Most people realize that English translations of the Bible differ for a number of reasons. But it still can be a shock when you are in a group Bible study and someone starts reading from a translation that appears to have little or no correspondence to what you are reading in your own Bible. The one great temptation we need to fight is to immediately denounce other version as being heretical in intent, purposely departing from the true word of God in order to promote some agenda of its own. This possibility may seem to be overemphasized to many today in our world where we are blessed with a number of good translations, but I have seen major controversies arise within the church during my lifetime over this sort of issue. The best way to counter this divisive trend is to get back to the basics concerning all the factors that go into the production of a Bible translation. I would like to take a chapter from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament to demonstrate how these various factors play out. In this post I will concentrate on Habakkuk 2.
One simple factor affecting how the original languages are translated is that each translation, when it was produced, was geared toward a particular audience at that time. Thus, one obvious factor is that every living language tends to change with time. If you don't believe that to be true, just try reading Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original some time. Move forward in time a little to Shakespeare in the 17th century and his English becomes quite a bit more understandable, but it still contains many passages that are almost incomprehensible to most of us. Then consider the fact that the King James Version was produced during Shakespeare's time.
Thus, some of the archaic words in it have been replaced with modern equivalents. In other more dangerous cases, a modern word may appear in KJV but with an entirely different meaning in mind. Think of Jesus' words: “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Below are some examples comparing KJV words with those in NRSV, a translation within the same general family:
Verse KJV NRSV
5 enlargeth his desire open their throats wide
6 ladeth load
8 spoiled plundered
8, 12, 17 blood bloodshed
9 coveteth an evil covetousness get evil gain
10 consulted shame devised shame
12 stablisheth found
13 very vanity nothing
18 graven shaped
18 molten image cast image
18-19 dumb can't speak, silent
19 laid over plated
The NKJV updates of these archaic usages.
A more subtle difference between various translations is found in the way they break up the text into individual paragraphs. Again, taking Habakkuk 2 as an example, we have the following divisions:
JB 1-4, 5-6a, 6b-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20
NEB 1-3, 4-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20
NIV 1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20
RSV, NRSV 1-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20
For additional divisions, see my post “Habakkuk: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”
So which set of divisions is correct? In fact, the ancient Hebrew had no paragraphs for us to use as a guide. Therefore it is more a matter of style than anything else, except where the text itself gives us a hint as to where the division points fall. Notice that all of the above translations agree in starting new paragraphs with verses 9, 12, 15, and 18. That is because the first three of these verses begin with the same words: “Alas for you” or “Woe to you.” These words do not, however, appear in v. 18 although they are present in v. 19 instead. Because of that fact, the Jerusalem Bible has taken the bold step of actually reversing the order of verses 18 and 19 in their translation.
In this particular case, that move does not appreciably change the meaning of the words, but emending the original Hebrew text in this way is not something that most other translators would be comfortable doing without strong manuscript evidence to back up their decision. And there may, in fact, have been a good reason for saving the “woe” statement for v. 19. Thus, Eaton explains the delay of the “woe” clause as follows: “the doom-laden 'woe' is held back, heightening the tension while two rhetorical questions [in v. 18] prepare the way.”
Another subtle feature to look for in translations is how the sentences are indented. Most KJV editions will treat every single verse the same. This is, however, not very helpful in indicating the difference between prose and poetry in the text. By contrast, most modern translations will indicate through appropriate indentations and line divisions which passages are poetic. But even within these translations, there will be some variation as to what sort of indentations to make:
Habakkuk 2:8
Because you yourself have plundered mighty nations,
all the rest of the world will plunder you;
because of bloodshed and violence done in the land,
to the city and all its inhabitants. (NEB)
Because you have plundered many nations,
all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you,
for the blood of men and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who dwell therein. (NRSV)
NEB attempts to diagram the meaning of the passage with the dependent clauses indented more than the independent ones. By contrast, the NRSV portrays it in strictly poetic bicolons where the first and third lines are parallel to one another as are the second and fourth lines. And then there is the TEV which feels that the whole chapter is composed in prose, instead of poetry as with most other modern versions.
In case there are any of you who aren't yet lost, let me point out that all of this is merely an introduction to the more important translation issues involved with Habakkuk 2. Some of the difficulties are due to uncertainties in the present Hebrew text we possess, usually abbreviated as MT for the group of Masoretic scholars who preserved it over the centuries. Fortunately, we now have other ancient sources with which to compare the MT. In the case of the Book of Habakkuk, one such valuable source, at least for its first two chapters, is the Habakkuk Pesher (i.e. commentary) found among the Dead Sea scrolls. It is written in Hebrew and alternates between quoting a verse and then providing a modern fulfillment of the prophecies being cited. Wurthwein states that there are approximately 60 places in which this Pesher differs from the MT. But Robertson cites Brownlee for a warning against taking the evidence of the Pesher too strongly since the Qumran author may have been quite selective as to the Hebrew text he chose to quote in his commentary.
There is another document among the Dead Sea scroll of use to scholars of Habakkuk. That is the Scroll of the Minor Prophets, discovered in 1952 and written in Greek. However, there is a great controversy as to whether this translation originated with an original Hebrew document or is based largely on the Septuagint version. So that, for example, J. W. Wevers states: “It is clear that the text [of Habakkuk 2:6] represents a revision based upon the Hebrew text, because the changes tend toward a more literal translation...but it is equally clear that the reviser began from a Septuagint base.” Because of this uncertainty, as well as the poor state of preservation of the scroll, the value of the Scroll of the Minor Prophets in establishing the original Hebrew text of Habakkuk is somewhat limited.
“The significance of the Qumran documents for textual criticism can be summarized in three propositions. First and foremost, the Dead Sea Scrolls take the textual scholar back around one thousand years earlier than previously known Hebrew manuscript evidence. Prior to the Qumran discoveries, the earliest complete copies of OT books dated from about the early eleventh century C.E. The Qumran manuscripts thus give much earlier evidence for the test of the OT than anything that was previously known.” And in addition, “the Qumran scrolls, while being much earlier than the MT, generally support the accuracy with which the MT was copied.” (Brotzman and Tully)
Below is a sampling of some of problem verses in this chapter:
Habakkuk 2:1b The standard Hebrew text reads, “I will keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what I will answer concerning my complaint.” Although, this may make sense, the NRSV for one prefers to go with the ancient Aramaic translation which substitutes “he” for the underlined “I” in this verse.
Habakkuk 2:2 Stephens-Hodge explains that the literal reading “so he may run who reads it” is actually a Hebrew idiom that means “that he may read it quickly (whoever may happen to see it).” In other words, it is written in large letters. This illustrates the quandary that a translator often faces. Do you render the Hebrew words literally so that it is meaningless to today's audience, or do you paraphrase it to convey the intended meaning instead?
Habakkuk 2:3 If 'od in the parallel line is changed to 'ed (“witness”), then one can translate: “For the vision is a 'testifier' at the appointed time, indeed, a witness at the end and does not lie.” (Chisholm)
Habakkuk 2:4a
“Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them.” (NRSV)
“Those who are evil will not survive.” (TEV)*
“See, the enemy is puffed up: his desires are not upright.” (NIV)
“Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail.” (RSV)**
“See how he flags, he whose soul is not at rights.” (JB)***
“The reckless will be unsure of himself.” (NEB)
*Hebrew unclear
**Heb is puffed up
***Heb: It is distended (=full of pride?). Latin Vulgate: “He who is unbelieving.” Greek: “If he flags, my soul is not pleased with him.”
Note that even if you do not understand a word of Hebrew, those translations which provide textual footnotes (such as TEV, RSV, and JB above) will give you an idea that the meaning of that verse is not quite certain.
Interestingly, this verse is quoted by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 10:38) from the Septuagint form instead of the Hebrew. And thus it reads, “If he, i.e. the promised deliverer who will surely come (Habakkuk 2:3), draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”
One possible clue available wherever Hebrew poetry is involved, as in this verse, is that the second line of the verse will almost always have some sort of relationship with the first line, either as a parallel statement or as its exact opposite. In this case, Habakkuk 2:4b clearly reads, “But the righteous live by their faith.” This is a tip-off that 2:4a probably makes a contrasting statement about those who are not righteous. So A.R. Hulst explains that the key word 'uppla(h) is the feminine form of “puffed up.” However, other forms of the same Hebrew root give rise to the meaning “the one who is puffed up” or “the wicked.” Similarly, the reading 'ullap zu can be adopted in place of 'upplah, making possible the translation shown for RSV above.
By the way, both NIV and NRSV provide a helpful translation footnote for 4b explaining that the Hebrew word for “faith” can alternatively mean “faithfulness.” Stephens-Hodge elaborates: “Here faithfulness as well as faith is in view; the term is wider than in Paul or Hebrews.” He cites several OT references where the word may mean faithfulness, truth, or righteousness.
Habakkuk 2:5 Stephens-Hodge states, “The meaning of v. 5 has been a long-standing problem.” And Nute seconds that opinion: “Verse 5 presents a number of textual and exegetical problems.” Hulst rehearses the problems associated with this verse beginning with the fact that a literal rendering of the Hebrew makes little sense:
“how much more, the wine, acting disloyally, man, reckless, and he shall not have rest.”
One approach is that taken by the RSV, to try and make sense out of the Hebrew words as they stand. This gives rise to a translation such as: “moreover, wine is treacherous; the arrogant man shall not abide.”
But the Habakkuk scroll found at Qumran substitutes the word hon (“wealth”) for hayyayin (“the wine”) as well as changing the verb form. So, assuming that this version stems from an alternative Hebrew text dating to before that time, one can now read, “how much more, wealth deceives the reckless man; he shall know no rest.” The NRSV has adopted that basic approach to v. 5.
Habakkuk 2:7 Wakeley: “Opinion is divided on whether the word [nsk] means 'your debtors (those who pay you interest)' or 'your creditors (those who take interest from you)' but, given the context, the reading 'your creditors' is the more probable.” This serves to show that often the individual words cannot just be translated one at a time, but the whole sentence or even the larger context of the passage must be kept in mind.
Habakkuk 2:9-11 Bruckner notes, “the distinct hissing sound of the Hebrew letter s resounds in the key words of the text: 'builds gain' (bosea, besa), 'to escape' (lehinnasel), 'you have plotted' (ya asta), 'the ruin of' (qesot) and 'woodwork' (me'es).” A translator can chose to ignore such wordplay or attempt to somehow duplicate the idea with a paraphrase using phrases such as Bruckner employs: “wall-stones and woodwork will cry out.”
Habakkuk 2:11a The Hebrew word for “plaster” used here can also be translated as “beam,” according to NRSV.
Habakkuk 2:13 The word bede'es in this verse may be comparable to bederiq (“for nothing,” as in NEB) in place of “for the fire.” (Carroll)
Habakkuk 2:15 NRSV offers as an alternative translation to “wrath” – the word “poison.” And Brooke notes, “Whereas scholars had frequently emended Hab 2:15 to read 'from the goblet of' (missap), the same reading as MT is preserved in [the Qumran Pesher on Habakkuk].”
Habakkuk 2:16 The Hebrew text of first part of this verse reads, “You will be filled with contempt instead of glory. Drink, you yourself and be uncircumcised.” The meaning of this last word may also be rendered as “show your uncircumcision” or “uncover yourself.” (Hulst) But if the Hebrew word for uncircumcision (he'arel) is actually an accidental copying error for hera'el (“stagger”) instead, then one obtains a different meaning to the sentence. And this is exactly how the Dead Sea scroll and the Greek Septuagint versions of this text read. Among modern translations going with the word “uncircumcision” are RSV, NIV, and JB. Those adopting “stagger” instead include NEB, TEV, and NRSV.
Habakkuk 2:17 A footnote to the first half of this verse in the NRSV says, “Meaning of Heb uncertain.” And so those translators went instead with the clearer meaning found in both the Septuagint and Aramaic versions to yield “For the violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you; the destruction of the animals will terrify you.”
Fortunately, not all portions of the OT present as many translation uncertainties as this chapter.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments