Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au>]

Trevor, I don't think I would agree with you here, speaking from the
viewpoint of a translator. Your analogy is misplaced: translators and
exegetes are not doctors charged with healing the text, but scholars
charged with understanding and translating what we have. We can
speculate that what we have is not exactly what was originally written,
but in most cases that is speculation and any reconstruction of the
original is even more speculative. If we start to translate such
reconstructions, we start on a very slippery slope towards translating
what some "doctor" thinks that the author ought to have written rather
than the text we have in front of us.

When we have an apparently corrupt text in front of us, what should we
do? One thing we should note is that this text has generally been read,
used, translated and copied for centuries as it stands, which suggests
that someone has been able to make sense of it, a sense which is
probably reflected in older commentaries and translations, if for now we
ignore those which seem to be based on a different text. Another key
point is that the text may not be saying what we expect it to say, and
may not follow regular syntax, especially in older poetic passages like
this one. I have also noted that scholars proposing emendations often
display a serious lack of imagination in considering how the text as it
stands might be understood, although their imagination runs riot in
proposing emended texts.

So I would suggest that we ought to exegete and translate the text as it
stands, wherever possible, even if we do have reason to suspect that it
might have been corrupted at some time. And we should beware of assuming
such corruptions when some sense can be made of the text as it stands.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Trevor & Julie Peterson
> Sent: 26 January 2003 23:25
> To: b-hebrew
> Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Deut 32:5 SHiCHeT
> 
> Kim wrote:
> >
> > Just read JP Fokkelman's _Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible_ Vol 1
which
> > included an analysis of Deut 32. He says on 32:5:
> >
> > "Although the first sentence of v.5 has probably been subject to
some
> > corruption, the separate elements can be placed easily enough, so
that I
> > will not change the words
> 
> I wonder, if he thinks the sentence is probably corrupt, why he
chooses
> not
> to emend anything, simply because the elements "can be placed easily
> enough." I could see arguing that one can't come up with a better
proposal
> and therefore leaving the passage in a corrupt state, but as it is, it
> seems
> like a doctor saying, "There's probably something wrong with your
foot,
> but
> you still seem to be able to get around, so let's leave it like it
is." It
> might be a good strategy for someone who doesn't know much about
medicine,
> but what has the doctor really done to help anything?
> 
> (Please note that I'm not suggesting we should change the text
> indiscriminately, but if he's willing to admit that there's a problem,
I
> wonder that it doesn't affect his treatment of the text, except
apparently
> to make him willing to accept any explanation, no matter how twisted.
I'm
> also not suggesting that everyone should emend the text in this
particular
> case, but we should at least have good reasons for what we do or don't
do.)
> 
<snip>