Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Hi Peter, You wrote:

> On 07/01/2005 23:54, B. M. Rocine wrote:
>
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > It seems like you are pretending that the English word *heart* only 
> > refers to the blood-pumping organ.  It also means the center of a thing 
> > (as in "the heart of the sea") ...
>
>
> I accept that this usage is an overlap. I don't think it's a common 
> English usage, perhaps it is derived from the biblical idiom.

Really?
"heart of the matter" is rather common around here in sunny Syracuse, New 
York..

> > ... and the seat of the emotions (as in "I love him with all my heart"). 
> > ...
>
>
> This is an English sense of "heart", but is it a Hebrew one? According to 
> BDB this is only a minor sense.
>
> > ... These latter are very well shared with the Hebrew *leb*.  I am sure 
> > *heart* means a lot of other things, too, some of which are shared with 
> > the Hebrew *leb* and some of which are not.
> >
> > English *nose* does not mean anger, is hardly connected to anger, so 
> > *nose* will not always work as a translation for Hebrew *aph*.
>
>
> Yes, and English "heart" does not refer to the mind, the will, moral 
> character, conscience, or appetites, all of which are senses of Hebrew LEB 
> according to BDB.

What???
"I'm going to try with all my heart."  (will)
"Follow your heart." (mind)
(Song from "Those D-- Yankees") "Oh, you gotta have heart..." (moral 
character)
(line from "Law and Order" popular TV program) "What kind of black heart 
does a crime like this?" (conscience)
"My heart yearns for your embrace."  (appetite)

People don't talk like this any more?  We do in sunny Syr...--oh, I said 
that.  ;-)

If these references are rendered "heart" in a
> translation, there is a serious danger (and one which is arguably 
> reflected in modern churches etc) that injunctions to use one's reason, 
> will and moral character will be misunderstood as encouragement of 
> emotionalism. The common Hebrew expression KWN LEB, often rendered "set 
> [your] heart on", should refer to determination of the will but the 
> English version is easily misunderstood as an injunction to romantic love.
>
> > This is not so hard.
> >
> > In another post you quoted as problematic:
> >
> > > Jeremiah 4:4 "circumcise your hearts" (some kind of surgery?)
> > > Jeremiah 6:10 "their ear is uncircumcised" (more surgery not carried 
> > > out?)
> >
> >
> > Jer 4:4 doesn't read like that. ...
>
>
> ?? This is a direct quote of this verse in NIV. The verse can easily be 
> understood as requiring the Judahites to undergo physical circumcision not 
> in the usual place (where it had presumably already been done) but in 
> their hearts.

Oh, I see it now.  Sorry.  I only looked at the first clause of the verse. 
Okay, it's one worth talking about.

What makes you think that "vehasiru `orlot lebabkem" made any more literal 
sense to the ancient Hebrew mind than "remove the foreskins of your heart" 
does to modern English speakers?  If you ask me, "fixing" the figure of 
speech (explaining it) for a modern target language is akin to taking it 
right out of Jeremiah's mouth, right out of the Bible.  I would think such a 
translation procedure would be at odds with the deeply spiritual motivation 
that drives most people to the weighty task of translating the Bible.

<noted and snipped>

> After all, you seemed to agree that a literal translation of God having a 
> long nose could not be used. But if that one can be explained, why can't 
> the circumcised heart or ear? After all, just as "English *nose* does not 
> mean anger, is hardly connected to anger", English "circumcise" does not 
> mean what Jeremiah had in mind. Where is the difference?

They are two different kinds problem.  First the circumcise case:  It's a 
figure of speech.  Because it is hard to understand the figure of speech 
does not give us the right to explain it in a translation.  This is a 
particularly easy figure of speech to translate, if you ask me, because it 
works just as well in English when you translate it word-for-word as it does 
in Hebrew.  A lot of figures of speech will be lost on modern audiences 
because the moderns are not familiar with the Bible days and cultures.  Or 
maybe the modern audience is just not very literarily sophisticated.  I 
don't think it is in the translator's job description to explain, modernize 
or replace figures of speech.  I admit to feeling strongly about this 
because of my faith about in the Word of God, but I can tell you also that I 
think the same is the case for *all* good translating of any document.

Now the "'erekh apayim" case:  I think it's an idiom, not a figure.  Hebrew 
"aph" does not mean nose in this case.  The two words work together as a 
single term with a single meaning.  The meaning of the "term"  'erekh apayim 
is longsuffering.

Truth be told about the latter case, the translation "longsuffering" does 
lose the concrete or sensory connection between breathing and anger that may 
be bundled with 'erekh apayim.  So you are right.  The translator is a 
traitor in such a case.  Unless, of course, we can think of how to express 
the concept of longsuffering with some reference to 
breathing..."long-sighing" do anything for you?  ;-)  Let's see, 
"...merciful, gracious, long-sighing, abundant in goodness and truth..." 
Hmmmm....

> There is an Italian expression that a translator is always a traitor.

Good point but not a good excuse for widespread explaining and interpreting 
being passed off as translating.  All translations should come with ample 
footnotes.  Really.  I'm serious.

Shalom,
Bryan

> And in some sense that is correct. If people want to read precisely what 
> the original text said, they have to read the original. Translations have 
> to do the best they can, which in some cases like this is perhaps not very 
> good. So it all goes back to Bill's contract between the translator and 
> the reader. If the reader wants something they understand without learning 
> Hebrew, they need a translation. But they can't have their cake and eat 
> it.
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766