About
God Didn’t Say That is an online forum for discussing translations, and mistranslations, of the Bible.
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman is the chief translator for the ten-volume series My People’s Prayer Book and author of And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning. He holds a PhD in theoretical linguistics and has taught at Brandeis University and HUC-JIR in New York City. more…
Have a question or a topic you’d like addressed? Click on “About” here or to the far upper right and leave a comment.
124 Comments »
Leave a Reply
From AGS-
Recent Comments
I am delighted to see your blog – what a great blog title.
Agreed. Great blog title.
Here’s a question – what about that word אֶת?
here it is as preposition in a phrase where Cain is obviously the direct object קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה
While I would not normally translate it when it is an object marker (it seems unnecessary most of the time it is used), I have read (Rabbi Steven Greenberg) that it is sometimes a word that is ‘read into’. As in כַּבֵּד אֶת־אָבִיךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּךָ or even the very first verse of the Bible.
What do you think? Is it OK to include grandparents, step-parents, adoptive parents in the father and mother – as if it were implied in the aleph-taf? Or as if the heavens and the earth included more than the whole visible universe.
Tomorrow I teach my five minute Hebrew lesson to children (and this time I have a whole hour for creation – Genesis 1 too). Last year I did roughly one letter a week and ended up the year with an alef-bet book (the record of my classes is here) which we will use again this year. This year I was thinking of learning numbers – starting with one and using the ordinal numbers of Genesis 1-2:4 as a beginning. No wonder I have not learned numbers yet – I have been reviewing Lambdin and there are so many variations in the form of 1 to 7 in Hebrew. I noticed that only on day 6 and 7 is the definite article used with the number and it is never used with te word ‘day’. I notice also that Hebrew is much more careful (as is Greek) with the concept of definiteness. English speakers tend to use definite also as generic and often without much thought.
Should translators into English of Genesis 1-2:4 be more careful with the idea of definite? And why is the definite not attached to the word day in the 6th and 7th day. Does the number act as adjective here or as something slightly different?
The Twelve Prophets . I find it strange that the abbreviation for these books is given as תרי עשר
Why are the 12 called 10? Please could you say more about the grammar of this phrase. Thanks
I’m not sure I understand the question. “Trei asar” does mean 12, albeit in Aramaic.
In Galatians 3:16 Paul makes an essentially linguistic argument about Genesis 22:18. Does the Hebrew word for ‘seed’ have a similar range of meanings as the English word? Paul’s argument feels strange in English because when ‘seed’ is used to mean descendants it is a non-count noun. Is the Hebrew world also a non-count noun?
Hi,
I just had a question, hope you don’t mind. I was reading Matthew 5:17-19 and I thought maybe another translation would be possible.
Here is the original Koine Greek, with no punctuation.
μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον καταλυσαι τον νομον η τους προφητας ουκ ηλθον καταλυσαι αλλα πληρωσαι αμην γαρ λεγω υμιν εως αν παρελθη ο ουρανος και η γη ιωτα εν η μια κεραια ου μη παρελθη απο του νομου εως αν παντα γενηται ος εαν ουν λυση μιαν των εντολων τουτων των ελαχιστων και διδαξη ουτως τους ανθρωπους ελαχιστος κληθησεται εν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων ος δ αν ποιηση και διδαξη ουτος μεγας κληθησεται εν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων
Translated in the NIV, the verse reads, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the, prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a, pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever, practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
However, the two “untils” in verse 17 seem a bit clunky to me and don’t make much sense. Seeing as there is no punctuation in the Koine Greek, would it be possible to punctuate it this way instead?
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the, prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a, pen, will by any means disappear from the Law. Until everything is accomplished, anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever, practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Thank you very much!
-Cameron
What’s going on with the pronomial suffixes in Psalm 103 3-8? I can’t find כִי as a pronomial suffix in any of my grammar books – neither singular nor plural!
Thanks for the question page.
Hey Dr. Hoffman,
I am currently trying to find a good bible translation to read and study from. What would you reccomend and could you point me to any good articles/books/resources which could help me make this decision? Thanks!
toryninja
ive found that the translation known as “the scriptures” is very valuable as many of the words that have ambiguous meaning in english or are directly decended from pagan deities are replaced. the footnotes also bring together quite a few doctrinal discourses that are rarely covered. hope this helps!
Here is something I ignored when I translated Job and I don’t think I should have. In chapter 1 we get the בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים. In chapter 38 we get the beni elohim without the definite article. I am thinking that the first should be the children (or sons) of the gods or of the mighty, and the second the children of God? This is without looking up Tur Sinai and all the other references I used that are since back in the library – so I ask you instead (thanks).
Is Genesis 4:7, the first 3 words, הֲלֹוא אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת an example of the idiom of a condition with antecedent but no stated consequence? Would the last of the three words apply to Cain (as KJV implies) or to Cain’s offering (JPS)?
Ooh, let me be number eleven! I’d like to formally ask about the possible meanings of Iscariot. Although I highly doubt it’s actually related to the Latin sicarius (assassin), I’ve heard that as an unlikely though interesting theory.
What explanation(s) of that surname/epinym do you find plausible?
Todah in advance!
Is it true that in Greek they didn’t have multiple words that meant the same thing or one word that meant multiple things? More clearly – that every word had only one meaning and each thing/idea had only one word for it. Thanks!
I have a question relating to this comment here
Is Mark translating the Aramaic correctly? And if so, is the Hebrew then badly translated?
I have a question about Exodus 2:3. What does it mean that she saw that baby Moses was tov?
Could it be a statement of affection, the way we refer to children and pets as “good?” Or does “seeing that…good” simply echo Genesis 1?
Correction: Exodus 2:2.
Here is a question – I have explored the usage of ish and ishah in Ruth (here) and I was surprised to see in 3.14
וַתָּקָם בְּטֶרֶם יַכִּיר אִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ
וַיֹּאמֶר אַל-יִוָּדַע כִּי-בָאָה הָאִשָּׁה הַגֹּרֶן
and she rose before a man could recognize his friend
and he said – let it not be known that ‘the woman’ came to the threshing floor
This seems a strange use of the definite article! I wondered if it was a little joke between them.
I have a question about Matthew 27:54. The centurion and the rest of the detachment set to guard Jesus’ body cried out and said “truly he was the Son of God!” …or is that really what they said?
Since it lacks the articles in Greek, and Latin doesn’t have articles, is it possible that they really said “truly he was the son of a god!”?
If this is the case, then despite their ignorance of Judaism, they’d be affirming at least Jesus’ divine nature even if not understanding his full identity. The contrast with the Jewish leaders would produce further drama and irony, compared to the usual interpretation of this passasge.
I have a question about the gender of nations. It seems like nations can be referred with both masculine and feminine pronouns. Is there any significance with this change? For example, Moab is “he” in Isa 16:12, Israel is “he” in Jer 2:14; 50:17 but “herself” in Jer 3:11, and Babylon is “she” in Jer 50:29, just to name a few.
I wonder what information the definite article adds to XARITI in Eph 2:8.
Also, what in the world do the words of Matthew 5:3 mean?
Thanks.
Was this answered “what in the world do the words of Matthew 5:3 mean?” because now I am curious…Rhoda
The NET Bible does not render imperatives in this verse, while others do. Their footnote is helpful, but not enough for me to opine on which is right. What light can you shed on this?
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=97&verse=7
Thanks.
Dr. Hoffman: should English translations seek to retain subtle distinctions, such as the difference between dying and perishing?
Much to my surprise, the (T)NIV chose to say “those who live by the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Since I grew up reading NIV, but have since become a pacifist, this editorializing is a shock and disappointment to me.
As a grammar lesson, I tried parsing psalm 117. There is a possible usage of a ‘he’ marking the use of the vocative (BDB 1.i) but the article is missing on the first colon kol goyim and present on the second shavxuhu col ha’umim. It seems to me that ‘praise the Lord all ye nations’ is different from ‘praise the Lord, all nations’. While both may be vocative, English vocative would be ‘praise the Lord O nations all’, and English suggests preaching rather than invitation if the you or ye is added. What do you think about the use of ‘he’ as signaling the vocative and then the problem of expressing this in English.
What does “prince of peace” mean? Peaceful prince – as in “Not prone to war?”
Along the same lines as WoundedEgo, how should ‘wounderful, counselor’ be translated?
Still working on he and vav and I came across this pair of words in Ruth וַתִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה
Two questions – why the vav at the end of the first word? and why the he at the end of the second? KJV translates it as if it were hithpael – she bowed herself to the ground. If I were naming every consonant, I would write: and she-bowed-herself-his on her-earth. I wonder about what his gracious words might mean for her. Perhaps she gave him a bow on her earth.
Thanks again for being open to questions.
I’ve been watching a documentary about Dietrich Boenhoffer. It says that this verse was very important to him:
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
His reading said that “he that believes does not flee”. Is that what this says?
Thanks in advance.
I’m not sure if this is appropriate for this blog, but I’ll “put it out there…”
Where is Moses?
We have a dispute about his body. So where is he? And in what body?
Is it possible that this verse refers to, or alludes to, a broken neck (spinal column), with no possibility of mending (except, in modern times, T-cells)?
Pr 29:1 ¶ He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck[, his neck] shall suddenly be broken, and that without remedy [mending].
What is with the references to “reprover” and “fire” in the LXX?
Pr 29:1 ¶ A reprover is better than a stiff–necked man: for when the latter is suddenly set on fire, there shall be no remedy.
Do you have a suggestion for a better translation than “commandments” for DEVARYM in “ten commandments”?
Mark 1:2 and Isaiah 40:3 — is the idea that crooked paths need to be straightened, or that obstacles need to be removed?
P.S. Do you still enjoy this blog three months later? I hope it doesn’t feel like a chore.
I was wondering about Lamentations 4:3. All modern translations seem to agree that it mentions jackals, but the KJV translated it as “sea monster”, which commentaries then took to mean “pelican” (on the basis that pelicans were thought to feed their young with their own blood, a myth of good parenting that’s relevant to the context).
How could the KJV have got it so wrong? It’s not as though they’re similar animals. And is the modern translation certain?
Me again, I’m afraid.
Wikipedia, the source of all truth, says that Nabal in 1 Samuel 25:25 is “euphemistically translated as fool”. So far as I can tell, it’s always translated as fool or something similar. I can’t seem to find a dirty meaning for “nabal” anywhere. Is that because mainstream scholarship is too prudish or is Wikipedia talking nonsense?
Joel, I ran across Genesis 6:9 in the TNIV, which says “this is the account of Noah and his family.” I’ve checked the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Message, Luther’s translation (1545), the Amplified Bible, the NLT, and the Leningrad Codex for good measure. Only the TNIV and NLT mention his family.
Is this something the translators added due to a perceived need to clarify, or is there some textual-critical basis for this that I am unaware of?
As a side note: I would propose the word “legacy” for toledoth in the ten special occurrences in Genesis. Does that correctly capture the idea?
Okay, I give up. What does this mean?:
1Jn 5:6 This is he who came by water and by blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only but by water and by blood.
I made a post some time ago about Job. The interchanges are all interesting, but this last one raises an interesting take, and I wonder if it has any validity…
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com/2008/09/job-311.html
With respect to word order, Psalm 27:2 is very tangled. Though we can unconsciously rearrange it – we all hear in the same temporal sequence. So word order has a dramatic or potential dramatic purpose in that we can delay a key word. Hebrew also rarely uses the stand-alone personal pronoun. This verse and the next contain two instances that seem to me to demand treatment in translation.
How would you handle the stumbling word order and the stand-alone pronouns here?
in drawing near to me
to break
to eat even my flesh
my troublers and my enemies
they – to me
they stumbled and fell
and in the following verse
If an army against me is armed
my heart will not fear
if war arises against me
in this I – even I will trust
Thank you so much for your help!
I have come across a paragraph at the end of the Psalter in my borrowed TNK – it contains this word דספר which looks suspiciously like a specialized use of dalet prior to a word I recognize. I wonder if you might comment on that paragraph which I reproduce here. I am going to try and translate it myself also
ח ז ק
סכום פסוקי דספר תהלים אלפים וחמש מאות ועשרים ושבעה.
וסימנו יי׳ אהבתי מעוץ ביתך ומקום משכן כבודך. וחציו
Thank you again
ויפתוהו בפיהם. וסדריו תשעה עשר. וסימנו המשביע בטוב עדיך:
This text isn’t actually part of Psalms. I’ve posted a reply on your site.
I have put my best guess at translating this unpointed unfamiliar Hebrew here
I have a question about Heb 3:13. When it says “exhort yourselves”, is the Greek literally saying “you all exhort each other” or “you all exhort your own selves”, supporting Galatians 6:4? Would the expression in question be
παρακαλειτε εαυτους?
Joel, I really just can’t “grasp” what Paul is doing with katalambano in Philippians 3:12f. There’s no way to translate all three occurrences concordantly, is there?
Joel: I think I found a way to handle this passage.
Not that I’ve already gotten a handle on everything or that I’ve fully matured. I seek that I may take hold, since Christ took hold of me.
Help! please. The first word of Lamentations 3 is a strange word. I can’t find it in BDB or my Hebrew-Latin Concordance. Is it an object marker with a mater and a first person singular pronoun? Strange.
sorry – first word of Lam 3:2 (3:1 is OK)
Two ideas for translation traps:
1. Prepositions mean everything. Example: nagad with either the bet preposition or with el.
2. Prepositions don’t mean anything. See merimnao at the end of Matthew 6, where it occurs with the object in raw dative, raw genitive, peri plus the genitive, and eis plus the accusative. With no discernible difference in meaning.
To put in question format:
How does a responsible translator/interpreter analyze the various ways a given verb can take an object?
Thanks for And God Said and your blog.
On p. 155 of AGS you claim that “there is no divorce in the Bible.”
Based mainly on David Instone-Brewer’s works and my studies I have found 5 divorces between named individuals.
Abraham d. Hagar – Genesis 21:9-14
Shaharaim d. Hushim & Baara – 1 Chr 8:8
God d. Israel – Hosea 2:2a, Jeremiah 3:8a
Xerxes d. Vashti – Esther 1:19a
Also, you speculate that perhaps the Bible would call both an ex-wife and a current wife, “his wife” but this is not true, in Deu 24:1-4 we see “former wife”.
Thoughts?
God “hates divorce”… but apparently, he hated his wife even more!
Thanks for stopping by, Don, and thanks for your great questions. I’ve posted a detailed answer here.
-Joel
On translating SOS 4:12 as “my equal, my lover” I was asked by another what does one do with SOS 8:1 where “brother” is used?
P.S. I agree with “my equal, my lover” and am just passing along the question.
It’s a really good question.
Throughout most of Song of Songs, achot (“sister,” but obviously not anatomically — see my video here) is used to represent power structure.
But in 8:1, the ach (“brother”) specifically “nurses at my mother’s breasts,” so we see evidence that the word is intended literally as “brother.” But I suspect that it’s also a word play.
But I can’t think of a way to translate ach here that would preserve the word play, so I think the best we can do is preserve the meaning, and render the Hebrew as “brother,” perhaps adding a note that the English misses some of the the cleverness of the Hebrew.
(As it typical with poetry, the text is full of clever uses of language, including the “mandrakes” that are featured at the end of the previous chapter. The word for “mandrakes” is dudaim, which sounds like dodi, the male hero of Song of Songs.)
I am not of the opinion that SOS is referring to God and Israel, nor of Jesus and the assembly, but for those who hold that it does, I should think that, along with the kinky imagery, “my equal” would be pretty uncomfortable for most True Believers.
Also, might the nuance of the word be tinged more with “commonality” than “equality?” I’m thinking of “hoodies” or the Australian “mate” idea, or “chum” or “buddy.” In other words, the referent is someone from your “circle” or “family.”
To a soldier, a fellow soldier in the same barracks… that kind of thing. I’m just guessing from the usages, and the uncomfortable nuances of exactitude implied in “equal,” given how it is actually used.
By the way, “dodi” likewise has an interesting semantic domain.
At first I thought that this “About” mechanism was a clever idea, but with 55 comments and counting, you might need a database!
Anyhoo, it crossed my mind that BAPTIZW is nothing more than “I rinse.” John was “one who performs [ceremonial] rinsings.” “Dip” just is wrong. Transliteration is not useful. “Wash” requires soap.
I know that some are concerned with “acceptance” but in a pure world, isn’t it just “rinse”?
Answer.
Hi!
When I read Gen 3 I notice that the serpent and Adam get punished “because you did this/listened to your wife…” but the woman (not yet named)doesn’t get a “because you did..” punishment. Further down it’s notable that only the man is expelled from the garden of Eden (3ms – sorry, I can’t type hebrew on this computer). From my understanding Eve – now given the name connected to “living, life” is not expelled. Did she follow volontarly since it would not be good to be in “her seperatedness,” was she forced by Adam or did God perhaps intend for her to be a sort of substitute for the tree of life in the garden?
If only Adam was expelled (he didn’t obey the commandment given to him alone, before the woman was created) because he didn’t obey God, than indeed the woman was deceived on purpose by Adam, since he didn’t act on her behalf at all as the conversation with serpent was going on.
To me that gives the story a different flavor and also puts the woman in a different position than generally tought. It also gives the words eshet chayil a much stronger meaning – like a life rescuer.
Interested in your thoughts on this.
Shalom!
Hi, Ciccie. Obviously you have given much thought to these matters, and that’s generally a good thing. I would wonder, though, if you aren’t focused too much on the *implicit* rather than the explicit information? You seem to be “reading between the lines.” Some of that is good, but I’d personally be more inclined to be receptive to your ideas if you could show where they are explicitly stated in the text.
It seems you got it backwards. The thing is I do not read between the lines, but that’s what most people seem to do or have been doing. Read this passage for yourself in Hebrew and you’ll notice 2 things:
1. The woman was not created when Adam was given the command
2. God speaks to Adam 2ms when the expelling takes place – there is no plural. Can’t be more explicit than that. Read for yourself! Gen 2:16-17 (2ms) and 3:17 –
BTW only Adam was made from the dust. Eve was made from Adam’s side or rib, so how could anyone but “Adam till the ground from which he was taken”. 3ms. Can it be more explicit?!
I can’t understand from where you draw the conclusion that I read between the lines…
Growing Old and Fat in God’s Courtyard
The word is not fat, the word is oil!
עוד ינובון בשיבה דשנים ורעננים יהיו
Translation:
Ps 92 They shall again return in the ages; they shall be invigorated with oil;
Translation Challenge: Isaiah 28:16
Isa 28:16 Therefore here said the Lord GOD, I lay in Zion for a plinth a stone, to establish a mark, a precious corner, established to be institutionalized: he that hastens to believe shall not become weary.
I would love to know what the Hebrew difference is between being born again and adoption. Are they different words which makes the different translations.
I read the KJV and would like to know if this is one of the better ones for Truth plus can you recommend a better one that conveys Truer Hebrew but is still printed in English?
Any revelations on the shortest verse in the Bible- Yahshua wept. ?
When Yahshua feed the sop to Judas was this His clue for how the sons of perdition could and would be recognized since that time since S.O.P. is the initials for son of perdition…?!!!
I have so many more questions but this is all for now.
Bless you and the Work you have accepted for the good of His Kingdom. You will surely help many to find and stay on His “straight and narrow” Way. Acts 12:13-16 Rhoda
How should Proverbs 19:18 be translated, especially the final clause? The KJV reads, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.” The NKJV changes the last part to “…And do not set your heart on his destruction,” and includes a footnote: “Literally ‘to put him to death’; a Jewish tradition reads ‘on his crying’.” Why did the KJV translators not translate literally? Is the last clause a Hebrew idiom?
The first section of the verse also has competing translations: Do we chasten our sons WHILE there is hope (KJV, NASB) or SEEING there is hope (ASV 1901, DARBY)?; also the ESV, “FOR there is hope,” and NIV “FOR in that there is hope” give the same sense as the ASV.
Leithart explains, “Waltke says that the second clause of this proverb is not ‘while there is hope’ but ‘surely there is hope.’ The issue is not that we should discipline in a timely way, before we lose the opportunity to direct our sons rightly. That is certainly the case, and the failure to act while there is yet hope is a regrettable one that haunts many aging parents. But the accent is on the fact that there is hope. Discipline will have its effect. So, get started and do it: Rebuke, correct, train in righteousness, use the rod, in the hope that this will bear fruit by the power of the Spirit.
This hope is so secure that Solomon says – very bluntly – that anyone who fails to act on this hope is in fact encouraging the death of his son. Solomon puts it even more strongly: Anyone who fails to act on the hope that discipline will drive folly from the heart desires the death of his son. That is likely not a conscious and overt desire, but Solomon says that it is there. Failure to discipline a son is at least a statement of indifference: ‘I don’t care if he dies.’”
What is the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton?
Rabbi Morton Kaplan
Answer.
[...] About [...]
Pingback by Q&A: The Original Baptism « God Didn't Say That | August 24, 2010 |
Id like a clarification on “Elohim”. IIRC, from my long-ago schooldays studying Hebrew, the ancient Hebrew word “el-lah” means “god” (and is the origin of the Muslim “Allah”), “el-lat” means “goddess” (and is the origin of the ancient town of “Eilat”), “el-loh” means “either god or goddess”, and the suffix “-im” on a word makes it plural. This would mean that “Elohim”, used in the first chapter of Genesis, actually means “the gods and goddesses”, or “the pantheon”. Therefore it’s a pantheon that creates the universe — including human beings — rather than a single male god.
The word “adonai”, which does mean “lord”, doesn’t appear until the second book of Genesis. This rather strongly implies that the Garden of Eden and the two humans therein were a separate and minor creation by one particular god rather than the whole pantheon. That has interesting applications concerning the supposed universality of the Judeo-Christian god.
–Leslie <
We have a Torah Study group that has several members who are feminists. Every year (this is our 6th year) we get to discuss why the word Lokach ishah, takes a woman, gets translated as “marries”. Genesis 24:67 Issac takes Rebekah as his woman and it gets translated in NJPS as …he took Rebekah as his wife, I love your explanation in “And God Said” that lokach ishah does not really mean married but indicates order of importance. There is a similar problem when kallah gets translated as daughter-in-law, Genesis 11:31. My question is when and how did the word chatunah, for marriage come into use and when and how did kallah start to mean bride? At one point I thought that lokach was used in the Torah but not in the Prophets and the Writings. Yet today I read that kach is still being used in 1 Chronicles 2:18.
This may be more of a philosophical/historical question than a linguistic one, but how would you render the word usually given as “vanity” in Ecclesiastes?
Abstract nouns are notoriously difficult to track even within a language – “nobility” now is not what it was – but how would you render it given a all the time and ink in the world.
I was told recently that it should be given as either “wind” or “nothing”, but that was merely a rumour.
Answer.
Thnaks for your presentation for the ARC — You mentioned the use of “ahoti” in Song of Songs meaning more than “my sister,” but better translated as “my equal.” How do you understand Abraham’s turning to Sarah and telling her to tell the Egyptians that she is “…his sister, so that things will go well for him”?
Glad you enjoyed the presentation.
Here’s my answer.
When in Israel a few days ago, my wife and I watched a Pink Panther film with subtitles in Hebrew. I haven’t yet dared to try and translate them and I didn’t get picture of the funniest, but this must be quite an exercise, doing subtitles for an English comedy. There are a few screen images here
I am an alum of AJR and I regret not having the time to hear you speak
at the Staying Connected Series. I was teaching psalms to a group of
seniors at a nursing home…
I am troubled by an English translation of the Hebrew verb YiLaVeh,
which is the source to the name of Levi. I have tried searching for
more information as you do in your most recent book which I am
just about done with on my Kindle…. However, I have fallen short.
Two translations I have found are “attached to me” or “joined unto me”
or “feel affection for.”
Can you weigh in on what is the more accurate translation?
Shabbat Shalom,
Steven
I really enjoyed listening to you speak a few weeks ago. I have the following two questions:
1. In the New Testament Romans 9-11 I think that it says something like “All Israel will be saved”. Have you done any of your linguistics analysis to determine whether this means what it says on its face or whether it means that all Israel will somehow see the light that Jesus is the Messiag and THEN all Israel will be saved?
2. In Isaiah 53, it talks of a suffering servant. Have you analyzed this passage to determine whether this is referring to the people of Israel or a single individual (ie Jesus)?
Thanks for your help.
I would be very interested also in what a linguist says about this. From my understanding the word “Israel” needs to be qualified. Is Paul speaking of spiritual Israel (Gal 3:29) or physical Israel (Rom 9:1)? When Paul spoke of Israel he would have had in mind the Israel (whether spiritual or physical) of his day.
In Romans 11:14, Paul is speaking of his hope to save some of those who are of his flesh – physical or literal Israel. In Romans 11:26 he says “and so all Israel shall be saved.” If all literal Israel was going to be saved he would not be “hoping” for the possibility that some of them might be saved.
We always have to understand whether a passage is speaking of literal or spiritual Israel; there is a difference.
[...] About [...]
Pingback by The Year in Review « God Didn't Say That | December 31, 2010 |
Hi,
I’m enjoying your blog, and your book, as a ‘non academic’ believer.
Could you discuss some time how to distinguish the ‘normal’ and ‘specialist’ uses of NT church leadership terms (apostolos, presbyturos, diaconos, …?), with particular reference to their appearance in masculine & feminine forms?
I’ve noticed that some translations assume all the feminine forms must be ‘normal’ use, whilst some of the masculine ones are translated using specialist church words.
In Matthew 5:27 there are phrases about offensive right eye and hand and that you should get rid of them to save your whole self from hell. In what sense can your limbs offend you? Modern interpretation of the literal sense would have that your eye is entirely subservient to the mind so plucking it out can’t help. Interpreting the phrases metaphorically is easier but then the difficulty is that there is one about the eye and another about the hand so it would appear that the writer intended literal interpretation (otherwise why not use a different metaphorical domain in the second usage).
Rob, Moses described man as being composed of two parts:
* flesh (clay)
* breath (the “breath of life”)
For Moses and the Jews, the body was the wonderful handiwork of YHVH.
But Greek philosophy began to think in terms of matter being evil, and “beneath contact with the diety.”
Considered alone, the Matthew passages might seem to just be figures, exaggerations or what have you. But Paul clearly and explicitly, over and over, attributes sin to be “living in his members” almost like an evil alien being. He says the flesh has a separate and distinct mind from the breath. I think that we are compelled to understand these writers to conceive of the members of the body as being “sin compartments.” Note that Paul explicitly lays the blame on the members (or rather, Mr. Sin living in his members):
Rom 7:23 But I see another law ***in my members***, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin ***which is in my members***.
That’s pretty explicit. I commend you on your not dismissing the text based on modern suppositions.
When Paul uses images from Greek philosophy, I often wonder whether that was “simply” in order to communicate with people who had a Greek mindset, or whether he accepted their understanding of human nature (in this case), over against the Jewish understanding which he presumably knew at least as well.
Paul seems to have his own take, which has the two elements from Moses (SARX and PNEUMA) which he takes as being in opposition, ala the Greek philosophers, whereas for the Jews, by and large, saw them in harmony. The Jew, according to Paul, had two distinct minds. The mind which was intelligent and could agree with the law and the mind of the flesh, which was hostile to that law. Two distinct minds! The second mind is also what Paul refers to as “Mr. Sin.”
Can you comment on the Hebrew and/or Septuagint of Psalm 119:4?
Is the following translation remotely viable?
“You have commanded Your precepts to keep them [i.e. the people spoken of in v.3] diligently.”
I’ve been curious about this for a few years.
Thank you,
Derek Ashton
Daniel 7:21 (KJV) says “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;” The word translated “prevailed” is Strong’s #3202
And is translated as can (6 times), able (4 times) and prevailed (1 time). The single use of prevailed does not seem to convey the same meaning as the other uses. It could sound discouraging to the saints facing the last days but is it translated correctly?
Election, Ephesians 1:4. Based on the Greek Grammar, would this be an appropriate translation?:
“Even before the foundation of the world, he chose, to be holy and blameless before him, us, in him, in love.”
I realize in the English it is not a pleasant construction and must be read with all appropriate inflection/nuance but my reason for asking is because of the “to be” adverb einai which acts as an adverbial infinitive to the main verb exelexato. In other words this indicates that this passage should be understood as God choosing, not specifically who would be “in Christ” but that whoever would be “in Christ”, that this is the means by which they would be holy and blameless. Christ is the location or place God chose for to be holy and blameless and not necessarily who would be holy and blameless (Calvinisms election) but that in Christ, we would be holy and blameless. As well, if it were about who would be in Christ it would grammatically be normal to attach it to choosing those “to be” in Christ and not those who are “to be” holy and without blemish, in Christ.
I’m curious about your finding on the word Satan which it’s my understanding of the OT most often comes from the word sawtawn. I’ve done some reading from research done by author James R. Brayshaw who shows that the first appearance of the word ‘sawtawn’ in the OT is in Numbers 22 when the Angel of the LORD appeared to Balaam to be and adversary to him. The word ‘sawtawn’ was translated to ‘adversary’ in this instance because it was referring to the LORD but is the same word that appears in the book of Job and many other places that is translated as capital ‘S’ Satan. Brayshaw argues in his book that every instance of the word Satan should not be capitalized because it was not intended to be a name of a literal being, is this correct?
Great question. I look forward to the response with bated breath.
I need help in translating a phrase into classical Hebrew that I plan to incorporate into one of my drawings. The concept I wish to express is: “I fell; (yet) I shall establish* and I shall be raised)”. *or: create / found. The symbolic context is that of our being (now) in the “fallen” state but, through our own efforts/initiatives to improve ourselves, we can be “lifted up” to a more divine state; Optimally (for visual and symbolic effect), I should like the phrase to consist of three word clumps. Am I anywhere close with: נפלתי: אקים והרומתי ?
Thank you for any help you could provide!
As I understand things, it is the Egyptians that invented the concept of the “nation-state.” Abraham was a figure of a patriarchal society (society defined by family relation, ruled by the alpha males). So when YHVH says to Abram, “I will make you the father of many GOYIM,” and “In you all the GOYIM will bless themselves,” was he saying:
* “You will be father many sons that will form many nation-states, who will see you as their wonderful father”;
* “Your descendents will be be a great nation-state, like a magnificent alpha male to all of the other nation-states”;
* “Your descendents will be a great tribal society and the nation-states around you will be dependent on you, and seek your blessing”;
Or something else altogether?
In other words, was he referring to the promise of being a great family? Or a great nation-state? Or in some sense a super-state or Uberman over the other nations?
Does the word GOY distinguish reliably?
Thanks!
I just found this interesting study on the name of Abraham:
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Abraham.html
im looking for a connotative dictionary of hebrew to help w the understanding of a few passages/words. but it would also b a great value to further studies im sure! any help forthcoming is appreciated. ty
Joel, in another discussion, a Hebrew speaker claims that the plurals of Genesis 1:26 are not in the text. Is this true? I know they are in the Greek, but can’t tell if they are in the Hebrew, but everybody puts them there. If they aren’t there, then why does everyone put them there? Thanks.
Hmmmm, if you are referring to God’s use of the plural (‘us’ and ‘our’), the Hebrew text of BHS shows the verb (na’aseh) as the qal imperfect,1st person plural. The Hebrew word translated as “our image” (tzal’menu) is similarly plural having the 1st person plural suffix.
Maybe I’m missing something, though.
Blessings,
Michael
Wouldn’t b’tzal’menu be the plural of image (images), rather than ‘Our’ as in reference to God Himself? vai·yo·mer e·lo·him, na·’a·seh a·dam would translate ‘said God make man’. There’s no ‘Let Us’ in there. If you look up Ezra 10:3 “Let us make [a covenant]” we get “nich•rat-” – totally different Hebrew words. Likewise kid·mu·te·nu would indicate likenesses, rather than ‘Our’ likeness, right?
Would you care to comment on the translation of Genesis 3:16, specifically the phrase (NIV) “your desire will be for your husband…”.
Is it possible that the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ is a parablepsis? The LXX, for example, translates its Hebrew source as ἀποστροφή (turning back or returning) — almost as if the LXX translator saw a form of the word t’shuvatekh, not t’shuqatekh.
The phrase would then read something along the lines of “you will [re]turn to your husband…”.
(If I seem like I know what I’m talking about, it’s because I read your latest post on mistakes).
Blessings,
Michael
While you are at it, does “husband” denote one’s “man”, one’s “spouse” or is it in essence a farming term?
Thanks.
Psalm 103 appears to have several nouns ending in kaf-yod translated as thy (you singular) in AV but looking like a construct of the you plural kaf-mem with the mem written so as to almost run on the sentences as if they should be piled on to each other. I couldn’t find a pronomial suffix like this in Lambdin. In vv 3, 4, 5 only one suffix is a normal kaf – all the others are kaf-yod.
Is there a rule I should have found in my books? Thanks
In Numbers 35:19 we have the words “goel hadam”. It seems that many if not most translations render goel as avenger. Sometimes in brackets there is blood redeemer. Shouldn’t the translation be “redeemer” and allow the reader to decide if the redemption will be a form of revenge, an eye for an eye, or of intense dialogue and/or monetary payment? In my way of thinking redeemer and avenger are not synonyms. How are they similar and how are they different?
Leshalom, Y
Judah’s Daughter wrote:
>”Wouldn’t b’tzal’menu be the plural of image (images), rather than
>‘Our’ as in reference to God Himself?”
Grammatically, the answer is no. Theologically, one interpretation holds that God is speaking to His heavenly court. This explains the use of the 1st person plural possessive ‘Our’. This is an interpretation to which I hold. This is not unlike my saying to my wife, let us paint our house. House is singular.
The problem with my answer, however, and what makes your question interesting theologically is a two-fold problem: to what does God refer when he says ‘our image’. To be grammatically strict, the image must either be (1) the image of the collective court or (2) God’s image, but an image in which the court participates.
>”vai•yo•mer e•lo•him, na•’a•seh a•dam would translate ‘said God
>make man’. There’s no ‘Let Us’ in there.”
Literally translated, you are correct. However, the verb in question, naaseh, is viewed grammatically as being in the ‘cohortative’ mood (the 1st person variant of the Jussive). Think of these moods as reflecting intention, purpose, or command. When addressed to superiors this mood is often interpreted as a request. When addressed to inferiors, this mood is often interpreted as a command. Thus, the English phrase “Let us” is generally used by translators to capture the idea of intention or purpose.
>Likewise kid•mu•te•nu would indicate likenesses,
>rather than ‘Our’ likeness, right?”
Well, no. The word for likeness, d’mut, is singular in form.
Blessings,
Michael
Thank you! I’m no Hebrew scholar, but if ‘nu’ makes the word to which it’s attached plural (perhaps I’m wrong), it would act as an ‘s’ in English…meaning ‘images’ (male and female) and ‘likenesses’ (of the heavenly host – governance). I hold to the same view as you, that the LORD God was speaking to His heavenly host. The use of “Us” is obviously incorrect, and the use of “Our” for intensity only aided the birthing of the false doctrine of the ‘Trinity’.
Okay, so I looked up what -nu indicates in Hebrew, which is ‘our’. The verse would literally state, “said God make man” Our image to Our likeness”. The verse continues about how man will rule. Since “Let Us” is not literally there, as is translated in Ezra 10:3, we can agree it was God who made man in His own [singular] image (Gen 1:27), yet we were made in the image and likeness of the heavenly host, in regard to governance. I think I put this to rest now. God bless and thank you for your patience ~ I’m yet learning.
I’m enjoying And God Said. And I’m puzzled. In the Chapter “Heart and Soul” you collect examples of what ‘levav’ meant during the time of the writing of the Hebrew bibie to create the context for its translation. Since the texts in the HB span centuries, if not millennia, doesn’t that approach elide and blur all historical differences?
With ‘levav’ the question becomes even more fraught with difficulty because heart/soul/mind/core/center-of-being have been the topic of theo- psycho- mytho-logical discussion for about as long as humans have been self-aware. It’s almost as though, under the rubric of translation, you want to distill the essence of what it is to be a human being.
Maybe I’m not being totally articulate, but you have touched the tip of an enormous question, and your solution, though perhaps it solves the immediate question of how to translate ‘levav’ and ‘nefesh’ more usefully, begs the questions of how those concepts may have evolved over the time represented by our texts. It’s almost certain that, in Jesus’ time, ‘levav’ may have meant only a fraction of what you have found–because there seems no reason to think his era any more linguistically sophisticated than any other. Since our texts for NT are Greek, not Hebrew, that adds an additional layer of context and cultural blurring.
I’m wrestling with something quite stubbornly recalcitrant, and your book both stimulates and frustrates! Perhaps you have articles that more finely-tuned distinctions or more in-depth historical material?
Thank you if you have struggled through this!
My latin teacher, years ago, advised me that “peace, good will towards men” was a latin mistranslation and that the correct translation is “peace to men of good will” Any thoughts?
Joel, I see the links to your books on your site page. May I make a suggestion? Have a picture of your books, and not just the titles, so they stand out more, and people will know at a glance that you have books available.
I strongly second WoundedEgo. I would add that you (Dr. Hoffman) might want to explore the [free] Amazon Affiliates program. As a member, Amazon will provide you with a link to any books you recommend (including your own) and when someone buys a book from your website, you get a little kickback.
At the risk of being viewed as a troll, here is a web page from my site that advertises and recommends your two books.
http://thussaidthelord.com/
Follow the “Amazon Store” tab to the Joel Hoffman page.
Blessings,
Michael
Is there a play on words in the Hebrew in this verse:
Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he **come forth** unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose **goings forth** have been from of old, from everlasting.
I’m wondering if his “coming forth to God” is the same referent as in “goings forth have been from of old”.
Thanks!
Please could you explain the translation for Bereshit 6:2 “sons of god” and the “daughters of man” and any possible explanation about the nephilim (is that a metaphor?)
This is an interesting blog- I’m glad and grateful to have discovered it. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
Jennifer,
The Wikipedia has a nice summary. You might start there…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God
Blessings,
Michael
I heard there was a new bible translation released this week. I have been unable to find information on it. Are you able to find any reference of it?
You may be talking about the IEB: http://www.internationalenglishbible.com/
Ugh, clearly another silly “translation” with an incredibly low bar for accuracy.
Thank you for the help. Hoped it would be a more interesting version!
Question… Is Psalm 65 personifying sin when it says “my iniquities prevail against me”?
Would it be presumptious to infer that Psalm 65:1 reflects an ancient Jewish belief that God himself would one day dwell in the land promised to Abe and his descendants?:
Psa 65:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm and Song of David. Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed.
Psa 65:2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
Dr. Hoffman. Just finished your book, enjoyed it greatly, and found it quite informative. I suspected, however, that you would have detractors. And I definitely found one.
http://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/another-poor-bible-translator/
Do you have a response to his attack on your translate of chamad?
—–Paul—–
I’m delighted to hear that you enjoyed And God Said.
I hadn’t seen the piece you mention.
It seems like the author there is reacting to my short piece in the Huffington Post (“Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text“), not to my book, which it doesn’t seem that he’s read.
He writes that “the context prevents chamad from meaning take” in places like Micah 2:2: “and they chamad fields, and take them by violence.” But I disagree, because, in fact, synonyms or near synonyms are commonly put in parallel in the Bible. His reasoning would also mean that, for example, in Psalm 95 (“let us sing to the LORD; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation”) the “rock our our salvation” cannot be “the Lord.”
Thank you, Dr. Hoffman. I had wondered if some form of parallelism might be the explanation. It appears that the only hope of the reader of translations is that the translators will engage in public discussion of their differences so that there will be some basis of making decisions.
—–Paul—–
This has all proven to be quite an eye opener. May I ask what your views are on the new translations added to the Catholic Mass? While it mostly pertains to the Nicean Counsil, I do think an objective observer could provide some helpful insight. Afterall, we all came from the same root, Judiasm.
I have some thoughts from a while back here: “A Culture of Convolution.”