In the RSV vs KJV controversy that roiled matters in the 50s and 60s, the matter of the translation of Isaiah 7:14 seemed to be the first thing on the lips of every KJV advocate. Here it is in that version:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But RSV gave us this:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
This was all about a conspiracy among modernists to deny the virgin birth, I was told.
Fifty years later, the NET Bible First Edition translates the verse this way:
For this reason the sovereign master himself will give a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
The NET Bible editors use this verse in their preface and introduction to the First Edition to discuss their translation philosophy. They embrace the concept of "progressive revelation." Here is how they explain that concept, using Isaiah 7:14 as an example:
Simply put, progressive revelation recognizes that God reveals himself – his nature as well as his word, plans, and purposes – over time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in the world all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Later revelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. The relation of this reality to translation work creates a great deal of tension, especially as it relates to the theological context, because certain earlier passages are clarified by later ones. Does the translator translate the older passage with a view to the clarification that the later passage brings, or does the translator concentrate solely on the native context of the older passage? The translators and editors for the NET Bible have generally chosen to do the latter for a variety of reasons. A translation which takes into account the progress of revelation will be true to the three contexts discussed above [the grammatical context, the historical context, and the theological context]. It is also very beneficial to the Bible reader to have the progress of revelation accurately represented in the translation of particular texts. This helps the reader see how God has worked through the centuries, and it helps the reader to stand more accurately in the place of the original recipients of the text. Both of these are very instructive and inspirational, and they help the reader to connect with the text in a more fulfilling way.
A discussion of particular passages in the NET Bible – how they have been translated and why – will illuminate these concepts. Explaining these examples will show how the translators and editors have put the aspects of the translation theory discussed above into practice. The translators and editors believe these issues are important for readers of the Bible to grasp, so all these passages have extensive notes regarding these issues. An example from both the Old and New Testaments will be given.
Isaiah 7:14. This verse has seen a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation. The text of the verse from the NET Bible is as follows:
Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
The most visible issue surrounding this verse is the translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (’ almah). The NET Bible uses the phrase “young woman,” while many translations use the word “virgin.” The arguments center upon two main points: the actual meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrew, and the use of this verse in the New Testament. There is a great deal of debate about the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, in the New Testament when this verse is cited in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word παρθένος ( parqenos) is used, and this word can mean nothing but “virgin.” Therefore, many people see Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin birth with Matthew 1:23 serving as a “divine commentary” on the Isaiah passage which establishes its meaning. The interplay of these issues makes a resolution quite complex. It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammatical context of the verse in the Old Testament is in our opinion fairly straightforward. Neither does the historical context of Isaiah 7:14 point to any connection with the birth of the Messiah: in its original historical context, this verse was pointing to a sign for King Ahaz that the alliance between Syria and Israel which was threatening the land of Judah would come to nothing. The theological context of Isaiah 7:14 is also limited: it is a presentation of God’s divine power to show himself strong on behalf of his people. The role or birth of the Messiah does not come into view here. So the historical and theological contexts of the verse support the grammatical: the word עַלְמָה (’ almah) means “young woman” and should be translated as such. Within the book of Isaiah itself, however, the author begins to develop the theological context of this verse, and this provides a connection to the use of the passage in Matthew. In Isaiah 8:9-10 the prophet delivers an announcement of future victory over Israel’s enemies; the special child Immanuel, alluded to in the last line of v. 10, is a guarantee that the covenant promises of God will result in future greatness. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is a pledge of God’s presence during the time of Ahaz, but he also is a promise of God’s presence in the future when he gives his people victory over all their enemies. This theological development progresses even further when another child is promised in Isaiah 9:6-7 who will be a perfect ruler over Israel, manifesting God’s presence perfectly and ultimately among his people. The New Testament author draws from this development and uses the original passage in Isaiah to make the connection between the child originally promised and the child who would be the ultimate fulfillment of that initial promise. The use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 draws upon the theological development present in the book of Isaiah, but it does not change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context.
That's pretty bold of the NET Bible translators, I think. NIV, CEV, and even Peterson in the Message use "virgin." The NASB, still my favorite, uses "virgin" too but has a text note: "Or, maiden." Similarly, the NCV (New Century Version) uses "virgin" with a longer text note: The Hebrew word means a young woman." Often this meant a girl who was not married and had not yet had sexual relations with anyone. The NKJV uses "virgin" of course, and the NRSV uses "young woman."
In the Living Bible, the translation is "virgin," but there is an extensive footnote:
The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means "virgin" and sometimes "young woman." Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah's young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4). This, of course, was not a virgin birth. God's sign was that before this child was old enough to talk (verse 4) the two invading kings would be destroyed. However, the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) tells us that there was a further fulfillment of this prophecy, in that a virgin (Mary) conceived and bore a son, Immanuel, the Christ. We have therefore properly used this higher meaning, "virgin," in verse 14, as otherwise the Matthew account loses its significance.
It is interesting to see the NET Bible translators come down on the same side as the RSV and NRSV.
As I have been reading about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I have taken to reading prefaces and introductions to the various translations (not to mention footnotes and text notes), and the NET Bible has an extensive preface and introduction (and great footnotes). You can read the entire preface and introduction on-line, and the NET Bible itself.
Before leaving this endless post, I want to note that one of the NRSV editions on my bookshelf is Walter's well used, paperback copy from Urbana '96.
Showing posts with label Dead Sea Scrolls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dead Sea Scrolls. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
A Missing Passage from 1 Samuel
According to VanderKam and Flint in The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls ("V&K"), there are four categories of Dead Sea Scroll readings, those that follow the "Hebrew Bible", that is, those that follow what became the Masoretic Text, those that follow the Septuagint, those that follow the Samaritan Pentateuch, and, finally, "variant readings." Variant readings, then, in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Old Testament scripture are readings that are different from all three of the sources extant before the discovery of the Scrolls. At page 115, V&K write:
Some of the variant readings in the [fourth Qumran cave's first Samuel manuscript] involve individual words, phrases, or even entire sentences that were left out of the Masoretic Text or added as supplementary material. The most dramatic example occurs in [that manuscript] at the end of 1 Samuel 10, where an entire paragraph that was missing from our Bibles for two thousand years has now been restored in the New Revised Standard Version, published in 1989. (The existence of the passage was already footnoted in the New American Bible of 1970). This paragraph describes the atrocities perpetrated by King Nahash of the Ammonites, and thus explains his otherwise unusual behavior in the first two verses of Chapter 11.[My bold.]
My NET Bible (First Edition) does not have this variant reading in the text, as the NRSV has, but it is discussed extensively and sympathetically in footnote 4 at the end of 1 Samuel 10:27. (The present online edition of the NET Bible doesn't refer to the matter, as far as I can tell.) I would have liked to have been in Dallas when the translators hashed this one out. The footnote states in part: "This [variant] reading [from the subject manuscript] should not be lightly dismissed; it may in fact provide a text superior to that of the MT and the ancient versions . . . "
My 1995 The Contemporary English Version does not have the variant reading. My NIV Study Bible (Zondervan 1995) makes no mention of the variant reading anywhere.
Eugene H. Peterson, however, in The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (NavPress 2002) includes it. See the last three sentences of his Chapter 10 of 1 Samuel. Way to go Dr. Peterson!
My New King James Version does not have it (my edition is copyright 1982).
Here is the variant as translated in footnote 4 to 1 Samuel 10:27 in the NET Bible (First Edition):
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.
Some of the variant readings in the [fourth Qumran cave's first Samuel manuscript] involve individual words, phrases, or even entire sentences that were left out of the Masoretic Text or added as supplementary material. The most dramatic example occurs in [that manuscript] at the end of 1 Samuel 10, where an entire paragraph that was missing from our Bibles for two thousand years has now been restored in the New Revised Standard Version, published in 1989. (The existence of the passage was already footnoted in the New American Bible of 1970). This paragraph describes the atrocities perpetrated by King Nahash of the Ammonites, and thus explains his otherwise unusual behavior in the first two verses of Chapter 11.[My bold.]
My NET Bible (First Edition) does not have this variant reading in the text, as the NRSV has, but it is discussed extensively and sympathetically in footnote 4 at the end of 1 Samuel 10:27. (The present online edition of the NET Bible doesn't refer to the matter, as far as I can tell.) I would have liked to have been in Dallas when the translators hashed this one out. The footnote states in part: "This [variant] reading [from the subject manuscript] should not be lightly dismissed; it may in fact provide a text superior to that of the MT and the ancient versions . . . "
My 1995 The Contemporary English Version does not have the variant reading. My NIV Study Bible (Zondervan 1995) makes no mention of the variant reading anywhere.
Eugene H. Peterson, however, in The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (NavPress 2002) includes it. See the last three sentences of his Chapter 10 of 1 Samuel. Way to go Dr. Peterson!
My New King James Version does not have it (my edition is copyright 1982).
Here is the variant as translated in footnote 4 to 1 Samuel 10:27 in the NET Bible (First Edition):
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Still Learning About the Bible, Imagine That
"Almost all modern English translations of the Old Testament are based on a single manuscript - the Leningrad, or St. Petersburg Codex . . . Copied in 1008 or 1009 CE, this is our earliest complete example of the traditional Hebrew Bible, or Masoretic Text.
* * *
"Since all ancient biblical texts consisted only of Hebrew consonants without vowels, many words could be read in more than one way, leading to different readings of the same verse. Compare the letters dg in English, which could be dig, dog, or dug, depending on which vowel is used. In order to standardize the biblical text, the Masoretes added vowel signs and other components. The effect was to fix the meaning of each group of consonants (e.g., only dig, not dog or dug) . . . "
VanderKam & Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002), pp. 87-89.
* * *
"Since all ancient biblical texts consisted only of Hebrew consonants without vowels, many words could be read in more than one way, leading to different readings of the same verse. Compare the letters dg in English, which could be dig, dog, or dug, depending on which vowel is used. In order to standardize the biblical text, the Masoretes added vowel signs and other components. The effect was to fix the meaning of each group of consonants (e.g., only dig, not dog or dug) . . . "
VanderKam & Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002), pp. 87-89.
Friday, August 28, 2009
James VanderKam
The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by James VanderKam and Peter Flint, came in the mail yesterday via Half.com. James VanderKam is a Calvin College grad and now a professor in the Theology Department at Notre Dame. Here is ND's bio of Dr. VanderKam. I have started the book, and it already appears to be a comprehensive and well-written overview of the subject. (Here is Amazon's bibliography of Dr. VanderKam's books.)
Are you surprised by the Notre Dame/Calvin College connection? The sister of a friend of mine is on the Calvin College faculty and has done some visiting professor time at Notre Dame. There is a very important Wheaton College connection to ND as well: Mark Noll is on the faculty at ND. I fear that our older brothers in the Roman Church are more open to those kinds of connections than some of the younger of us are.
Are you surprised by the Notre Dame/Calvin College connection? The sister of a friend of mine is on the Calvin College faculty and has done some visiting professor time at Notre Dame. There is a very important Wheaton College connection to ND as well: Mark Noll is on the faculty at ND. I fear that our older brothers in the Roman Church are more open to those kinds of connections than some of the younger of us are.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Dead Sea Scrolls Bibliography
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Report from Toronto II
We are back in our room at the B&B, after being wide-eyed tourists afoot all day in downtown Toronto. We were well provisioned before we set out this morning by our hostess, Michele. She prepared a delicious breakfast, one centered on a vegan crepe, itself wrapped around baked apples and pears and garnished with fresh strawberries and blueberries. In addition, there were other fruit, granola (of course!), several kinds of breads, yogurt, orange juice and coffee. At table we had a pleasant conversation with three other guests at the breakfast table, two of them dance instructors who are attending an annual, one-week conference at the National Ballet School of Canada.
After breakfast, we walked around the corner and north one block to Bloor Street, one of the major cross town streets of the city and on which the major department stores, the ManuLife main office buildings, the University of Toronto, and the Royal Ontario Museum are located. Our first stop was the Royal Ontario Museum, where the museum was holding a special exhibition on the Dead Sea Scrolls ("Words that Changed the World").
The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit was very well done. Some of the manuscripts found in the caves at Qumran date from 250 BC and include all the books of the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther. The Israeli Antiquities Authority co-sponsored the event, and permitted a few of the scrolls to come over. Of course, there was an effort to keep the exhibition politically correct, and one exhibit panel explicitly stated that the messianic texts in Isaiah did not point to Jesus. But, really, any one examining the exhibit with half an open mind would have to be impressed with the connection of the scrolls not simply to Judaism or to Christianity because of its connection to Judaism but also with the direct connection between the messianic texts and Jesus Christ: thus the felt need to state outright that none of this had anything to do with the Redeemer.
There was a less than half-hearted effort to include Islam into the mix, but it clearly was a stretch. There was a reference or two to the idea that the scrolls are connected to the three "great Abrahamic religions," but the subtext was the profound link of the Jews to Jerusalem and to Palestine. The Dead Sea Scrolls give strong witness to that link. I certainly would affirm that connection, even as I roll my eyes about the "this-is-not-about-Jesus" statement that the exhibit includes. I imagine that Fatah and Hammas and their ilk would view the exhibit simply as Israeli propaganda. But the exhibit illuminated a part of history about which we knew something but really not enough, and it was a great way to spend the morning.
We had lunch at a Freshii, a natural food fast-food place down the street from the museum. From there, we went to the Bata Shoe Museum, where several people, including Susan Thomas, the B&B host and the two dance instructors at breakfast, insisted we go. But a shoe museum? Well, OK, we went, and it was fun and serious too. Mrs. Bata, she of the family that founded the company, was a shoe collector, and her collection got so big that she created a museum, and this is where we went. We are now among those who would insist that you go if you visit Toronto.
We walked past two Anglican churches, the more impressive of which was St. Paul's. In the front yard of the church is a war memorial to the dead among the Canadian armed forces. Chiseled on its sides were the names of battles in which their regiments fought, and nearly all those battles were those where Canadians bled and died alongside their American cousins. May God continue to bless Canada, for what a blessing it has been to our country. As critical as we can be of Canada from time to time, her benign kinship is, of course, something never to forget. A trip to Toronto and a moment before that monument will aid that memory, I can tell you.
In the intervals between the museums and lunch, Carol and Mary did some shopping, looking for shoes for Mary, and we spent at least an hour in the Canadian version of Barnes & Noble, known as Indigo Books. Mary had learned from Melissa during a visit to her house a month or so ago that a Canadian doughnut chain known as "Tim Horton's" had bought out all the Dunkin' Donuts shops in Manhattan, and we had seen at least one in Rochester. Being a former Dunkin' Donut addict, I wanted to compare the two, and so we went into a Tim Horton's on Bloor Street so I could take a look. I bought a glazed doughnut for an important international taste test. To my utter consternation it was a cake-doughnut! Friendly neighbor or not, Canada has it all wrong on glazed doughnuts. I hope that Dunkin' and Krispy will be able to hold the fort against this invader, even though I don't partake of that sort of food any more, except for the sake of controlling our borders.
For supper, we had another vegan restaurant in mind, and like the one last night it was a little hard to find. Unlike the one last night, it was closed, and so we had to quickly change plans. Not far away was a Whole Foods grocery store. There we found the familiar salad bar and had a good supper as we talked about the day.
Tomorrow, alas, will be our last day with Mary for awhile. She will drop us off in Buffalo in the afternoon for our flight back to Ft. Lauderdale, and then she will continue on to Rochester for the beginning of her next great adventure. I don't like these good-byes a bit.
The photo below is of the Royal Ontario Museum. It does not do credit, however, to the scale and beauty of the building.
After breakfast, we walked around the corner and north one block to Bloor Street, one of the major cross town streets of the city and on which the major department stores, the ManuLife main office buildings, the University of Toronto, and the Royal Ontario Museum are located. Our first stop was the Royal Ontario Museum, where the museum was holding a special exhibition on the Dead Sea Scrolls ("Words that Changed the World").
The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit was very well done. Some of the manuscripts found in the caves at Qumran date from 250 BC and include all the books of the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther. The Israeli Antiquities Authority co-sponsored the event, and permitted a few of the scrolls to come over. Of course, there was an effort to keep the exhibition politically correct, and one exhibit panel explicitly stated that the messianic texts in Isaiah did not point to Jesus. But, really, any one examining the exhibit with half an open mind would have to be impressed with the connection of the scrolls not simply to Judaism or to Christianity because of its connection to Judaism but also with the direct connection between the messianic texts and Jesus Christ: thus the felt need to state outright that none of this had anything to do with the Redeemer.
There was a less than half-hearted effort to include Islam into the mix, but it clearly was a stretch. There was a reference or two to the idea that the scrolls are connected to the three "great Abrahamic religions," but the subtext was the profound link of the Jews to Jerusalem and to Palestine. The Dead Sea Scrolls give strong witness to that link. I certainly would affirm that connection, even as I roll my eyes about the "this-is-not-about-Jesus" statement that the exhibit includes. I imagine that Fatah and Hammas and their ilk would view the exhibit simply as Israeli propaganda. But the exhibit illuminated a part of history about which we knew something but really not enough, and it was a great way to spend the morning.
We had lunch at a Freshii, a natural food fast-food place down the street from the museum. From there, we went to the Bata Shoe Museum, where several people, including Susan Thomas, the B&B host and the two dance instructors at breakfast, insisted we go. But a shoe museum? Well, OK, we went, and it was fun and serious too. Mrs. Bata, she of the family that founded the company, was a shoe collector, and her collection got so big that she created a museum, and this is where we went. We are now among those who would insist that you go if you visit Toronto.
We walked past two Anglican churches, the more impressive of which was St. Paul's. In the front yard of the church is a war memorial to the dead among the Canadian armed forces. Chiseled on its sides were the names of battles in which their regiments fought, and nearly all those battles were those where Canadians bled and died alongside their American cousins. May God continue to bless Canada, for what a blessing it has been to our country. As critical as we can be of Canada from time to time, her benign kinship is, of course, something never to forget. A trip to Toronto and a moment before that monument will aid that memory, I can tell you.
In the intervals between the museums and lunch, Carol and Mary did some shopping, looking for shoes for Mary, and we spent at least an hour in the Canadian version of Barnes & Noble, known as Indigo Books. Mary had learned from Melissa during a visit to her house a month or so ago that a Canadian doughnut chain known as "Tim Horton's" had bought out all the Dunkin' Donuts shops in Manhattan, and we had seen at least one in Rochester. Being a former Dunkin' Donut addict, I wanted to compare the two, and so we went into a Tim Horton's on Bloor Street so I could take a look. I bought a glazed doughnut for an important international taste test. To my utter consternation it was a cake-doughnut! Friendly neighbor or not, Canada has it all wrong on glazed doughnuts. I hope that Dunkin' and Krispy will be able to hold the fort against this invader, even though I don't partake of that sort of food any more, except for the sake of controlling our borders.
For supper, we had another vegan restaurant in mind, and like the one last night it was a little hard to find. Unlike the one last night, it was closed, and so we had to quickly change plans. Not far away was a Whole Foods grocery store. There we found the familiar salad bar and had a good supper as we talked about the day.
Tomorrow, alas, will be our last day with Mary for awhile. She will drop us off in Buffalo in the afternoon for our flight back to Ft. Lauderdale, and then she will continue on to Rochester for the beginning of her next great adventure. I don't like these good-byes a bit.
The photo below is of the Royal Ontario Museum. It does not do credit, however, to the scale and beauty of the building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)