Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Okay Karl,



Let’s try to stay on point with exegesis.  You argue that “lifeless” as the
meaning of tohu “fits all its uses in Tanakh.”  Let’s work with that,
because I think it becomes pretty evident that it does not.



In Deut 32:10, to translate as lifeless does not fit the context.  After
all, Yahweh finds Jacob in the wilderness, and Jacob is alive.  Furthermore,
yelel implies there are howling, living creatures in this wilderness.  There
is life there.



Job 26:7.  It makes no sense to say that Yahweh stretches out the northern
skies over “lifelessness.”  Rather, he stretches them out over the “void,”
over “empty space.”  “Lifelessness” does not capture what the author is
trying to say in this verse.



Isa 24:10.  Certainly, desolation implies lifelessness, but the term in
this verse does not mean lifeless.  Rather, it is referring to a scene of
desolation, ruin, devastation, wastedness, because of the curse that has
come on the town (v. 6).



Isa 29:21.  Lifeless does not capture the thought of this verse at
all.   Rather,
tohu here refers to the “emptiness,” the “meaningless,” perhaps even the
perversity and twistedness of the argumentation by which the wicked deprive
the just of justice.



Isa 34:11.  The passage is talking about Edom.  Edom will be turned into
blazing pitch, a place of devastation.  But the desert owl is there, the
great owl and the raven.  God will stretch out over Edom “the measuring
line of tohu,” the “plumb line of desolation.”  This results in
lifelessness, but it does not mean lifelessness in itself.



Isa 40:17.  As you say, there is a comparison here, and in this particular
place, no destruction.  But “lifeless” is not the thought either.  Do you
think it really makes sense to translate, “All the nations are as nothing
before him; they are reckoned before him as less than nothing and lifeless.”
That is not the point of the comparison.  The nations are alive.  But they
do not measure up against the greatness of  Yahweh.  Lifeless is not the
meaning here.



Isa 41:29.  The idols are “empty,” “confusion,” “unsubstantial.”  I’ll
grant that “lifelessness” is implied, but it isn’t what tohu actually means.



Isa 44:9.  This verse does not say that the idols are lifeless.  Rather, it
says that those who make the idols are “nothing,” “futile,” “vain.”  But
they are very much alive.  Otherwise, how could they make the idols?  They
are not “lifeless.”



Isa 45:19.  The previous verse has nothing to do with how tohu should be
translated in this verse. The statement is, “in tohu seek me”; most
translations have something like “seek me in vain.”   But “seek me in
lifelessness” just does not work.



Isa 49:4.  Okay, Karl, you render as “for that which is lifeless.”  But
that does really work?  The servant here complains, “And I said, for
emptiness I have wearied myself.  For tohu and vanity I have spent my
strength.”  Do you really think “that which is lifeless” is the best
rendering for tohu here?  Rather, as almost all translations do, it should
be something like “nothing,” “in vain,” “nought,” “emptiness.”  But
“lifeless” just doesn’t capture the thought of the passage.



Isa 59:4.  Is “trust on lifelessness” really the thought here?  No, the
idea is that the people are relying on empty arguments, not lifeless
arguments.



Jer 4:23.  It’s hard for me to believe that you wrote this down with a
straight face: “describing a vision, not physical devastation.”  Wow!  Yes,
Karl, you are right, it is a vision . . .  a vision “OF PHYSICAL
DEVASTATION!”



Karl, seriously, you could really use a healthy dose of that “semantic
domain” theory that you despise so much.  Your one-size-fits-all approach
does not work.



On another note, I am more than happy to drink at many different streams.  So,
by all means, please send me a copy of your dictionary.  I’m sure I’ll be
able to consult it with profit.  And, if you like, if I find places where I
am in disagreement, perhaps you’ll allow me to call your attention to them.



Finally, on another note, thanks for sharing with me your narrative.  You
are certainly to be commended for doing as well as you have in your
isolated circumstances over which you had no control.  But that still does
not justify the attitude with which you sweep aside so casually the work
done by other translators, commentators, and lexicographers. And to suggest
that those who serve on the translation committees for the various
translations have no credibility because they have not written their own
Hebrew dictionaries is just not wise.  Paying close attention to the
scholarly discussions of others is not a vice, it is a virtue.


Blessings,

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
jshepherd53 AT gmail.com