Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

Here’s a case where we are understanding words with a different semantic
range, you taking a very narrow understanding, while I a wider one. I also
should have looked at my own dictionary before answering, as the first
rendering there is “uninhabited” as being closest to English. We need to
take into account that English “lifeless” and Hebrew תהו are not exact
equivalents, and anyone who tries to make them so does violence to both
languages.

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
> Don’t confuse translation, which often uses different words because the
semantic range of a word in Hebrew doesn’t match the semantic range of
similar words in English. As a result, were I to work as a translator
instead of lexicographer, I’d use a greater range of words in English than
just “lifeless”.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Here it is used as a noun, to refer to where there are no human
habitations. Jacob was merely passing through, so he was not counted as an
inhabitant.

Even in English “lifeless” is sometimes used to refer to places that have
plant and animal life, but not human, so this objection also doesn’t take
into account the full range of English usage.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Yes it does, in that it is an uninhabited, empty space. This is a noun.

>
>
> 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).
>
> Just because depopulation is the result of God’s curse doesn’t change the
meaning of “lifeless” to “devastation”. Not in English, nor Hebrew. You’re
mixing results with causes.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Again you’re mixing results with causes. The results are depopulation and
stillness. The cause is war and devastation.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Yes it does, in the sense that they might as well not be alive, that’s how
little they count. This is the same sort of statement as Proverbs 21:30
“There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel to go before YHWH.”

>
>
> Isa 41:29.  The idols are “empty,” “confusion,” “unsubstantial.”  I’ll
> grant that “lifelessness” is implied, but it isn’t what tohu actually
> means.
>
> And why not? Especially in contrast with the living God?

>
>
> 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.”
> ֿ

Granted, this is not the easiest verse to translate, “Those things
fashioned as an idol, they are lifeless and cause no benefit to those who
desire them, they neither see nor know those who witness them in order that
they (those who desire and witness) are put to shame.” Yes, lifeless fits.

>


>
> 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.
>
> This is a matter of translation, not of understanding the term in Hebrew.
Don’t confuse the two. A good way of bringing out the meaning in Hebrew may
be, “there is no life in their searching for me” i.e. what we may call
today “dead orthodoxy”.

>
>
> 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.
>
> I see this verse as contrasting the worship of the living God against
putting one’s heart in worldly efforts, for nothing, wearing oneself out
for lifeless objects and futility. This is a noun.

>
>
> 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.
>
> They are trusting in lifeless things. This is a noun. Verses 2–14 talk
about people in rebellion against God, so these lifeless things can be
idols, though also wealth or weapons.

>
>
> 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!”
>
> Read the rest of the verse, where there is no light from the heavens. Did
that really happen? Read the context of the whole passage. This is a vision
of something that didn’t happen. But it is a warning punishment that will
come if the people don’t repent.

Again you are mixing cause with results.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Your “because it is often caused by destruction, therefore this other
place (Genesis 1) must refer to destruction” works as little as
“one-size-fits-all” that you accuse me of doing. You don’t even recognize
that sometimes תהו is used as a noun and sometimes as an adjective. Were
they pronounced the same? We don’t know.

>
>
> 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.
>
> Will be sent under a separate cover. I have been sending out updates every
six months, Jan & July, mostly adding verse references where words are
found and expanding definitions to try to make them more understandable by
a wider audience (I originally wrote it just for myself). The very reason
I’m sending it out so that if there are any mistakes (I’m sure there are
many) people can call me to the mat on them.

But if you disagree on a meaning, you’d better have some pretty good
reasons, as I have checked most words up at least with a concordance, some
every verse in context. And as I read Tanakh and look up a word in my own
dictionary, and find that the meaning doesn’t seem to fit, I do the whole
study all over again.

>
>
> 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.
>
> I am a Lutheran, and one of the legacies of Luther was to put no one on
a pedestal, not even Luther himself, and to question all including Luther.
The standard is Scripture. Another of Luther’s legacies is the scientific
method, which again has at its heart to question all. There are no sacred
cows.

However, in the paragraph above, you distort what I say and did. I
evaluated other lexicons and other lexicographers, and I found I disagreed
with them based on what I know of other languages. One difference—I wrote
my dictionary not as a translator’s dictionary, but to try to understand
“from inside” if at all possible. A translator’s dictionary would have more
words, synonyms in English, as possible glosses. Mine is more of a reader’s
dictionary than a translator’s one.

The biggest difference is looking at function rather than form. Some years
back, we were discussing the meaning of a word, and BDB had three pages on
its definition. Their gloss was according to form. I found that by
analyzing according to function, action, I was able to use one word to
replace half their gloss, and a short paragraph the rest. I don’t remember
which word it was. I don’t think there is a single other lexicon on the
market written from the viewpoint of function instead of form.

I do listen to others, witness this discussion in which the next version of
my dictionary will have improvements based on this discussion. But as I
said before, I need good reasons, not just put someone on a pedestal and
uncritically accept what he says.

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

Karl W. Randolph.