Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

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