JOB 41: TRANSLATING HEBREW POETRY

 

Translating from Hebrew to English is hard enough as it is, at least in some cases, due to factors such as lack of punctuation and vowels in the oldest manuscripts. But where Hebrew poetry is involved, there are at least three complicating factors: their poetry often used words that were already archaic even at the time the poetry was written; the form of Hebrew poetry required the use of different synonyms for the same thing and thus there was sometimes recourse to use obscure vocabulary; and, unlike OT narratives, the lack of logical progression within a poem meant that the translators could not always tell whether some verses had been displaced from their original position during the course of hundreds of years of copying manuscripts.

However, one factor working in favor of obtaining an accurate rendering of the standard Hebrew text, especially where it doesn't seem to make much sense as is, is the availability of ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the OT found among the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as early translations into Greek, Aramaic and Latin which may have been based on earlier Hebrew manuscripts that differed somewhat in their wording.

In addition, John Hartley notes, “The Hebrew text of Job requires numerous emendations in order for it to be rendered into readable English.” As just one example, the Hebrew word sometimes translated as “tie down” or “press down” in Job 41:1 actually means “to sink,” which makes no sense in the context. The above factors involving the accuracy of modern English translations can be illustrated by examining five problem verses from Job 41.

Job 41:1

NRSV: “Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down its tongue with a cord?”

A footnote in the study Bible edition indicates that Leviathan can be translated as “the crocodile,” if taken literally but may also be “a sea monster symbolizing cosmic chaos.”

NEB: “Can you pull out the whale with a gaff or can you slip a noose round its tongue?” Note that once the translators settled on “whale” as the proper translation, they were forced to come up with a more impressive weapon that just a fishhook.

NIV Study Bible says that it is “a large marine animal.” And the Jerusalem Bible adds as a note that if it is a crocodile, that happened to be the symbol of Egypt.

Marvin Pope in the Anchor Bible translation first notes that this entire verse is missing in the Greek Septuagint. Then he explains that “the allusion is to the marine monster called Lotan in the Ugaritic myths,” which was apparently a seven-headed dragon. If so, it would fit the statement in Psalm 74:14 proclaiming, “You crushed the heads of Leviathan.”

As Hartley summarizes the situation: “The identification of the Behemoth and Leviathan is disputed, ranging from earthly creatures to mythical monsters.”

There is another thing of which you should be aware. The Hebrew Bible sometimes divides the chapters differently than most Christian Bibles do. Thus, if you have a Jewish translation of the Old Testament, it will put 41:1-8 at the end of the previous chapter and number it 40:25-32 so that Job 41:9-32 now becomes 41:1-26. The Jerusalem Bible translation actually follows the Hebrew numbering method. And if you happen to be reading a scholarly commentary on Job, you may find yourself rather confused as to which method the author is using when he or she refers to a particular verse. Some translations and commentaries even give the Hebrew numbering but follow it with the English equivalent in brackets.

And if the above hasn't confused you enough already, there is an added complication if you have a New English Bible. For some reason, the translators decided that the first six verses of chapter 41 made more sense if they were relocated to a new place between Job 39:30 and 40:1. The result of this move, which is not supported in any ancient manuscript, is that now the remainder of Job 41 becomes a further description of Behemoth, not Leviathan at all.

Let's proceed to other translation issues that are perhaps a little easier to follow.

Job 41:9

In regard to verses 9-11, the notes to JB say that the Hebrew text is corrected. Similarly, AB explains, “The lines are difficult, and it is apparent that the text has suffered some sabotage intended to obscure gross pagan mythological allusions.”

NRSV: “Any hope of capturing it* will be disappointed. Were not even the gods overwhelmed at the sight of it?” *The Hebrew text reads “of it.”

The NRSV Study Bible also notes that the whole line is corrected based on the Aramaic (Syriac) version of the verse. Note that NRSV appears to contain one of those mythological allusions that the Anchor Bible mentioned having been presumably deleted at one point or another from the Hebrew text. The AB also reads much as the NRSV: “Lo, any hope is false. Were not the gods cast down at the sight of him.”

    RSV: “Behold, the hope of a man is disappointed; he is laid low even at the sight of him.”

    JB: “Any hopes you might have would prove in vain for the mere sight of him would stagger you.”

    NEB: “No, such a man is in desperate case, hurled headlong at the very sight of him.”

You can see that there is a different philosophy of translation here between NRSV / AB and RSV / JB /NEB. The latter group of versions works with the standard Hebrew text and only emends it slightly in order to make better sense out of the words. But the first group turns to other ancient translations of the verse which read quite differently. They are following a principle well known to textual critics. When ancient sources differ in their wording, one should generally ask yourself which version was more likely to have given rise to the other one. In this case it boils down to the question: Is it more likely that an original reference to “the gods” would have been changed later to remove possible polytheistic theology, or vice versa? The first two translations above opt for the former scenario while the last three translations do not ask the question in the first place but just stick as closely to the Hebrew text as possible.

Job 41:10

The basic translation possibilities with this verse are illustrated by considering the two groups of versions below:

RSV: “No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who is he that can stand before me?” NIV reads much the same way. According to this reading, the second sentence basically implies that since God is mightier than the mighty Leviathan, no mere human being can confront God.

By contrast, NEB (along with NRSV, JB and AB) reads like this: “No one is so fierce as to stir it up. Who can stand before it?” These four translations instead say that no one dare confront Leviathan. Both readings appear to make equal sense. So who is right?

There are many other cases like this in your Bible where different people will swear loyally by their particular translation and even condemn others for using theirs. But in most cases, the people who do this have absolutely no idea why the versions they are using differ from one to the other. That is why a good study Bible or commentary is very helpful in explaining some of the reasoning behind the translators' decisions.

Thus, the study Bible I consulted for the NRSV reading has a footnote which explains that the word “it” actually reads “me” in the Hebrew text. So that pinpoints the root of the different understandings of this verse. But that still leaves unclear why the modern translations given above would change it to “it” or “him.” To get that reason, one would have to consult a Bible commentary. Thus, Marvin Pope explains that the uncertainty between the two readings stems back to the earliest manuscripts of Job that we possess. Some have the Hebrew word lepanaw (“before him”) while others read lepanay (“before it”). There was obviously an accidental error made by a scribe in copying the text at some early point which gave rise to the confusion.

But the above doesn't yet explain why some translators would go with one reading and some with the other. Again, a commentary, this time by John Hartley, gives the reasoning behind each option. While admitting that “before him” makes a little more sense in the context of the verse, “before me” has stronger manuscript support and is also the more difficult reading. This illustrates another principle of textual criticism stating that the harder reading is usually to be preferred since it is more likely that scribes would have purposely altered to text to make it more understandable, not less so.

In the final analysis, there are valid reasons behind either option, and it is obviously not something to start an argument over.

Job 41:11

The exact same factors affecting the understanding of the previous verse apply here also. If one believes that 41:10 refers to God (“me”) then this verse comes out such as rendered below

    RSV: “Who has given to me that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.”

    NIV: “Who then has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.”

Marvin Pope notes that this is “a lofty thought entirely out of keeping with the context.” But if one believes that 41:10 refers to Leviathan, then the following are possibilities:

    NRSV: “Who can confront it and be safe? – under the whole heaven, who?”

    NEB: “Who has ever attacked him unscathed? Not a man under the wide heaven.”

    JB: “Who can attack him with impunity? No one beneath all heaven.”

But whichever way one goes with a translation, there is ambiguity associated with this verse, as several translators note: “meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain” (RSV), “probable reading” (NEB), and “Hebrew text reads, 'Who ever came before me (with a gift) that I should repay.'” (AB). Marvin Pope notes that Paul actually quotes this verse in Romans 11:35 in a version which makes v. 11 refer to God while the Greek Septuagint has it refer to Leviathan.

Job 41:15

    RSV and NRSV: “Its back is made of shields in rows, shut up closely as with a seal.”

    NEB: His back is row upon row of shields enclosed in a wall of flint.”

    NIV: “His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together.”

    JB: “His back is like rows of shields sealed with a seal of stone.”

    AB: “The folds of his flesh are compact, molded on him unmovable.”

The Hebrew text of this verse actually reads gaawa (“pride”) in place of gewah (“his back”). But no modern translation that I know of goes with that reading since it makes little sense in the verse. Hartley notes that the there is no difference between the two Hebrew words other than in the vowels. But since vowels were not in the original manuscripts, there could have easily been a mistake in assigning them when they were first added at a much later date.

The other inconsistency between the various translations above concerns the second half of the verse. The Hebrew text uses the word sar, meaning “narrow” or “tight” while sor means “rock” or “flint.” Hartley accurately notes that sar makes perfect sense in the context of the verse, there is really no reason at all to alter it.