not have been of ancient corlcellt of an lDtc~grai~ "nnjvelr~_" which the mv The once raised a very POI)UI~lC James IIHow far is a trallsl~ltor lUSIUl1e~ in moderniZing an Oriental """"'..IF·'....... male~orienled

xell0ph0l1l'S Anabasis, Book 4, ii == The March Arbor: Ann Arbor p.

II Time, Dec. 8, Council of Churches, Editions of Bible Provoke I "'''nt..''v...... for discussion, cf. N al:lOnal

I }PI'nall,.,,,',,,

'U II

"Plans for a March New York Times, the pp.

lectures on "Male Oriented in Bible Baltimore Sun, Nov. 1977, in Johns 47-48; I heard versions of this lecture at and on occasions. York: Bible

lta,nsla!ltofllS, p. 74.

Theories of Mooem Bible Translation trwlslaltlnJg, then The nature of ..A.·AU".... text and fix its rec:on:stnlCtllng ancient philOlC)gical alDDrIOaC:b understands a int40rlTlatlon. and it seeks to transmit COrlttelTlPOJrary P.l'lllliVAIp.nf in the of the diS4~ourse. or simply exp'oslltory prose, eftltCielDCY an mooe. "Iif'",_ _ ," apttrO~lCb, which views the text as a ......,••vv'., Walter "UrlteqlL1alllea""'''' essay on "The Task of work" does not in essential It it is. In the "lItAro,"""·· to convey the rhetorical features the text and the than it is to convey denoted or ideational Pblllol,oglcal tralilSl~ltiCtn endeavors to pin down m~mirl2 anal'vsis. to proliferalte meanmg. l

evinced in Roland

A New

,uQl ........'..,

York: Hill

Translation with a Phtloli;lgtcja,1 c.;omme,vw"y

Int,,,,rnr,t,fJti'ln

(J:saU:Imc>re: Johns

my review in "Biblical NW7al,olo,gy.

HO]PklllS

pp.201.8.

94

and Method in

Translation

interest. Through minute phlllOlogl,cal makes a noble to recreate, even the Soe:citllC S()Cic)IOJ~CI:l1 circumstances of the to paint in the and the Ruth narTatiive~ lan.gualge. In both may be WOJrklrl2 at cross-purPOses with But in any event the of translation coc.rdinatles with the method Now, although I have appropriated the label "I••".1I'Q"''''' more literal mode of there are others who would argue reverse: the most "literarytt to to metnoa p(oclucle8 the least traI1lslaltion should PITu\lnv a translation that amounts to literatlJfe. or "re:aCtllOn'''J''t its own idiom to an equivalent to what the trallsUlltor oroduc:e. A literal version M..1I.IUlllll. the more yield recent idiomatic Hebrew's "''''11''"'-''''0 are David -who

Oh for your kiss! For love More than For scent and sweet name For this love you.

Take me away to your room. Like a to his rooms We'll there with wine. No love you. of the

of

Translation of the

{~helt1elCl:

Almond Press,

An

Theories of Modem Bible Translation

95

One cannot the of FaIk's verse. In order to actlle'\ire it she was COlnPlene~ to deviate from the Hebrew structure in a nUlnbc~r of ways. She third person to second person she introduced enjamOOl1flelllt; she the noun with the coy pel10Jme~ several The is literattlfe; tral11slalUon should be, too. The traI1lSlator must COl1flpensate the losses in from

Tr811ls1aticln is a CUrmil112 the work into sornetnil1lg charl2e
406·7.

Theories of Modern Bible Translation

103

the processes of at stake between the two po~utl()ns is the problem in How do I know that what I x and what the other person means x are How do I know the answer to the question HOf2es: "You who read me, are you sure you understand my langu~lge'ir" un~rolsts and Buber and in the pos:sibiilitiles COl1nmiunilcatilon. But led them to antltn€~tlc!al

text to the decoded message into restructure the message in the contrast of

llnl~UlISt1C

ohilosc)ohies, cf.

pp..

Ofoblefn, see Willard V. J. Katz, OOs., The Structure LAJ1.gu,oge fEn21e'woo,d Cliffs: PfeiRtice·H.all. argument. One is that denotiJ12 the same Of(llcec1uf,e. A second is: even as does, how do thOU2flts'! For a mentalist's Hel')re,Sell:tatton \...."......,... D.

4-5, 19-20. 23 and

Taber,

The Translation

104

and Method in Bible TrBtOslaticm

The of upon which the ADS bases itself stretches the from which it derives in critical ways on the it in

Buiber-Rctseflz,\\'eHt relll
autlflenticllty He Denc~trates root level of lanJguages

in Willson. ed.., German Romantic Hebrew

25-26. "'411:11"'J,I,

Kabbalistic influence on the From Locke. to Saussure. pp. 60.

cf. his The Star. the Other, ed. pp. 91-161.

126.

V.

tran.s.

·1·. ." ........,,,...

of Modem Bible Translation

111

The human is the animal (a notion as old as Hesiod with roots in where the human is by the term "the Out of one's of one utters names aJllog€~th(~r QI'hltlrQriilv but not the essence of the emlbodvllnjl universal essences are known llO t

t

...the words hidden under each and every manifest word as secret bases and...rise to the in it. In a certain sense are elemental words which constituted manifest course of l>~N"'Jll••••J,U these inaudible arch~words became WVlYi:I' •••l(;'o,l lan,gua.ge. Those inaudible elemental words, side rel,ilU(llnsllip, were the of the protocosmos,

This ass'umlPucm resolves a para(1C)X

their lSerlJ811run, The p. 13. As

trans. R. Manheim For a brief sketch of HelBJwBur:fs tIlllnk:mg see Anson KablI1lba,ch, If

New German

~,'L"'Ites:":

German translation. this Hebraic

who hath delivered Samson. and blind into their Them out of thine. who slew'st them many a slain 17VBxllmI.les from the of Genesis 1 in Die J.,AU,UlA>ll Schneider. 1926- ). EXlutll.les from ibid.• on Exodus 19. 17°,EXILmI.les from ibid.• on Genesis 1 and Psalm 29. 177:Ex~Lmt:.les from on Exodus 19.

1

and Melhod in Bible Translation prc,tollDa,ly convinced of the

Im]pm~sltnillty

of

lU1J'ca~~v.

lhe transfer of lhe Bible to to lhe text. traI1lSlaltlon nrOC1uoes language lhat can be read itself. Walter Bel[ljarmn

more in~n,~lSt Imltatu)n of lhe hot sand and roek. of idiom Hell>ralC. For Buber and KO~~eD2~welg was a act. away a of V,,",JUUC;U,1 idiom so lhat lhe faint voice of lhe Hebrew could become more audible.

nel1Ja:J1!Un." On Jews and Judaism. pp. 193-94.

p.242.

Chapter Six The Job of Translating Job

rhetoric, cannot be atlf~ti\,e

Q.::.VV"'' ' of langUl:lge

metallnor corlnotatlon, aSSIOCI~atl(l~n - in order to move an rea:soning embedded in the semantic content can by itself It IS these of that pose speDr(l~ble;ms the translator. two ]ob trallslaltiolils keen llmitatlions that Imt)OsllilLy from one to another. and Taber must also concede that translation encounters limitations. When say. "Anything than can be in one can be said ancttne:r." they add: the form is an element of the meanIng. of can be debated in every case. How essential is to But their "unless"-clause in trallsle:mllg sense to lan,guatge. meanllng in a must an Im]pas:se. many and as an ineluctable

d

~

~is

or. in Derrida's term. a tr8111st omnatlon i

rePJroollcticln of it.

trans. and ed. Lauren G. pp. 150.

ASSleSSlJlg a

129

sOI)Ju:stJc:at~~(J

tramUal:ors have ancient times the source they seek to traduce and what are tralrlslclltJCtn sets These are in turn d.etermined the that the translation is meant to serve. In assessmg the of a translation's success. one it to measure the translation's its avowed and may dissent from the a certain translation or a particlliar traJnsl,atu)D one may oppose a But that is a pOllbc:al (JleclS:lOn that is very in own terms. In I of translation with lunCUCtns. as well as their phllJOs:opJrUCal WS1LinctJOllS was and the ev~mg;e1liCal and the sourcedifl'erelnt translation for tnelms1"firuT "heaven and earth" into "universe" does more remove a ctullct'lt'" order of in form. as attc~ml)t to

If

and Method in Bible Translation it were. the orderliness of the (Jes:cnl)ed cr~nion. the narrative has God say. in words:

On the second

Be there a vault in the midst of the waters. and be there division between waters and waters!

ItrenDro.ach to intelligible only by means elabOlratton. In a sense, Neusner allows that discourse is fonnulated such that a version of the would share the same difficulties that the poses. Because translators DrO(lU(;e texts with different to nertorm dltt€~rel1.t tllinctlons, there will always be n8lt~lns of one or another would aclc:n01wletl2e trarlslatiOI1I'S would then eVAluAlte tr,anslatl!ons on the basis of their and not some or "truth"

the Palestinian Talmud into "TJ'an!,lating Bavli: A Fresh

Apl:>Ioawh.

Index

Adamic oer~;oectIve

110 57

J. Basemat43

.......... ,..vu,

11,

S. 120 67

55

110-1 1

89

anachronism 11

100 101

Aramaic

7, 1

43

M.4 audience-oriented translation

125 of

canon

31

142

on Biblical Method and Translation

E.H. """«i::i,i)UliJV~ U.

61 65 91

128

31

104

DelJlter()nOInlst 7 ~

9~

37

41. Christi,ln translation Chlll1cn\!'Q1cv

' ..' \..,I&I"-'U.

K.

138

DJ.A. H.R. 75

diachronic analVSIS

71

R.L. 86 Colossus of Rhodes ix-x 135

78 concorclant translation 108 COllcolrdalrlt Version 108 LonalllalC~ E.B. 106 Canaan

12 con:siste~ncy 8~

7~

U.27 blOsteIn. A. 57

117

91

122

Enuma Elish 119

65

44 76

71-74 H.63 46~51

Ezekiel 19 facts 5.

68

M. Dead

texts

t'eyc~raf)ena.

P.

Index

143 H. 5, 8, 65 W.W. 118 HaltJem. B. 6,

16

VUallA....l .

leR(,~mel'lQ

R.E.

38 74-76

Het.rew uni(~Uerless of 115 Hebrew constructions 116-117

Freudian QnA1V~1~ 79 Frjc~drrlan.

1

9, 10,

29-

115 1

47 Garden of Eden lAvrnn~l,v S. P.T.72

49

115

96

German constrUictiOJllS 117 Gel'sonlaes 77 v"'u~vu. A.

97

Y.19 lanj~uaJ~e of 110. .... v .., ...........

114

hOltloiollele,Jton 67

A.73

Greenberil. M. 122 Grec~nspalm, F.E. V.LUUUl.

J. 110

1

on Biblical Mel;noa and Translation

144

litpq..~rv

translation

132

LOl1lgmus 136 Lot 42 I. 80 Luther 97 LU2:zau.O, S.D. MallaSSlen 46 1\/I(1''''''/'\1''Pfl(' Text

J

51

Jacob

109

121

P.K. 9, 29 MenaelSSC)nn, M. 101 Me:naennau, G.E. 12 • _I "--",--

130, Jewish 35 Jewish translation 99-101 book of 1

John Paul II

115

book

49

126

107

Leah

47

106 V.86

109

145

Nahmanides 81

Plaut,

110,

1

71,

58, 68-

116

pollution, ritual 48

NelJSne~r~

J. 139 New American New hnjl:IlSn New

21,

135

70,

narrator

79

R.3, 18,

130

57 Popper, K.R. nn~itiviC1rn.

X,

72 21

pOssibi:lity of translation 126

Noth, Nuzi 81

63 68 5,6, 8,

oral

Rachel 43

P 44

G. von 7,. 8,

54 oatJ-iarc:hal narrative!': 4, 5, 11,

Y.T. 10 Kavvioclwicz. S. 54

Kadldav

114 J.B.91 nnilolc)jtic:al translation 93

73

KeU(1[Orn,

21 R.8, 10,

135

146

on BjbJljcaI Method and Translation Standard

Version

Solomon 7, 11,

138 131

(RSV) rhetoric

119,

source criticism 8,

72 R.M.86 R.60 Ros:enber,R, D. Ros:enberjt. Joel

~_~,_~1.

tablets 4

70

F. Ruth, book of

94 43

57

114-1

semantic sense

1

textual criticism 121

101 .:)Ui:lUA;),

H.

14

U. sket)ticil>m 5, W.

J.H.

104

147

Index

J. de

N. Wars of 26

131

85-111,

66 1 1

118

younger sonJfbrother \._•..,.....,J

122

40 z.mlmermaln. H. & J. 99

41

47

11111111111111111111111111 9 781930 675353