About
God Didn’t Say That is an online forum for discussing translations, and mistranslations, of the Bible.
Have a question or a topic you’d like addressed? Click on “About” to the far upper right and leave a comment.
69 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
John on Q&A: The Original Bap… Keith on Q&A: The Original Bap… Dannii on Q&A: The Original Bap… Peter Bishop on Q&A: The Original Bap… Joel H. on Who Says Homosexuality is a… Patrick McGuire on Who Says Homosexuality is a… Leslie Fish on About WoundedEgo on Q&A: The Original Bap…
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
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
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.
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 <