Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Zachariah 3:10 (anarthrous nouns translated...)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Zachariah 3:10 (anarthrous nouns translated...)
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:04:42 +0100


On Tue 25 Jul 2000 (02:18:52), dinosaur2list AT prodigy.net wrote:
> I assume you mean that languages without articles (a) don't add their
> own usage rules to the "confusion of tongues" and (b) have to go out of
> their way to supply them if the translators think them necessary (as in
> "in die illa," here), using extra constructions that make their votes
> obvious. Is that the point? In that case, this Latin seems to support
> the anarthrous translation. So, why would the Vulgate lead the KJV
> team to add "the"?

Hullo again Diana,

It seems that languages with Articles developed them from the demonstrative
adjective, just so as to be sure "which" particular item was under
consideration: "this" one or "that" one.

I've forgotten the Latin tag; but some famous Latin literary figure (Cicero?)
was once asked why his language had no articles, and he replied "because our
language has no need of them". The same applies to the Russian language.

Hence "in die illa" for "In That Day", BaYYoWM HaHuW'. I wonder if the Hebrew
Definite Article is an abbreviation of HuW' and HiY', or HeM and HeN; or even
ZeH, Zo'T and 'eLLeH.

As to the King James team adding "the" to Vine and Figtree: as Latin does not
have any articles, that argument is an argument from silence. Latin allows
you to include or exclude the Article, as seems best to the translator.
Sometimes ISTM that people make a big deal of whether a noun is arthrous or
not, because some arcane point of doctrine, perceived to be important, is at
stake. I don't think such is the case here in Zech 3:10.

I agree with you that the /ipsissima verba/ of Prophecy are crucially
important; but it is not certain that what is recorded in the Prophets are
/ipsissima verba/. We have to take them as we find them, and pass them on
faithfully. The claim of inerrancy applies to the words of Scripture "as
originally given", rather than as recorded in the BHS or our favourite
recension of the text. We just don't have access to the text "as originally
given".

> Don't mean to sound argumentative (though I was born that way). I'm sure
> I'm
> missing something primary that you all understand as routine and I don't.
> But
> what is it? Is it that the verse rendered with neither articles nor
> personal
> possessives would be downright barbarous in English and, therefore, not
> justified as a translation of Hebrew that was not barbarous?

The English use of the Article is very different from that of Hebrew and
Greek. To start with, neither Hebrew nor Greek knows of the Indefinite
Article. We can put "a"s and "an"s into the text at will. But when we insert
a
"the" because the euphony of the English syntax seems to demand it, we get
into trouble for distorting the meaning! Hebrew is notoriously economical
with words; e.g. KiY L:`oLaM CaS:DoW, "for his mercy endureth for ever".

JB Phillips wrote in his preface to his /Four Prophets/ "But who could feel
at home in the presence of the monolithic grandeur of Old Testament Hebrew?
Only, it appeared to me, a chosen few. There seemed to be no concessions to
human frailty of understanding in these terse craggy characters. Message
after message is packed full of power, and expressed with a terrifying
economy
of words. I found myself in full agreement with Martin Luther, who once
wrote, 'The words of the Hebrew tongue have a peculiar energy. It is
impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. To render them
intelligibly we must not attempt to give them word for word, but only aim at
the sense and the idea'." (op cit, Geoffrey Bles, London, 1963, p vii f).
The Luther citation is from /Table Talk/, para XXXIV (E.T., William Hazlitt,
London, 1848, p 15). I'm sure Coverdale and Tyndale would have been very
familiar with Luther's observations; and through them, so would the KJV
translators.

Shalom,
Ben
--
Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
<ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page