Essays on Biblical Method and Translation

AND

AND

ESSAYS ON BIBLICAL METHOD AND TRANSLATION

1989

Brown

All form or

may be eXl:)resisly permit;ted Judai.c QI"IJIU1\;:'l:',

or retrieval system, or in from P.,.n,,,intl,nPA RI 02912.

COJ)yright Act

C0l1l2reSS Cafalloging-:in-I'ubllication Data

;relens,telJO, Edward L. on biblical m.ethod and translation. Judaic studies; no. 1. Bible. O.T.-Herm.eneutics. 2. Bible. O.T. Trl:lnsilatlng. 1. Title. II. Series. BS476.G73 1989 221'.07 87-6018 ISBN 1-55540-122-8

Printed in the United States of America on. acid-free paper

§

nn)~o"',('

Samuel and . . . L<.,.....~

Contents Preface

ix xv

PART I: THEORY AND METHOD IN BIBLICAL CRITICISM

1. The

Bibllical •.U,U,,"U.\A>. or Biblical Studies in a

2. The

3.

Is Read and Ari~Umlent in Biblical Crl1tlclsm Matters: Four Il ~'\r1~'UlJq

4. How

. .. .

PART II: THEORY AND METHOD IN BIBLE TRANSLATION

5.

Modem Bible

6. The Job of

7. General Index

Job

85 119

a 141

Preface With J."'''V'v''''I. to volume two short books. retJlectlon on Biblical studies in various with the synlcnl~onlLC p~lfacl1gnrlS on a field that has been oriented .:>"",",'VUI.J. a critical of different modem to Bible tranislatlon, questioJlls of su~~ge:st that we have here one in Biblical and

and presutltpof;itic)Os. the nntiprlulniO! pJr1nc:ipl~~s how atte,ntlc)O a more pllJlfa11stiic

some of

pOSltlOJ[lS

is a nnlm~l1-V Knlow'le
ttll!>:cr~velN

Find Not Part of Colossus but Work of Mechanical 8, 1987, p. 3.

Jerusalem Post,

- ix -

x

on Biblical Method and Translation observers identified the rock grooves to a mac;nlIle ~'«jl.;)UlfK d:iffc:~reIlt Q'ues:tlOfiS. 10QIKll1lS!: from a rl'~'F":u·,,,,,...+ who first made the for aU intents and were trained to the marKlJlgs sorne.:nIII~ else. How we think about what we no less than how much material we C!f"!'1llfl1'1IU

One of my teachers once chastened me for so much time reaC1lI1l.g works and I would do he hpflP\./'nl",·ntllu su~~ge:stel:l, to invest more time in sources. response was, and our work as any is our material no less than the manner of amount of material we in which we it. If I am trees, and my criteria are it not to have C11S1Cll)Jlme in and more trees at my In this I do not mean to underestimate the critical Im'pOJ'taIlce ~atnerm~ data and scrutiJrllz:ing it I wish to stress about how we of about what we think about is another eSSl~ntial cne~1Cmg our work. my reflections on how I have worked may not there is a noticeable difference between my earlier and later work. After I submitted my essay, and in Biblical U for out, on the basis of anonymous review in a one of the referees earlier that I must be the author. The reviewer that in this essay I took one critical stance different from what I had written Dre~Vl(msJlv elsewhere. 1 saw, and see, no in this. To the as one grows and in the information that one one may also in one's and outlook, the reader book may detect persnecti,'e between the essays I wrote earlier in the even

In to we locate the sources of our neI'cel)t1()lnS, In the inte,rpr'etaltion to cornmuni,cate. P,p.l'~j'lnjltvjru)"

Preface

xi

now used to my demonstration that such rhetoric is a of with purpose our I open my it on the my to what the text says. It soon becomes clear amid the silence that whatever we make of the text follows from our of it. none of us is born rea,dlnj~. what we read follows from how we have been to read. We are educated to make sense in ways. in not in the of ~in~

~

what we becomes so in whatever to which we that it may seem like the correct way to do it. But what is upon conventions that are somewhat set must be ~~lUVl"". I noticed in a museum exhibit that a cuneiform tablet was dls'ola'ved Whoever it in the case had not been trained in the even about how conventions of cuneiform studies. There is to a text. let alone how to read it. Yemenite I am learned to read the Hebrew Bible from different because would in groups around a book. side one was on. one read that and to ever more perspe:ew,e Hegllnnmg with the soJJ~histicalted ones, we up our power our power to make sense. tablet. I indicated to Let us return for the moment to our the curator the exhibit that the tablet was inverted. me as an on such the curator tablet. Since no other U1(l'1tf'\lr(l' had seemed to way the tablet curator that how we read is the of stnugtllten it out? Even if we cOIlVentllQn. that is no criticism. It could not be otherwise. we do ae[~n(lS on COfWelrlticlns; we conventions. So as there is a standard convention of how to cuneiform for will defer to those who are conversant with it. In whatever consensus on how to read may have once existed has broken. New often from other d1SI;::lpJlme:s. have up new for Unsatisfied with earlier methods or scholars alternate for our kmt'lwledge. The older conventions can no be taken for In most Ql1thf'\.·'tu or school to a

Paul t'ev'erabend,

Method

\J...tVuuvu.

xii

on Biblical Method and Itarlslaillon Relativism may that any truth can correSlOOl110 dlire(~tlv that statements can be inhlerelltly prClpOllents of "&I'J~.t.uicrn ass,essing an COIIVeJilUClns. To be true is to rp.l::ltt1v'l~t is to rec~ognlize the to diflerelot sets

Within a number par'a(llgms. The two most the diachronic (hll;tollcal) SYl1Chroruc" have been the most and the ones most in this book. In Part I" I shall be the and two I shall contend that the two research pmradligIT1S o~~alce on different one cannot criticize the one accordIng standards are not so much in how the two aDt)rO~ICh<~S work as in where from what are intended to A.u\J."""".... as I have said and method and draw on each other. are One even propose oistmc;UCln were it not. like nform·· and Ua helJrisU(4111y OPl>OSlltloln. In I shall the PhlIOS()phICal und.erplinnings of the contrasting aDDroac;hes to Bible tran.slation. pnl10anly Uliteral u and the "idJiOlTlatic. been defamed I shall to the and the need for both. As I did in Part I. I shall maintain that because each mode of traJ!lSl~ltlCln works to own and it cannot be on its own terms. Throughout the I to sbow that sctlol~lfS, like other act on beliefs of various sorts. As spe,Clallsts, SCtlOUlfS, like learn skills and But one's initial assumptic:ms and are, like a musician·s feel for the By to rec,ogl111ze unsusceptllble to assumptic)ns unclerllvlfUl one's own work and that of and prU1CltUeS as as one's arguments. can take over fundaJnental issues and can be better understood,

or will be published in an HU)IIC,aJ Situoles, or Hlt.llC:!1l Sltudlles '.HM'W·n• ." to be pul)lisilled cntJIQUf~S.

cf. Michael Krausz Dame:

Moral

xiii

and to the Jewish Thf~lc'j;tlCaI Slemllnw""j and to the Johns H01PkillS UniVl~r~iitv versions of these oul,Uc:abl:>ns ore:selllte
of America and its the work included me in the of nrO'vidl~ helpful resl~(;h

and

Jacob

assistance was for t'rOrlessor Theodor H. Gaster has traIllslal:ing over many a cup

xiv

on Biblical Method and Translation nro'vjdE~

sllgglestions and material cOl1lCeJninig and Professors Baruch M. Michael P.

AoIV'.........,"' •

.s,.:.,V~J,~""

Abbreviations AD

ABS AJS BA BARev Hll>Ucal BiOr

Btt~ltojthe(,;a Orientalis

BR

Review vUl~'WI'~L

Biblical

]ufl,.t",.I"

Central Conference of American

IEJ

JBL

JJSt

JSOT JSS

Journal

JTS

Journal

KJV MT NEB

James Massoretic Text New .f:,;ft.J:!UJrn

NJV

New

RB

Revue HltJIllOlle

SBL of Biblical Literature SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

- xv-

xvi

S VT

on Biblical Method and Translation

to Vetus Testamentum

TEV UF VT ZAW

Vetus Testamentum

Part One AND METHOD IN BmLICAL CRITICISM

Chapter One The State of Biblical Studies, or, Biblical Studies in a State in mSllgl1l:S, plraCltll1()nelrS have struck out cel1ltrit'ug,llly extlending the field without nec:ess~ariJlV ermallcll1lg While on the one hand the exposure to new and different (llSClpl1n::rry aPt)rOc:lcl1c~S blespeal~ a maturation as an on the it reflects a more more "crisis" in our faith in the meth.ods have been our own In the essay I shall examine the and nature of the The Crisis in Criticism: (BClutirnoI'e: Johns 1101;)l:U1S Alc:nw:u A. Shweder. eds.• Me~tathel')ry his on the prc~bll:~m: does not consist in criticism of the have C0J1ICeJll1J1lg their status as M. sciences"; see Bible: A Crisis in

Disorientation: Studies

4

and Method in Biblical Criticism

"crisis" state in the Biblical field and the foundations the sorts of historical and ahistorical that various scholars take. Rather than lle[nO~ln an of I shall in the end new PO~i:sit)mljes that up to us for the construction In 1964 the Anchor Bible volume in its POI)uJ~U' In one of his most Ortlgm;a] S1i1gg:est:loI1IS Spleisc~r contended the in Genesis 14 of the battle the North and East and the five from the Dead non-Israelite repres(mts a Hebrew transformation of an from a close to the events chroni,cle, prc)bablv cOl1noosed in "The "N"lC!~'r cCDnclud..e d, hisl;oric~ity ..4 the foundations on which

E.

It

protag()nists in the so-called ChcedoirlacDmcer Texts since the pre~Se[ltin.g this

e.-"-"-"

lines of inv1esti,gatilon.

'Vv.,.v""."" 14 with specimens

he the onomastics and typOiOjitleS to reflect a genre of late date in The which Astour connects with the Biblical text, come from the second than the renresent Ort~~malS that cannot be dated is not a gel1lullle hllstoirtc:al QCDCUmelnt of no Bit)ilC:al S(:hOlIarShlP knows well

narratlves is ail<)gelJler

The State of Biblical Studies

5

the state of the field. Some seek to establish the autlllenticilly and look for parallels to the accounts in _Yl'IY,;;)I,;;) Near Eastern documents of the second millennium. like Van to establish the lateness of _"",,."",...,.. DaJ:aUels to the accounts Such a situlatiC)8 would like to know the has earned a reslpectabJle This ske1pticism to the assl1mtttiolls or reflect events acc:unltely the events are su):tDOsed not recorded in is su~:ooct M. Noth it in the middle basis of 1..."','1"6...., tr'aOlttlOnS, VUI',",Y,.,." 11 More ..""""""...... djttefl~nt:ly from cannot COllcelve natnaJrCl1aJ stories bear no pre,surnptlon no one believes were 10'

Now one might think that the Gunkel in the had weakened scholars' attachment to exi!:tenc:;e· of u,.-ih1'1' down

E>Porlhu''''

t'I'

the

Ancient Israel

{U()ttU'lgen: Vandenhoeck & KUlpre(~ht. Genesis York:

and Method in Biblical Criticism

6

years and sometimes centuries of oral trall1S11£lis:~iOIl1, to Israeli scholar '-u',i>i>U'I.V.

laec)IO~ty

a student of to reconstruct what He avers the tendentious stories that read back into the earlier is CharaClJer named Joshua ben~Nun

EI at of the ascnDc~S to the sources of that later historilographic COI1£lPCtSltllon. ·leJllmglY HaJlpelrn writes of Deborah "marks the the recovery Isr~leUlte sources are of historical For similar reasons G. W. Ahlstrom locates the oog;mnmg of the national the named Israel in the of Saul, the first who to

.. Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 2, 69-109. Note the see, too, ,"-uaUL'.-' in Canaan cf. p. 8.

CA: Scholars

The

7

that took upon itself the name It is a coincidence that Ahlstr(jm the Biblical trac1itilons about Saul to be the earliest that are hisltoncallly reliable. modern Biblicists the overall of the narratives mOlnarc~ny on. In measure this is because so many believe that the and succession to his throne was close to the the era of ::>OJlOmion. been understood by many as an version that served as a nnlm~:u1"U source for the is bound up with that Israelite formany in the era of David and Solomon. who from the Bible's account of the COllQUlest and settlement of the Bible's account monarl:::hy with a Gottwald as a in his 5:vrlthf~5:15: PattlClulwrs of the Biblical sources. Israelite to the A connected story of Israel's from the creation of the world to at least the of Israel's entrance Canaan was ca. 960· 930 D.C.E.. the of Solomon. in the view of many scholars. altl!lOlJl~h others it later as much as a or more....We do the name of the writer. was someone in go',enrunlent:al favor if not actual government service - who T\1"f".vut",t1 of "national for the young of David and =SoJ.om.oo.

conventiol1181 SChO"lfShIP. is rete:mng. W. Ahlstrom. Who Were the Israelites?

{Ptlll)81c1eJ1Phla: Fortress ""+Grott'wald. The Hebrew Bible, p. this recent summary of COIlternp<>rIu-:y reason to argue that J was created for

ttll1nltmJ~:

course. to

Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns.

'There seems to be of enthusiastic achievement of

8

and Methexl in BibllicaI Cri1liciSm

A who more than most exhibits the Gunkel is R. In his recent The Old Testament: An tntirOtlCUc,tIOJ'l" Rendtorffs historical to the enllLea,rors to traditional source criticiS:m Fnllnw'ina Noth and von earliest sources in the tradition as the em"ne:SI

is touna€~ remains our source for the What the texts do not we do not know: texts tnelmsc~lv(~S not matter" so that in my a tollerable bisltoli,caI rec:onSml1ctlon is n32 How do we know when the text is autnerlUC account of a tradition? Here Rendtorff trusts in the If two passages the same the truth of the be a(1(lucc~(1.· this purpose documents may asserts that "the into divides is that oo~wel1ul confirmed in all KelJlato:rU's blst,oflcal

re~Ol1lstr[lctl()D

Davidic-Solomonic nationalism. To date it Divided and even after from into the seems than sati,slalctolryn; "A Review of Recent in the Tradition H. ed.. Biblical Literature 459-502 at 500. Testament: An Introduction. trans. John Bowden of tradition historical work. see now De "A Research" n. 25 De Vries is far more conven.tional Ke:natortt. however. and remains at the latter's from nnTTnAltlVA source """l(,en<:lltorltt. The Old p. 79. p.86. p.20.

p. S. p.70. pp. 11.

p. 5.

and

The State of Biblical ,..n .u,...L~

9

This is eUleCtllvellv hisltonlcity of Biblical tl'acUti()ns. For many tbe nineteenth century for the Historical Jesus" has turned into the for the Historical Abraham. or. that having the for the David. It must that a historian who trusts all that one cannot is no more or pre:GlS:pO:seo than a who distrusts traditions that one cannot corroborate or deduce with In scholarship. is no worse crec1ul1ty A scion of the and a in the Bible's hisitorilcal reliability P. K. a of trust. He The stories of David's rise to power and the rebellion of Absalom seem easiest to understand in the context of David's own lifetime. were to sway in his favor and, more specUi,cally, of leglltialate

David narJratives at a much later date. In that the sourcecritical an1lLIV~l~ of the Book of Davidic or SOllOO1lonlC stratum in the David is Van Seters to demonstrate that the very passages that earlier scholars had assumed to be ancient of been de novo by the Deuteronomist historian. show of David's early career to be More Van Seters finds the DelLltel'OD()mistic historictgraphy The so-called Court LI."I~""''''. Juogmlent, "a attack upon house' for David. Since the Deuteronomist is UI.U·-"-'t~y I.'..u~. must have been added to the David narrative in the OOlil-C:XUIC go without that Van Seters puts little store in II Written it is not on histOf]lCal

assertion that the Bible's historical relIability Tomoo Ishida, the Son of into Problems about and Historil02J'SUIlV in WiJlUaJnson. OOs., The Future "The Historical pp. 'I'V'\,~iti'Ji~til"

II

esp. ch. 8, pp. 249-91.

and Method in Biblical Criticism

the Biblical authors made use of historical so to COT1Vil1ce the reader of the of the moral social and the raw material of historical facts to In short. when historical facts fit into the message. used them; when the historical facts did not the message. the facts were molded them or them until did support the me:ssa.ge.

The author of these Y. T. goes on to delineate a number of Biblical claims that cannot be in matters of ge()gr;apl1lY and Now if fundamentals are on what does Ralt:lWlY um:eItable. in what can the assert that "the Biblical authors made use of historical facts?" To what extent is what the Bible says and how can one tell? We have seen above that Rendtorff the standard of coherence: if the same fact is in v ...",...," texts. it may .....&.L ...

further discussion of this and the .. in Nina B.

at 100: Movement

on the Jewish

see Ivan G. Marcus. ''The Jewish Historian The Se"nl1J4ary and David W. 11i!I)IOIP'U~,('J.I

Slf!m'nQJ·v and the Conservative

Jewish Th1eologi,cal York: The Rabbinical AS!iem.bly 215-22. n.21 Looks at of the IJA''''''''U''', here, pp. 68-69. For view that the less than see now Baruch 1.1 ...."'_".,.. in Friedman and Williamson, eds.• The

Tbe

11

the fact is that to the hlslton:cal unJ~eli:abi]lity of wbat Bible The cases of Ha·ai and Jericbo are Let me illustrate a less familiar but obscure instance. Textual and artifactual evidence bad convinced scbolars like W. F. . . """...'i...b" ..... that the camel bad not been in the Levant until the twelfth ret,erenC(~s to camels in Genesis patriarchal Dlmaliv€~s were rep]laC(;~ an beast in the t-ashional>le, COlrltemlJlorllfY one. nOf course," an~lCh:ron,lsnlS in local color no more disnr()Ve patnte(1 scenes of as modern Palestlmi(lln arCinaeologlc;al data do not mUlcalte ..........' ..b ...... is in arChalwllDglCal eVldellce for or bis trust in tbe

in from tbe bones at Tel Jel1omeh, 8lO ancient crossroads near carav8lOS were not in around ......""" .."""',.'" 24 and the visit of the the reference to camels in HU)}lC,aI can argue that earlier stories were a later editor lnc:1JprU'11 camels wbere tbere bad been none in the source. But one will follow this only under the that the Biblical narratives are essen1J.ally bistorical. A bistorian wbo adds this anacbronism to tbe many others that bave been may also also conclude tbat tbe narratives were at a late and that are unreliable. esp. Yohanan Aharoni. The Land An.son Philadlelpltlia: Westminster pp. 130·31. further discussion see Roland de trans. David Smith Westminster Palestine. rev. ed.

\.LI\"UUiVU.

Pelican

Camel Pastoralists at Ten Jernmen.

12

and Method in HU>]!ICaI Cn1ticism

the historical atllthellticity through the so·cmloo was no exodus of masses of Hebre~ws century, no in the Sinai wilderness, the by Israeli and scholars in the . . . partIctJlar tndicalte that took up residence in had no To many, including the Israelites were moved to the hill country and because those were sparSeJly D4[)Dulatt;~ areas them little resilstallce. AClcoridin.JUY DelJlev<~s that recent more than the tnv:~~t(," "6'''''" ' , re~pn~selllteld, for ex~lml)le, ..........JU,....""",,

O'''"&U.A'''

"

OJ· ..

conlple~xes

of

Israelite :settleJrnmrlt ed., Biblical Aharoni cited there, from Tell Masos," BARev conclusion The first appearance of the Israelites at Tell Masos in the northern and the new cultural elements which with them is in total with the settlement Alt..•.TeU Masos that the Israelite settlers of half of the 13th century B.C.E. were not nomads who from the desert" but were a who a back to the Bronze of the mountainous areas. Contrast the somewhat more traditional views of Amihai Mazar in Biblical 61·71. Me:ndcmh.all, "The Hebrew COlllqu:est of Palestine," BA repiJ'inted in Edward F. and David N. Fre:edJrnml. Ar(ina,eotog£st Reader 3 NY: Anchor Books, Tenth Generation: The the Biblical Press. The

Israel. esp. pp. 13343.

13

The Slate of Biblical Studies

distinc:t group movements that have been involved.

teIE~()J)e4C1,

and he lowers the

"'''tilers:hel Shanks, ttDever's 'Sermon on the Mound', BARel1 pp. 54-57. p.57. p.56. 57. t'rederic HrandtoJll, "The Limits of Evidence: and Ubiecl:iviltv pp. who concludes: "As it turns out. altJilOl:lgn ex(~eJ)tiolilalJ[Y is no more intrim;icl:IUy

have thrown some 14: I, and shown that it BaloylcIDitm or Elamite of the 23rd eXl>edltlO n to the far make no mention the nalrtu~u.LlJ!T e:f(J)ed1t:ion recorded in Gen. 14: furnish no ind[epc~ndent corroboration of it....The case is in the parts of Genesis. The argument which has been advanced, for to show that the narrative of the of the cave of is th.e work of a hand, breaks down in the assenion are not rn''Itu,p/1 one and aU...occur, in some cases repeat,edl:y, in of the and even later: furnish no p.vlnI>1!"1t"p. that the narrative was written at earlier date. There is no of antecedent reason Abraham should not a neat Hebron the native inhabitants to

The

l

14

and Method in Biblical Criticism t"'nl!'lt'l'!:lrU

pol;sil)ililties for cnrlS'
I doubt that Biblical arcnaC~OJ()gy can ever establish that the traditional are and the arcJl1aeolo;gist events of Israel's cannot these events were even if as

uWIQueJy was plungc:~d into into a DeI'emlial grappling realm of and would not were Israel's own bistol'llcal ~Y'f',~ri~nl"~

nre,diS'DOStiticm to trust the contours the it is evident that and d.t't'",,,,",,,,... t pre~(Us.pOf)lt14)nS will assemble their data hlslLorilcal reconstruction. Data do not the date into The same may be said of phlliological anaIVS'
.. in Amitai. \L.N~""YU. En(~ycJ[o~~di.~IJ. L""'.I.'IJU"'."'"

vol.

E. J.

ed. Yaakov Klein

Hebrew and Misbnaic

Mat_a"" I

15

The State

an

of Ruth based on the rather than take one or the other I would that one could for very reasons fonnulate the evidence in either We are not in a POS~ltlC!n pnl,lol,oglcally to make a call either way_ Van Seters, "Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in 99 "Sources of the Pentateuch," in Paul Francisco: & "The in

n'' ' ' lD'l1 11)'0",11 n,,",n see also his ,::m l1"U

for the theoretical assumpti4001S ....rederlck V. Wi'nn ..·tt Abraham and In

1955· 1929· nftlipl'llVll'lO

pp.l·

and Method in Blbllical Cn11Clsm

16

two OPlJOsmg moc1elS prOJtound. Within the antllquity and hisltonlc:ity obstructs any attempt to

suptpleJmelltation. It is the earliest written &'""..'"""'&&'" hislloril;;ity of the Bibllical traclitl()ns, rec,ons;lrUlcUCln dc~pe'ndS upon a aDt)r04:lCn to cornp()sition reflect one's nersnectl,'e on lsrfleUlte Bible's account of it. Relrldtc)rU corlsidlers himself to have made "a fundamental break: with the the nature tracllUc.nal methods am.lllVZlDll nerltafJeuchal texts."72 He that break this way: Scholars their of a perltateuchal sources within the text....But in my VVJ,nnJ'U that there must be sources rUl1tnll1lg Perltateuc:h..... Al~corduiJ.g to the traditional method not for the scholar to that the reSI::>ecltive and different sources but it is

In Search

e.g., pp. 40-49

the Index there for further

The

Bit~IiClal

Studies

17

this Thi.s aPlJrOllCh must be reversed. First of all we have to take the text as a have to try and understand its structure and

reI111ac:e the

of source anaLlvSlS with the the text from a pre~surnption of is no more or less theoretical than the text as a COIDpc)Sue. He is oPl>osing a newer to the older Iml>or1ant ten(lellcjc~s among Rendtorffs oos;itiC)D dis;ltlectiC)D from of many COl1ltelllOOJrary atte~ntJlon to the unity, or, to the final form of the are in or reSltles:sne:ss is in Christ,ian terms, the "Old conrtplicatc~ and obsc;ure ana~lysis

of the literature cannot dates for biblical books to examine them hlstOfJ.cal sequence are doomed from the start. It has increasmgly clear that no of the literature far, no suitable criteria exist which to separate and every to UpdlatlIlg ancient tra(llU(ms.

seI~tu~lgil1lt,

more have

18

and Method in Biblical Criticism

in order to evaluate the Massoretic Text and correct it where been in for reasons seemed to necessary with There is now, a newer to view the as lD<Jlepcmdent tralC1ltllons. The too, is a textual ~""'......""" as a total structure a text like the sel:>tlll:lglillt the Massoretic or with a Dead Sea for matter. M. urleerIDe.rg, in an examination the Massoretic and Greek texts reJl~CIS each as an "we have two each with own for the of the and its own coherence. Out of rec:ei',oo text is in order to trace the tOlJlOWlD2 conclusion from a recent replreS€mts a textual tradition that is very close to that Masso'retJlC text. from a base very much like one or several scribes the result that Massoretic tra:gmentary state have six or

lml;>lic:it in these remarks are the MT is a distinct text; the is in is a text; material in the former is the result in rather than in source; most there is a historical connection between the MT and texts. We may tend to that the that we take for gralllte~a are the of our and We do not we draw them. Our are see the not the naked new research. are at perspectn,es," a different way of sYllclllrolrUc vision is most evident in our aPI:>roaclles dlSIClp,(lD~'S cu'hnlo1"" work in - whether ant,hr()PolloJl~Y more and more the Bible as a COfltaiJllOO cornp()Oeltlts. The many BU)llcists adOOUrlg are Strllctural, paradiJ~m~ltic. ,""UIIU1"IU

Script1ure:s," in Robert A. Kraft and and Its Modern

pp.

trans. Polzin,

EX4~ge.fts.

The State of Biblical ..n,W.llvi:) sVl1lchJ"onic methods of ..........'......."'.'''' life and a

19 is anaJogious to the of that

FisJhbalne, rather than reconstruct the de~reloipment has SUIl!lm:an~~ed a Biblical prclphl~Y ""I"",,,,•..,•.,. it in the context of other elements in the Bible's as covenant and

"Reflections and His of Isaiah's

Isaiah of text's assessment of the evidence" the criteria that he sets .."".."".....'.... a different conclusion. Greenberg. Ezekiel 1-20, p. 26. l'''l')nlr,,,r,,

and

t'el"SUiClSlion,

his "critical

and Method in Biblical Criticism and the me~mjl1lg The Sigllifi(~anc~e of the determined in their function within a social or Various forms of fmd texts in the Img;UlStlc C()DtIJgunltiOlils and or and structures that are a wave touched off by new and differlcnt Biblical Studies has of late reacted vU)]ratiC.lns. We have nothing like the wl(leSI)f~lCI lSl[UlCliU SI:udiles that would, Kuhn's ten1rliDl)IOj~Y but if there is any apJUlc:atiCtn of modes of hlSltoolcal apl)rOaCl1les, SYI1IChJ~On]IC alllal'J~I~ is often StnJltul1rl, as 1..1..... 1'7...000 and Van per'hal)S the """...lA'.. - the study of Biblical

O°f\;licllael Fishbane, "Biblical Green. ed., Jewish \;n1.l"itlJlnliir'U

Prolnhl~CV

KeJllfr1:1IDUS Phenomenon." in Arthur the Middle York:

York: Schocken and II Raritan K, or of York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, James A. Torah and Canon Press, S. Childs, Introduction to the Testament as (t'llula.delphi.a: Fortress In canonical criticism the text is read its the of the faith that created it. Childs' somewhat Sanders' in that the former is more concerned with mellmulg of the final form within the faith traditions that have and rUl1l1l:ll11Uill,

The State of Biblical .:n.W.l1C:S

21

we must fust many feel more comfortable with the rpt',,,,iu~:>ti Blt)llc:ISts are only recently t>c~gumn:lg to the hyt)QtbeUC,&1 an they The matter has been put Biblical "methods" are theories rather than m.ethods: theories which of intuitions about the of result from the biblical texts. Texts are certain sorts of me~an]ing or. as as certain vague eXl~cltatilons CllSlilppomteCl and frul;tralted. which are either ClanUe<1. and at the end Th.en imore~ssion of what the text of the process as to how it comes to mean means. t02,eth4eI" COCiltleCl. will become source or it. But the 10Slt.lClJUlY sut,secluelnt to the intuition redaction crilticism about meaning. nre~feren(:e

for the received text adumbrates an epjiste:m()loJ~ic.al trust our means of more than our means of rec,ons:trD1Ctirllg a text. the popularity A sense a text, or gm..th:mcr stu.dvmi!' it in terms hlstJoncal e"li'oIUllion. We pr,lgolatJlc reason accessory disc:iplilnes tJo be as well edu:cat(~ and textual criljci~;m, gn~llv7~e the Biblical text within a The SYllcl1lrolflic anl>rOlllcn either upon the prior and fundamental work of hlsltonCaI SClllOllllfSl1lip, or it it.94 There is no that methods is for this reason that I made to me Professor Gershon Shaked as I do. contrast the historical/diachronic with the phcen(Jlmemolog,ica:l/s~ync:hrc)nilc. I with the characterize be as well as Indiana pel"splective more akin to as apt for

Old Testament

pp..

Westminster Press,

and Method in Biblical Criticism

22

produc:e rich and in the text, in nor-ti.... lla.to the themes and that have come to constitute trarnevvorlcs of the relUUClns that base themselves on the Hebrew But in order to perl011m SYl1lClllrOnlC DI'D nl
rel~ltlOlllship - that of master sYl1ICllJrOnIIC al)PfClacJh. in little time the ael1£lOCratlCaIlly p,lrti(:ipa,te in The teachers and students may well

lllsltofilcal, and if

even

as we saw appears rellitlv'elv of historical reconstruction. It will not work for critic Meir who would like to read the Bible enrlcllm~ ba(:k~rOlJlnd of its historical world but does not as POl~nlt1al

Eastern Studies 5-6 268-69 Hebrew Studies James pp. 66-79. Michael Fishbane, "The Sacred Center: The Structure of the M. A. Fishbane and Paul eds., Texts and Re~ilJOirl.Se,s: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer E.. J. Brill. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature lJu~tingU1.shf~d e:f(anlplc~s

are Roland IlmUYSIS

UOlllw:ll1d.

The Hebrew

"The Stnlggle

and Biblical and

esp. pp. 31-33.

Exc~ge,s,s,

The State of Biblical Studies

23

he says, "when aU is and tnaep€~na!entJm()wleafl~e we possess of the 'real world' behind the Bible remains Qhli:llrtlliv eXlpertel1lclrlg a crisis in I do not mean faith in the Bible's as we have seen, is hardly new; but The truths of the we faith in the results of our increasin:gly umler~;tarla as the creatulns of our own The words of ChJr1S11an SCll1)t.ure~s C',~ht"'l,.Ql'" John describe what we have found: We found not a but a mirror, and the dust of ages was but the of our ancestors. In a mirror, howe.ver, we see not ourselves but ourselves We see our eyes before we see all

n.92 p.16. in O'Connor and Freedman. pp. here, p. 27. I'

24

and Method in Bit.Uc:al Criticism

to who are to the cellltra,Uty of the Bible will the to clw>sic,al rabbInllC mildrtlSh, because it will needs. Women, or men for that matter, who lack that or who seek to disJtod~~e the Bible from as a foundation of will apply As a that in the constructs of ISlttl1C:aI S'tudies. For several have to years now, Jewish Bn.ncjists in Israel and in the United that so many in the study of Biblical and its relil21Cln in derive from Christian We are

in the

on Biblical "Who Is pp.

too, AJS "Biblical Studies and ",,,u\'u¥i:>,"

has discussed the Christian in "Must 'Biblical Be pp. 40-43. I nU ....l.",nl fl'1lpnl,nav" I find him somewhat naive in the Hebrew Bible without some ...."'JU"'.,u> and Exodus for ex~unl'le, naJ:t1culo,rislm that characterizes covenant between as I read it after unsuccessful attempts to form

of Biblical

25

\JI-U',""""

in BlbJllcaI rellgloln, or rellJ~loIlIS, It is too, that to reconstruct the ae'vellODlnelllt

the

from later prec10miinalnUy Christian field

Biblical

Jewish tradtltion. of HlbJllcal \J ""'......v""

Kaufl1narm hUlnmrlki:nd,

re;COJltm4~ea

own ren,giol1s that .... ,u"u..v'Q..

YHWH initiates and cultivates a that Rendtorffs a to with our difference in

Hebrew Hebrew Hebrew with e.xcerpts

and

Israeli B It)Uc,al

in Bibllical CritIcism

t.JLUU~v~,

to the arCJtlaelJIOi~Y the text. the llteratlue, more the f'nllnfrvt.'litfp> In Umberto Eco's mvt.'lfp>I'v monk's amemlen:sis,

atte~ntl()n

uTherefore you don't have a if I did I would teach UIn Paris do

Name of the

the

t1p>fp>f'flvP>

Broth.er William: answer to your que:sticms'("

Ulec)10~~Y

in Paris.

have the true answer?U

UWilUam said. Ubut

are very sure of their errors.U

the works of Kaufmann cited in n. 66 above. e.g.. A. uWellhausen and Kaufmann. Midstre.am. December to

Bar-llan This observation can be a rec,ent]lv plUblJlSIU~ rep,resenting the Hebrew of Biblical in 1986 n. own conclusions corlcelmU12 volume accord with those of Ze'ev Weisman in review in Tarbiz 56 291-95: u'tQ~'n "1'l:)'1 '~'1 '»." The two common areas interest one Can discern among the seventeen contributions are Biblical law and the and historical of the received text. Two of the be as criticism. The fact that the not less to do with the lnorn-JlUstoIllcal uJerusalem of uBiblical l. • ."t......" .. Jewish the ancient Near and arcnac~1()gy to the volume. claims that what unifies the is its blend traditional Jewish text with modem modes of criticism. As Wf'!,~n'lAn cOITec:Uy observes, however, Hebrew Bible research shares a in. common with elsewhere, too. loe. cit.

,sn

The State of Biblical Studies ..And you," I said with childish

27

"never commit errors?"

.. he answered. "But instead of many, so I may become the slave of none.

one, I

Im~lgll1le

The newer in Biblical Studies is open to new disciplinE~s and COllcelPtwal as well as to discovered tells and texts. IUVUVIe,,;).

The Name pp. 367-68.

Rose. trans. WiUiam Weaver

York; Warner

Chapter Two The Torah as She Is Read explaIn the

of a

text, such as a into its prElsellt it was tnOUgl1lt, we in .....,-,••,-,;:u,,,, rht't'",.'"'Onrr for are there two accounts of and A answer is: the two accounts were dItlerelnt contexts, A the of must, be read have different and distin(;t mleal1ling:s. What about the fact that someone has taken a deal of trouble to inoomorate both accounts, and in a certain seQuence'l The becomes acute when we consider the Flood criticism argues, two texts have been splice~d Should each source, J and be read on its own even after a redactor cn.1r\lUc.n

as

Me~mCl(l

30

in Blt.Uc:al Criticism

SCrlptUlre that

redactIon as epi,gramrrlaUcallly e'{J)r(~sse~a in the formula of Buber and Franz l'
Il

IIRII

II

memolries are motives and will tones....And yet this story This line of is Press. since that rests on the coincidence or intlerslectiion of various It a constructed hVllOt]llesis acc:orclinJdY, needs to be addressed as a whole. On oth.er hand. and unc:ler.~sti,malte the several blatant contradictions in the Flood narrative. such discrepwlcy between the numbers of pure animals to be taken onto the ark the flood. For a more extensive critical discussion of Kikawada see P. "A New to the pp. 34-39. Doc:umlmtary H:ypo1;hesils," BR e.g.. Who Wrote the :'\V'fIUle:~ag: The Inf,!'!rnrPcf:At1cm e.g.• Bernhard W. Anderson, "From AIUUVSIS "The CoheI'enc:e of Genesis 1-11." JBL 97 pp. 336-48; and ct. Umoorto Cassuto. A of the Flood Narrative." trans. I. Abrahams C;omn'Jen:lm''Y on the Book Abrahams

A. ""'.... 'L...."'."'. Torah and Canon

Fortress Press.

The Torah as She Is Read the develn:ned

did not exist from the

31 but

in

If the Torah is so in that there were no sources. The Torah eXI)liciUy YHWHn (Num. and may attest

in

canon of a From a text and Genesis would mean if the second ...... "'''''''''11 we would to the Golden 19). What would be the graven the Torah had Joshua been included within it? Childs' apl>rOlicn than most lun.darnel1ltallly cornmumty that canonized it and transmitted it in its sacred to In a R. E. endeavors to the latest ediltorial 1 in the Torah and assess He shows how one of reacted to and sut)ple~me~nt1ng. His and ao::tllvsls OI>era.te on the ass:umlptilons and conventional source This is essential for the kind of of source-critical work he is but it therefore the ed. Nahum N. Glatzer York: Schocken 24. For the characterization of "R" as Rabbenu. see der in M. Buber and F. Die

(Philadlelphia: Westminster Biblical Narrative: The Formation CA: Scholars Press.

32

and Method in Biblical Criticism pre~sulDplLiOllS

such as the follO\lliltng~ it would that their nouung at all channel to is which no [that the of Solomon]:'12 On the basis of this presunlption, Friledl1rlan determines that 1 must antedate the He may be correct in jUQgmc~nt, but is own, unfounded in the of l:elrlalnly the was of to tm])erllt!\lre to it upon their return to Fric~nlan StmHarly Qjlscrimilnate~s between a of an rA"t~tl'\n not on the are two nntathle el:1tUl()nS own of restoration after the must in and not it. He seems not to reckon with the alternative - that it was pre:ctSely because certain did foresee a restoration the Exile that served as sacred scriptllJfe the Judeans. Source criticism has prelSuPll>Osjitiolls and standards about sequence, the umlccleptabiUty COlltr8,Olct!Oln, the aesthetic blemish or re1JletltiOJrl, StUl1ies of demonstrate that the like so dear to the This means that the source Qoc;;U[loeratal·y oltfc;~rellce may not reDiresent .... n:;"......,""'... at an. Without the mdle[)(~ndent documents alte~sul1lg of sources, one IS 10 no to decide Wl1leUler discreoallCV or results from or a cOIDp,ositioloal se·I1ISlt.Ullty that differs from the modem The source critic must in any ..... "7"-1 . . .' - '

of David and

33

The Torah as She Is Read

event the redactor found the enUI-relOiUU aes;tnetlc~WYacc:eptabl,e. What was acc:epltable to an redactor have to an an<;.iellt author. For these and other reasons source conclusions must remain mCl:eclslv,e. SOlJlrCe·..CfllllC:!:U dJlsCliminalPollS in sugj!test probable boundaries between oncepremlc~r Il1lstance in is At1:emtpts have been made to the structure unit. 17 as an VUI.llU..... , what I call an the the Flood may nr~'C'''''I''t form. But from the ground, the level at we hear or nQ1"ll"Qtj,,,,,,, is We are tossed back and forth between passages by I1n'illnlrUYI!"tt factual

process that is

"'roottE~xU 1

p.206. Wrote the

and Method in BU.UClal Criticism pre~IC~US. if not

to the Judean cOllllmll1nilty in

lncludmg ..h"'A~n'A",t sources in stru,ctwing that

pos;sessed mdlepellldeJlluy 1f22 J is more traJllscemJentallly Derceived. P must tell of Jacob's renaming for from the wrestle with God in Genesis ""\.US of Eden a far more nA~"n"'QI COlll1lCts of his creatures in a scene. The call1ODllcal "truth If COlnpJnS(;~s no less than both - is COflve'ved account. The the ideal and comes as as one can to the "truth" - is .,."t",... ",./1 the other. Why two versions be would then mean sOInet.hiIlg else. I would use the a in red and blue were mixed and then to an entire canvas. Now im~lgille a canvas haIf red aJIld haIf blue. The colors bounce off each other as to and upon one another. is the ...........'".......'n accounts. are, redacted texts in sources seem to editorially (or cOIn»()sitjoniall~y) inlten:willed. juxtaP,osed., How can be In conventional Btt.Uc:aI s<:holarlShl)), source in order to read the text conlponents would first have to be isolated - thw'artilng, re
KOlsen1ber:R.

"JV1e~miI1lgs,

Morals, and 67·94.

to

Biblical Narrative and Who Wrote the arg1.lme:nt that the

Biblical Narrative. p.

a cited in

characterization of J and J's

n.90.

in

Ezra was the redactor. cf. Who Wrote the Bible? see the essays

Harold Bloom

The Torah as She Is Read

35

One could then all of J t for instance could be isolated and as mentioned is what Bloom has tried to do. He ex~unJ)let a thematic to source t which Sha,pll1lg the first human from clods of and concludes jtteate:st human t prophet in an unmarked COllcentrJlC s"mroebrv characterizes the next circle too. In YHWH forbade the man and woman to eat of the Tree of YHWH forbade him to cross over into Promised Land. Not and J t but even the less remlted P has been treated to a l'iltvlil'ilt!iC! 311al"SIS Ne'(ertnelc~ss,the

difficulties attendiIlg con.Jure up.

down any Jacob in Genesis ex,unl>le, are not attIlbu:lable

analog,ous Christian one, to it above. None of the If the Torah is

4UUUCU

eXl)rel~si(m in the JuxlaplOSel<1 passages -

and Method in Biblical Criticism in Benno Jacob's Genesis cOInm,enl:anr'&' in an abundant Alter's The Art Biblical IVnl~rnl'ilJl compares the redactor's

......«'''''Ui"-1. in 'POpularly in

our pet'cel>U()lns. 16. and the two contliclting ruiUUOUI<.

camp. A decade

are

is of the un(~OnJsci.()Us. in that direction that one would need to the to pursue the of the text its dis:senlimltion, not

The text embraces an app1areltlt C4:mtJradiction. different documents. AClcoramlJ( says he crossed over stnlflflle connotes the triumph some of classical rabbinic exe:gesis Kalman Bland, Rabbinic Method and Gros Louis et al., eds.,

Grelemltei:n, eds., The Cf. also

a

The Torah as

Is Read

ml(1ra~;n in which the Bm'Ules. the text need not combatant is ~J) "10 '''1D, be read in an eltl'ller/C)r U1L3UIVU, the other. The two realnn~~s not for us to dislenbmgle text continues to to Jacob by both his names ... u,,",...,.u. Israel: the one who strived with so the aU(JJenl::e to open. If the redacted text maintains both reaCI1D,R;S, close one in favor of the Miscall asks us to leave open which the text does not eXl)licitly a several passages to Abraham and J."'.I..l~P.l..l concludes that the morals of both are We should to go to a not assume, that Abraham followed the divine new but text does not share ~aI"L:.U.,aLand Sternberg arg1umcmts nl"t',vl£lP- a welcome Callt1<J,n aj;tamst ov(~rre:adim~. assuming more than we have reason to insinuate readmigs, it must be are not Ske:pu«:al. He distrusts the ways the narrator his Cb.araclters Miscall is correct, in commentators for eXI,lo:itinig and the sense of the text in order to draw from it, Returning to the of texts, we may ask whether we or dUI:erelnt are to or bracket different blocks it prior to has and comments upon the words that the narrator of ult]im~lteJy SIJpe:rseOlniR; Moses' in word to the That way. the narrator commands the he needs to carry Moses' material further into the and JegilsJate for the audience at the tail end of that on the audience's of the in and drC'PPlng pel'Cel)tic,n of which I for one am not OWOO5leiV un(lennining the of Moses and the .I. U.lVUill.U

Genesis

n.

p.

Biblical Nnl~rn"i\J# narrator is both omniscient reliable. ';'OJl"h rt M. Polzin. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Deuteronomistic York: "''''~lhn1rv

.uu,.lJ.

and many other

J.

the

38

and Method in Biblical Criticism

untqu(;~n~>s of Israel in order to his own aut:hOlrIty and program. But whether a historical audience would have this within the rhetoric own must remain quc~st1:on,abJe. In of Eden Ro~~nt~r~ too, suggests the of the text can be .rt"",.......""rt narratJlve. to use our ntu~A"""A their mtc~rr~~latlon

aplJrOj!lCh a text, I its eXl>llClt reference to its molecular structure in the a alSlcrelte so to I would read the text str;:ligtlt, auttUalDOID,81ntngullty and and the effects of my I have reaclin~ in my of the of There I deal in detail with Genesis and sUIJ~seCIUeJilt passages that the circumstances in which went down to The crux is familiar: did the brothers sell him to or did him The narrative seems to intertwine two so that it becomes to I an[)rOclCh me:aningltuJ; I allow that the redactional process is mann&of andtheasslu~pticm i>J.l€>UGJ.i>,

Ro:senberg, "The Garden

Forward alld

Ha4~k,,~ar4:l .

I(,ose:nbc~rg. "The Garden 20. It should be noted that such a is of Friedman, cited above. Friedmall, however, akin to the source-critical recombines components various into sources, while Ko:sen,bel'g mlspc~cts the components ....."'n... of the Pentateuch" E0111VCtcal l'.e~IUU:lg of the Sale .:10

I".... '"

The Torah as Sbe Is Read

39

po:tntllng to a similar narrative structure and thematic effect in Numbers We have wbat Bartbes bas called a tffriction between two ..43 Wbile it bas been in Biblical criticism to settle for one intc~lliJ~ibJiIit~'{" at tbe expense of the otber and insist tbat the two narrative sequences be read the of tbe redactor to combine or t11rl:l'.t'tl!v and with the Intc;~~nlted int€~roretaljon of the that text in dUlerelnt from tasks at band. seeks to its dvl1~flir. fc;~tulI'es as well as its overall particillar episteltllollogJicai stance: the way to text is to observe its pattenlS and to see bow it and bow it It is beld tbat these factors are the clearest cbannels for beld sway decades. Tbe that to know the text I examine it in contrast with other texts. To know Genesis 1 sbould, witb and others bow it is d.1Stin:guiSh€~ Enuma Near Eastern account. A nIPlr~nT_ Biblical Na.r,.atl\n~l compares same texts, n.30. this I do not mean to discount the pol;sit~ilil;Y of accidents in scribal traI1SmllSSllon. I would not what I to an error. The act of sense presumes an intention to mean To scribal as not to say t.ext, is to the of a

40

and Method in Biblical Cril:icism

In recent years a number of that has SlJtmJ:llCaJllce beneath the surface of the is structural antltlrojpolc:>flY corltril)utiion. one must understand what anthropologi.sts. but as

through paradiJ~m~itic narrative and not nat)pelrle<J in its

The Torah as She Is Read

41

!:<1Cf'~tf'hIV and iWios,mcratic to serve that function for an audience concerned prilrnmrlly with The audience almost to n1"'uIA1"'luil'l'" messages and values.

meamllllg is hardly new. Within Jewish To read the Torah its or in tra<111uon. the to draw out that more eXI)ucit iml>etlls of classical midrash. Few texts make is Rabbi Simeon said: Alas for the man who Torah as a book of ""..."hlf'\'" matters. If this were so. we even in such matters and still more In and of the world chI'onlLcle~s'!j possess more materials. We could use as a cosnpc_smtg a Torah of this kind. But in the words of the Torah are words and has a which consists of the commandments ordinances of the are called "bodies of the Torah." This is cloaked in. garments. consist of stories. Fools see the ga:J:·me~nt. which is the narrative part of the know no more see what is under the Those who more see not garment but also the that is under the But the upon the soul. which is the true of the entire

ideas of the Torah?

How do we

blocks of books plus Former structure may reveal of the whole and its for ex~unl)le. knew that of the Torah is bound up with the fact that it forms a se~~mlent of a more or less continuous of Israel from to the Exile: Now. if we tum our attention to the connection and argum.ent books. we shall see that were aU historian. who wished to the of the Jews from be,g;inndng down to the first destruction the [of lenlsallem.j.

established the

I.t....·"'.."

program of the former - spJnO:i~a (Jc~lmeatc~ the entire takes and its ultimate dlestinatllon, and translated in Oershom York: Schocken JJf~en,edi'ct de p. 126

~CI10JE~m,

On the Kabbalah and Its ~YIl'WGmSJ'1a 63-64. Treatise York: Dover

42

and Method in Biblical Criticism exp'laills how the Jewish nation came to . . . even as Moses had foretold. In to other matters, which do not serve to confmn the law, the writer passes over them in or refers the reader to other books for information. All that is set down in the books we have conduces to the sole of the words and laws of and them

"Aft"'...,,.. is that persistently recur. nn,rpr
structures can we motifs crop sigllllfiCaI1lce. Uviw The

about uetmwli\earea to the soc:iowhistorilcal and myths dev'eloll. must consider and control the ~t'-t1n,p,nt !i':en:~1tI~iI1fV

r.nrlVIl'~flnln

York: Schocken Books, Alan D. Structuralist

Jews

York:

K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A One.

43

The Torah as She Is Read

derive from some I!!>""''''''''''''''' DJrODC~rtic~s of structures derive from Dar'ticillar QU(~tatllon. Nathaniel to n""..t'......'..... violated it eth:ooil:rapthlC context. Wander then shows of Genesis treats women certain women pralctical S()Ci€~tal tension. But where does Ufo,nn,,,.. not to so traJ~m€mts and rettactions Wander looks to be
AlrtAhl~j~

are interpre,tatic)n of strlJctluirlg may and contents The author of that Le"I-~.lraUSS (who within an the text mltlgallng a

dallghlter turns out to be a relative thrl)u~;h too. for who is Jacob's cousin mother. Women in such an are dalUte:rOllS sttucture because could lead to a re
....11'>""'··.. h ..·n....""..·'"

COirllr~ldi(:tion. and 'Resolution' in Dall2hter M:arnage and the Treatment of Women in Genesis p.75.

44

and Methoo in Hlt.UC:aI Criticism

suffers pol:enltlal COJrlIUSIOin and redefinition in social Genesis ml1igate the orv>i""t,.'", aJlxi4~tie:s.

the

of

in structure to son the of his estate. But older sons also home sooner. While VOlmi!':4~r sons grow up. the may estate such that the VOIJlD2CeI' on may with a share that of the entcerpJlSJf12 ex):ualJI1. on one the numerous passages VOlJlD24~r son achieves than his older v ......'.....""'... manifold variations would tuncue.n to the ideal uncovers another

and ClvllJlzatton at the Bal[)vl()ni~m Exile? No. never The patteols and relations that In the course of asS4JCt~LtiOJ1S and rete~rences. stones moss. u,lthnnt stlooclin2 the unclerllayers younger sonfs domination increases Isr~lel1!te

tl

SI2JutI
etnOOjual,hy must be if at all. by an(l,lnCln;, ethno~ual;>hy of Israel at the at which essc~nb:any .. the ovc,rwbelJmiJilg biistolric,al and the Exile. The latest strata of of P scb~()larly ccmsenSUf;}.. can be dated by ImJ~Ul!>UC criteria to the to. even cornto1rts.. the exiles in many ways and on various As:surmn,2 the Exile as in which the Torah as we know it found an aucliel1lce. what does the Torah 'V.. ,...............

Late Biblical Hebrew Rerldst)urJl(s CJLll.nJUe of Polzin in JANES arguments and claims but does in "The Evidence of in Technical Idioms

the

The Torah as She Is Read perhaps, the Torah eX1Jllaills the core of the regulaltiOllls. The dm~tcmiJ1lg curses that conclude DeuterolllOmlY Dlromlise exile for repeatc~ is with surrender to an God demands from his When tll>llh,l>lrO them. was in the COllllp,lre, for example, this Pyp,Fl'rnr

nh\llnl'IQ'lv

of Moab.•.made this he has all many years, for Che:mOI;h

J,Y.l!IJ'~VJI ••• lJ"""'Cl~U""

and

The destruction of the northern IdnJ~aolm of Israel by in 722 a similar fate for the southern Judah. YHWH would do to land what Chemosh had done to and what YHWH had done to northern k1nj~
a Calf and the several instances in which the them with fire irl""ftti1Fu the theme of exile in ",",,"'•• humans are one prohibition God. They blow the The world is have In a most extreme form of God anrlihilatE~s from beneath them flood. God's of the is a more ClrC~UnlSC]rIbEl(Ill1lStaJlce. That is way their - takes on a remarkable form in Genesis 15. There God tells Abram that the exile and becuase latter's descendants will have to suffer a cannot the The Canaanites have not had to build up a v. The lesson is restated in Deut. '-JLU,U.......

"'';)j,,;),

Do not say in your heart them away from before you,

when the Lord your God dint of my has the

Hebrew Narrative

n.45

for for

OUf

and Method in BibllicaI Cn11Clsm me to these nations

dint of the wickedness of you.

peppers the song in rec:alcitrallCe. When

De'JteroncJmv 1 to and

tUIlchon, among the southern kingd()m. abominations of the sev'enf.h-cenliIlTV Judeans.

in the Lord of Israel as Creator of the world and COlluoUer if not OlsoelleVlDJt Judean addressed to such a audience. if not most, Judeans must have QU(~Shl()ne;a the covenantal promi~;es, must have wondered if were a of God C,D could live in such a state of humiliation and oo'weJ·les:sn(~ss. In more obvious ways and less ones the and many other Biblical may be read as responses to those anxieties. As Clines has strc~sslea. the narrative ends before the Because the Torah tratlSpc)rtS the Israelites to the of the Promised with the conquest by and ahead of of the that exiles: "the stands them. the land before them:t69 The Judeans know from their that the ISrSteUtles e~,en1:ual]lv took the same t'\Aa,t>t-'U'lnl1'

,-,"'I."'''.''. Everett COIlttimlity cnrlve'V'f"A1 most cmlcrc~teJtv The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions {Miss01ula: Friedman. Who Wrote the Bible?

Israelian Thc~l(lJglCal Siemiimu-.v

Judaism

York: Jewish

of America.

Theme

JSOT

The

47

as She Is

With all its attention to continuity t "the not to life and its but rather to its ""''''l''''''',.'' and the Torah as a of exltmc:ttoiD as forever also reassure the

firstborn but in

mOlc·alte a

York: Schocken xxxiv. Miner. "Claude Brauner. ed.• Shiv'im

pp.

xxxiii~

Uvi~Strauss

and Genesis 37~Exodus Reconstructionist Rabbinical .... VJlL...J;....

21~52.

L. Cohn. "Narrative Structure and Canonical pp. 3-16. p. 13.

25

in Genesis.

48

and Method in Biblical Criticism tbat tbey by

How? is not the rea:ssu):,mg Former Pr(J,ph~ets.

to detect pollutalnts and contain tbem. The kee~plJltg the out of their camp, to nrc)f.e(:ti\l'e presence among them. Just in case unbeknownst to the the wnl~tnl~r it needed it or not, on KaulflflaJItn eJlpl~UO€~ in a retort to

reulindling me of this fact. See now W. Holtz

'\n"rllli'I'1l/1rV

.. esp.. pp. 89-95.

York:

Devotional and 1 York: L:rC)SSlroai(J•

The Torah as She Is Read

49

the Wellhausian claim that c",,~n C''' was instituted in the sinfulness of the What constitutes the extensions Exod.

the organs of the iml1lainnents re:pailred. The other

Moshe

Beth MEkFa 89-90

and Methoo in Bibllical Crilkicism God created the various

and humans must those by or them be tantamount to to oneself divine powers. To the categ()riE'S within their the way God created them, is a sort of imitatio The in Torah's of the taboo on result from hvl'\n£llO: was first by Bekhor the tw€~lftb-centurv French The reason Israel should not mate ;)1J~Nl~;;;) Wt2ether is that "you would have act of mallang VOllfseU like a 1184 What would happen veg;etal!>le'l Deut. 1 turruShles creaition is God's prelrog.ative, "",ot.",...I"\'''.'''<> To violate those

in

cate~gol[1es

verb may eat that do not to one of three classes. The langwl2e in an

lana-jtntl:er:s, the airmappc)sUely for which is 1"'>.. "'....,,..., cannot l:ln!lllvC!lC! of He is the same

It the Lord your have divided divide between the pure animal and

from the Vl;i\)'Vll;il). So tainted one,

will tainted

The Torah as She Is Read

The

V"VI.UV~ (IItJtus~~d

and disloer:sed empuce; and their laws are worked. The it may remember old concerns. But the form in which it was addressed the situation of the exilic the one that first made it Torah e.g.~ Ezra Nehemiah 8, The the Torah is not in itself new~ as the comment by a Jewish The Torah is eternal; it refers to all times and to It existed afterwards took on the stories about before the world~ and Isaac. and Jacob events in time. While the Torah took on the stories of their lives. The same sbould Torah is so called because it teaches or the

The Torah remains a sacred book because it can be read the of current concerns. But it to the Exile in form and function it reSl00nlded to the of 587. The Torah as she is read critical eyes~ can mean on different levels SlBlul1:anc~usly Chiem,ob),l,

tr'~'JI "'MQ "'D:)

Book of the of Paulist p. 249. For a see Michael Fishbane, ''The Sacred

Cbapter Three Theory and Argument in Biblical Criticism "It is the

vie'Wn(,int

that creates the

de saUSSUl'e.

oiecl1pener, and read additional su~:ges;te
11. .

1

rerll1m:and de

.,allSS1UC,

:5echehaye with A.

Course in General LlnRut,sncs. trans. W. Baskin A Treasure

Jerusalem's Walls

(Jelrus~llern:

29~31.

" Jerusalem Post

18, 1986.

54

and Me~tnCK1 in nUUlC;aI CnUc:ism

now finds his judl.gel:nellt clear from this account of VO,..A4fti'", oec:O<1mjt science and others have scientific or of the Ol>~;er~iatllon:s. and not PV,p1''',""Ao,v

CODISIOler a

the Third Mile

York: St.. Martin's Press,

Barbour, Barbour for ev alual~ing C0J11pelLing two issues deserve in Biblical cril;icil~m. claim that u,n',,,,,,,.u, and beliefs. even at the stage of concise discussion on pp. 94-98. Rawidowicz. "On. .. Pr(.~celedtl'1RS

Jewish Research 26

the American /iClaae:my

and rgumelflt in Bit_Uc:a! Criticism

55

J.iv~:ll"Vl"n~

I suppose, will agree that the acrostic was a convention of Isnlellile verse. That with which I concur, rests upon a number of that can be but cannot be proved in the or deduced from unassumed To one the fust only after one already has a of what an acrostic is. We of the acrostic with the pattern that we find in the BU-Uc:al match our text. But in order to find the pattern one must first some for OetlOulg the of verse and text One must decide that the letter every line or every other not to a random but to a In the case of alplla~~t. Without what an acrost!LC one could not discover the in the and without the Hebrew one could not have found acrostic in the text The two identifications are twin a construct. To claim that the acrostic was a convention verse demands that we make additional that the ancient bard lOte:m
from the Period of the Tel Aviv 4 of Balaam Found at

rL~J"Uii1I..,... ... 1I

Method in Bibllical Criticism assumptilons or alpltlabet and that the H,ebl'ew verse. On structure

UU\dV....

and vlvJ(,lv,\). My intention is not to cast doubt on the acrostics in the It is rather to avow that whenever we or any other kind of observations on the or on any other texts. we no but to use the with which we are to and that which we We frod parallelism. meter. even in Biblical verse we have a forms are. The or develol[)S m:etnlOOs for .11""... hl"...... .,..

E. J. Brill. Biblical Haven: Ma,gol\et, "The Structure of Isaiah ,IPrl1ltAIA"" World \ _........J. . .

pp.

p.

1

"tGreetlbeI'g, Ezekiel ]·20, p. 21.

and Argument in Bibllical Cril:icism

57

stimuli. 1S "It is

exact science deductions from fOUlodaitioniS. ConSJlder this deSC:ripition nf r'hVl~lr.~ by Albert Hinstein: constitutes a

which is in a state of distillation UU\IUKil,. but which can I.&U'''Ufl,U

nhuC!tf'C! in 1918: "The elelmelrltaJ':y laws from which the cosmos can emPh4lSis;J."19 root laws lies in the

Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a Slnll>llitle,d and of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute cosmos of his for the world of and thus to overcome

What has been ack:no'wledSl(~ and nurnalllltlC~S""~ Biblical ;)a.UUIC;). 2nd ed.

(brUlH~w(»od

Mntnr,f'vrlp

0.

""a,

o.u,.....

Cliffs, NJ:

Maintenance

too, has contended that

to Pure first

58

and Method in Biblical Criticism

The best known instance of appilYUlg source in and the lJOCUlnelrltaJry Tsevat "fust prillcip,les.

HYJ)()thC~SlS

somehow TJenilpiJrlCClIl. actual hlstonc:al c()mpOSllt.ton observer of concrete TJev'ide:nC4eTJ and are ancient Near Eastern texts.

theIOn(~S

c()nC1emmg

assumes that d()(:ulJlents to earlier documents are related thrl:>u~:h His for relations in Cornell Universitv Culler, Structuralist Poetics and Fiske Sh'we(ler. MeCall1eO,r)' in Social Science. Biblical Structuralism (Miss,()ula/F·bi].ad~~lplhia: Arthur Gibson, tlll-liclat

pp. Biblical Criticism cf. Adele Berlin, sne:l11131C1: Almond Part One. Michael too, of ancient scribal of whether indicators" of Int'l:'rnrpl,I11u>n in Ancient Israel Such says Fishbane reilltiv'eiv Oh1P~t1VA identificlltiOtn of the scribal comments Involved. his own, or someone Fishban.e seems to overlook that it is exe·gesls that certain words or in are taken to be "formulaic indIcator:!;" of "scribal comments. There is even "TAIAtliVAllv olhlAit'!tnrA eXE~gelsis. I'\.UUUI.lKU Fishbane himself may more Saflguine ~A~IU"'U. scribal annotations than about his determination of determination are of his own into details here, I find some of his identifications of eXI)l1cauc:ms more than some of his identifications of "fOfmlJlai,cally il1ldicatec:!" ones. Babel York: Oxford p. 137.

and Arll~umenlin Biblical Criticism

59

written texts reflect different versions of the text at disimis;ses this that he distrusts the of He may be correct. but we can never know that because peJ:10JrJlUlDc:es. until have gone unrecorded. may not make a virtue out and bar unattested and unattestable material from hyttOtIllese:s. In more extreme Van Seters all versions" of a text from a hYl)OlllleSls c1onc:er.nmig 1,.1"""1"1<1&\11;, because no one has direct access to the be in oc

The belief in a hard core of historical facts existitlg indep€~ndlenlJly of the of the h,dn...'!lft but one which it is very hard to eradlc,ate.

o]lliec:::tiv'elv

of a theoretical model behind the hlst,on~ln has been cle'verltv ililuslrate,d schools of modem J:SUnlClal hJtstonOJ~alPhy su~~ge:su,re manner, that scholaJrs of the Israelite tribal union according ......" ••"'M was by waves ev€mtlJallly formed a union states, and so have W. F. ""'&.J&&~;U", and others conceived of the formation of ancient Israel. uemumv COllfe4:1er.aUcm of a number of autonomous local states - a model that has been trallSl8ited by A. Alt and M. Noth to the of Israel. the academic the emergence of Israel turned more and more into a discussion of COInDl~tirl2 Rendtorff it this way: ..... "'lUUc.U.

Each of the models is based on particlliar preSUtlpOI~iti,)ns which often in the discussion than reconstruction itself. seem more

Re~creiatirlg

Israelite Pre-Monarchic

60

and Method in Bibllical Cnl:1Clsm since involve me1lhociollogilcal, historical. and m.e,ologIcal ql1lestioI1S of priltlcl)Jle. all at the same

It would therefore seem useful in academic dislCOlllfSe theoretical stances to aclmo!wII~Il~e us to examine the arg:umentatlc)n out the aXil[)m41UC v. ...... .... an array of unt)r01~ed

rli"""rn""nt

refers to to be neutral and un1Jlrejlldic:ed. have we all

amuoJ~ollS 0lPIX>sition of initial in the area textual OOS:lU{)fi that reg:arcls textual emendation with has text is a datum and the em1endied. nvt)()Ulesls. u40 In fact the restructured text is

KeIldtclrft, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Pl1tIlalciellPhl,a: Fortress

22.

Gre:enl,erf,ll'S Ezekiel J·20 in J BL lOS in an different dlSC;:US5ilon of the issue,

"GI'eerlbeJ~Jt 010er~ltes

I:l~ ~ m~'Tr -

rrr;1ft3t):;,e mMO"U n:;)~ ""W!""lI!\,-y" - The Limitations on Fixed pmtlCll,le5'J,

in Biblical here p. 198.

A Note on

and

Ar~:um,ent in

Biblical Criticism

61

bytK>Ulebcai. The of the received text, based on whatever is also though. One cannot know that the text is more onJunlll.l, or "better" in any other way. Gordis the of the text his title: "Traumatic in BittUCllll as a body in need of medical repair be a last resort if the body could be mended by less "trCJlumlaUlC" means. But if a scholar that a text is (Us:melmDerei(J, surgery can bind into an whole. It is the assum:ptic)n or of as it is of the to whether one should work with the corpus as it or to rebuild the corpus

a Ket.urnimg to the the Penitateucb and data. As I see models of pro;;eat1fe8 of analvsis

DocurnelltaJ-:v HYf)lt>tb,esi:s. he was correct The

assertions of the more than with constant repetition thtrllO.J1lg of scholars and

His remarks have reen 1"e.C,entJlv

by Kenatoru:: Henoch 6 (.,'OI!1W4'}sll,on

and Its p.. 2.

pp. 1·

and Other

62

and Method in Biblical Criticism The ooc:umlen.t.ary hypiotbesis and every scholar who wanted establishment Old Testament had to to be submit to to demonstrate that he was able to handle the established u."'............

What in the number of workers in the field become COI1Vl1nce~ it as an axiom and from shared the Doc:;ulllenl;ary HY1;:JotitteSllS

u46

known the tetr'agram:malton, enc:,uJ;!;n Hebrew from its ...... n',.... Because out Lite t1 .....

-R.endltorlJ, ''The Future of Pentateuchal Criticism:'

The Structure The Pentateuch. p. S. cit.

p.22.

and

and

Ar~~ument in

63

Biblical Criticism

While many scholars are aware that we have COrl1llc:;tllllJ! Torah's among us, us, in our mec)nes, act on that awareness. In order to iUustrate my and argum1enUltloln, between differences in belief or model and differences in I shall draw on my of twelve reviews - many of them 1S'll"fTf",,, - of Van Seters' book, in and in 1915. Van Seters the Graf~Wellhasuen as it was Noth. to that theory, as in 49 the written sources J and E a that was either oral or J and E were redacted a F. on hand, the lead of his anltlclpalted by such nineteenth scholars as H. it will be to Van an alternative to the mO<1I11etnesls. Few of Van Seters' reviewers considered this. schc:>larly

cc)nSC~nSlIS

on the

had been

oJ_'V"''''. Winnett and Van Seters felt that source

to and the E source is difficult to document in the so~alled "doublets," that are told or more. Winnett and reciogruze:a that the of a common source J and a remlctoifS were only by hypothceSlS of sources, J and A fifth, and so as I know unstated reason the alternate is that Winnett and Van Seters a for eXIHaining the Torah's It is true that new theories are often advanced in response to a old would not solve a najl:g1l1lg pr(ml(~m. It is also true, new have freau<~ntJlV introduced when most scholars were content with the old N. Freedman, "Documents,"

et at •• ,,:u..... ........ A,bmg(JC)fl ,.)VFrederic:k V. W',nftAtt

the Bible. ed. G. A,

Inlll'rnr,p:tllu"(' UictLI'>ntllrv

HU1:tru;:k

roun(Ja,UOJ1IS." J BL 84

pp. 1-

T. 85 l}OI:::wrlenl:ary J1YlpotJl1:eS1S

in

' r__... I.."

..

Ke-examil1Ling the FioundatioIlLs." pp. selenJIJle Revolutions, One could go even are new theories when old ones can handle theories are often maintained after have been

and Method in Biblical CnllClsm need not emerge over the rubbl.e of a shattered older is to commit what called known better than older need a new New theories will define new issues and may restructure the current lii ..·..·""......"'t evidence as I mfC:>MlS nlhWl'f'V~:ltir,n too, new new evidel11Ce_ Van work IDt€~rests assulmotions and meUlOdS a diUerelnt CClnC.luSlon, hOVl/eVf.~r. of the oab~iarc;hal narrative~ on his how the perltateuC:h was COrnoc)sel(J. cornoc)sition not as a redaction cornoc>sll1lg new malteri:al is Put ,:)c\;Ulllll. he it should or
Kenneth J. ......"'j.,,,"'... Unlderlstarldi111g Human esp. 136~37.

r\.!.L'CIUIJL

and

to Date the Patriarchal Na:rral:ive:s. Haven: Yale

and Tradition, JSS 22 in and "Abraham in the Patriarchal Stories," BARel! 4/4 Mchvlrmue. Review of Abraham in E. W. Nicholson, Review of

HEJ,r-un.urn

and

Ar~:um,ent in

6S

Biblicalt:ntlcilsm

leg;llunalte - one may demur. But it is no criticism. The peJtec:tly well with Van Seters' in Thompson. in what is nthl'lrtlL7iCl'I'l faults him for his "mc~tn(XlOlogICal in a sense. tenaerltl01us. "lV'Ujii;,Jllo toward a The type of arR:um:em one uses in the service of a theory. as well as the would never have been exercised had not sustained That is why, as says. work and the And that is what 11 A comfortable if it is made so."67 Stein Some attacked Van Seters' different methods to texts and by that the different methods results in line with an alternate as it must be. One cannot prove by one. as I have Van for

per'formed variant

n. 51 above); Sarna, AhJrnhnm

in

and

Creative Arts.

in

and Tradition. VT 28 Review.

''The Elohist at

ZAW 96

pp.

66

and Method in Biblical Criticism

redlact,ion as an criticizing a

231. ,""AL..IVU""'i>.

h!,~VI'po,w'

Dennis Pardee. Review of Abraham in J. J. M. Roberts. Review of

in

pp. 109-13. ab~!rU.'!tel·un,eSResc'UChtll:Che Problem der Pentateuch

of Pentateuchal Criticism."

and Argument in Bit.Uc:a.I C:riticislrn

67

named Astruc used ......... alone as a for utAnhf".,u'," sources in the Pentateuch. The uocurnelltaly HvtX)tbt~is also started small. We can further aDl>rClcialte the role that our Dre:sulPJ)()Sll,lOrIS argum,entau(Jln and rhetoric or decons,tru'~tinjg, the JanJ~uaJ~e in our criticism. To take one exa,mDle four reviewers contended with .._A'......'..... in a dUlel1ent dm~ctlon. to critjicisln. '11.....,;)1.,;)

Acc:ordltnj;t to all v ..""• ...." in Num. it as follows: ,,, toward you, and may he you peace. (tnltenllloflalJ confIation of the latter two in seems to so, as he compares the benediction in Ps. of the first two in Numbers It is also DOs:sible the of to the as the first half of each ends with the same '''2), face toward you. It would then be a case of one of the commonest errors. Which is more I.

' U . " " T - ,,"-'U.

,"'R

tI

p. .. pp. 6-7.

68

and Method in Biblical Criticism

whole text or a defective one involves a range of or beliefs. To engage in means we must our beliefs. to a Does this mean that we cannot to a or any other - we share common Within the academic assum:ptilons with that enable us to COlJ[)ml~ni(~ate each When the one of the COnrlmtlnltles) V\ofI.VUjl:o. or choose to a set of assumptic:>ns take them for and build our upon nmethods" in which Biblicists are from cornV~ltative to to sequence Bit)lic;al "1,UUll"'''. we have the old have been challellgel:l. objectitlcati()n of earlier hyt)()tl1lese:s. un
and

(Batltil1r10re: Johns p. cf. LJ.,,-~vv. In other words, in Cain's mind, does not confront of conflict between communities. But this the fact of communities, stnttej;l;ies for different of whatever sort. to realize that he is how he thinks than how we to do so. In this sense. as Cain says, and restrained." he means that the reader when Fish asserts that we write what we must take full for one's which are not the un.mediated of what the text of what one of the text. synilpa.thy with Fish's views I do not indicate here the more oo:sition. I confme to the themes of the prE~eiaes nhl~p"""lIt1inn and that so much controversy in Biblical boils down to differences over theories or fundamental beliefs. It is worth that I would formulate much of my own on Bible to start over to current I more than of what Ne'vertheles:s, there is no harm and of ObliOCt.ltvlnS! as one is aware and makes what one World flYl)Ollllese's.

Chapter Four How Theory Matters: Four Reviews We aU work within theoretical frameworks. In the I to demonstrate that theories and govern the adclption and of we use. Awareness of our Ulec>retlcal assumpticJns can ways. The balance of in a area HlttUC,EU m,UUilvi). Each review deals with some in which matters in our work. Part treats the issue of how a scholar's to a theoretical for an argumlent. Part Two shows how it is to become conscious of all Ina:lcatlng that even a critic who is attuned to matters nsu:PPlres~;n some of one's own Part Three illustrates the point precoo.mg l'h~lntel1" that one's nhi.p'l'huelC! bYJtotfle~~s in turn affect one's bigbli~:bts a that is to some and Two as well: that different the nl.sltonca~'COlmpjlfatlve and the in nroi(Jm;e different kinds of How we work what atk~mlJlted

n!:l..tiI"I11!:l1"

Int(~mretaljon

of Biblical Narrative 1"ell~~nt'Tei

Berlin belatedness of

The delineates a treatment seem

"te:trnhprCJ'C!

our reaOUllj:t

Biblical Narrative (:sn·eltliela: Almond

70

and Method in Biblical Clil:icism

keener awareness of theoretical assumptic)ns and the manner in which she atte:mots to t"'t'11tlnIIP t"'t"\nh'!:lt"U pO~;itic)ns typical of academic at least in the Dr(lICe€~lIl2 to matters that in..~re:st SUlIlmanze the program book. endeavors ro within the assorted COllVentu:>ns western stf11ctllfallisnl,

Ruth is meant to it more introduces tI

How Theory Matters as

uses

71

names and epithets and the anallvs,is of

but a critics of the the argl11mcmts example, Berlin, at end of on observes that many to a close with a "takes the out of the time frame of the and them back to real time" she only adduces two as eVIC1el1lce. she concludes that "we are here with a universal pdlrlcjJ~le." Because the at the end of Ruth the IOrlef,tOtlDf,t story in the sequence from makes the hUlrnr,rnl contention that the to the

were all she ClaJimeCl, She contends that the narrative must take ore:ce
72

and Method in Biblical Criticism It has been noticed with traditional source criticism is it with the ass1umlpticm that the text is COl1rlPOsed of a number of sources, and then to find them. MetJtodol,ogi.cally Sl:>eaJltinJIt. it is more correct to sources if a so indicates

SYfllchl'onllc and diachronic mc:tnCl(1010g;les prelsul;>pctsitions, Berlin here axlomlaUlcally SYfllchJronllC Vllev.momt. which the unified text as a dia<;hrctnic one. She further states: eXJ)lailned a we can then use the same of evidence for a c:lIa,cw'onJlc ......J'-"""'.,. AJtnlOUg;h Berlin is to mailntain tlleoJretical metno,ClOJiogllcal qu~~sUlon" as were a nniver~lliv ac;celotel:l. "()hif~tive" meILh0410Ic)gy she is the case in SYl1lchlrODlC pJ,O~~nsltY A historical critic might well reverse statement by one could consider a SYt1lchlrOnllC ex]pJaJrlatJion once one had in hand a diachronic one. canrlouUaj[e her But reacllng of the ingem,ility as well as the that the text has an

repeat(~ly

Clenlon:strateCl, aU asslJmJ)tiolrlS and

melt1l()(lS are our prelmiSles we cannot criticize and rec:on:SICller upon pre;sul)J)OisUi«)ns In J:JllPIlClClI :::i~~manllc

a of the P. T. umleftakeln to expose some of the he avers, Biblical

...., ...',1i:1V'I.,

York: St.

How

Matters

philology to an Before we may advance senlanltics and conceptual analvsis" area melt1lOC:lOlclglcal errors by an array of Bitlllicists, and R. Bultmann. He has chosen to the way taken than by the direction we should

desc~riptive

Spe(~ltlC

UlI:llSOOt'S book are well worth that one nOll·elnpilricu plrenlis(~ that color onets observations and by

is not a very COrlgeliual _ ......""'•. his involve important such as name (pp. the limitations of form criticism cases are minor and some errors he uncovers are, too. is CWllI'ac:teristilcallly rli'.-.-',"nl. and One learn lessons more syollpStthe,tiC!llly from such works as Stephf~n A R. L1nr_1"~ VllJiecttl~e J{no·Wl~'a{Jle. ~ll:anlev Fish's Is

For a work devoted to Gibson's book rliQll'\hnJ'Q errors, both in evidence and For A. '-Jv.... w..'.... few Semitists the D-stem as primarily an intensive Hebrew does not have a tense," nor do verbs in . . " ,................., re(.)lresent a tense the form of the Hebrew verb is not a p. Sm is as sm no than Qumran Damascus Document is not Num. as it 11'0;) in Ps. means 'throne" per:sonal name means

COlllplete Ollollc:>grlflphlC citations and other refe'ren,ces, see

5 and 22.

Dn.

74

and Method in BittUClal Criticism Exodus that antedate the Common

much less the l'fO[}-iJ...SS'VTum

scholars such as W. F. /u(J,ngluL SUl1lll8Jntues between the Bible and other differelrlt as:SUI111ptions from James may the conilparaUvlst may no more than demur from the

,"U.",I\.IU"

who are Near Eastern Gibson and in

cornp~U'aljvisrs

Part Three: in Biblical Hebrew Does the Hebrew Bible have more than share of signif:LcalrlCe does the amount of Que~SUI::>ns that this revised 1977 als;seritatlon~

COI1>U:SJ and seem unrelated to nt}'G01"l11ic~GO Frederick Grc~ens:patln examines 289 verbs meet toll.owinl! conclusions: the Hebrew Bible is unc~x1JleCl:ed]ly c0I111pariscln with other litelratures; concentrated in than in prose; and rare diction serve as a styllstLC device in the Bible. Uneensmlhn wants to offset what he asserts is the modem notion that leRjOmena are to He does not document this modem attitude very article from 1930 as evidence n. feature of this is that le~tOn1ellta are not as a class of words from a phlloll()jtlcal stan01DOln1. The ways that scholars from ancient to modem times have these words are the same as the ways have tackled other words. Urleensp2lhn makes the that modem have not any new methods for He underscores of modern ",\.IIlY'-iU

an LeJt.~omena

in the

How

Matters

75

and eXl111aU1S

In

the diS2lppc)intJ:nen,ts conclusion on the me~amrlg tak.es no stand. His aeC:ISIC)OS, follow conservative pnJ1CJlueS and He eschews unless there is ancient manuscril)t or a root does not conform to the phCJnc)lOJ~lc.al par'ametelrs of He assumes the of the Pentateuch as a of sorts, argues Aramaic in aU cases. These On the one hand he will claim stands often lead Hebrew texts 104), while on the that there are other he will was written before Aramaic could have with pure in 31:47 I influenced Hebrew What he don't know. Rather than allow an Aramaism in Exod. would con:tencl1, on the basis of ad hoc that mn is a means lt

1

After on the basis of these prillcil1~Jes, that Urceen:sp,lIln concludes that are fino more than "vv"",.... are very few of textual COITU1>tiC)O 'VQU

now Cohen's review of book in JBL 105 102-4. I contend in Three, is the nature of aU scje:nUfjc inives:tlg~lt10Jn: does not so as look for. the discussion of diverse to textual criticism and their ""'v.....'""..",. pre:SUllpOSltlons above in

76

and Method in BibJlical Critlicism

181). His ""••..,"".,,"

in order to lend his at1e:mpts to argue in a pseudoeXflml)le, he sets forth the of statlSUcalJly hapax over leRiomena cornprlse less UrleefllSP~lhn

third the number of Biblical are problem by beg;inning and conunllUt his COJ1lClu,siOlrlS au<1lenc:e. It should artic~ulate resloo[lld to the its readers and rea<1er's' lives. It should lead sigJlitl(~an(~e it to hear a message it not nthpnJ.l1QP grasp, and to con:trOlrlt to avert or suppress. It takes a measure cornmentary To write a of

cir(~ularity in any for one's conclusions first as wen as certain rules of argumentati()D however. one's conclusions themselves amount to prlJlci]:)les of one can avert such obvious circ~ularity priJilcil)les at the outset and then them. What results is rather than an restatement of one's initial priJlciJl~les. example, in Part One of this that Berlin concludes of Ruth is to the work after is a unit. Gunther York: Union of American Hebrew COJlgrc~galLion,s,

nec:essary

'POstul~Lted

II

How

Matters

77

as its translation. a which is but reads so in a contemporary idiom that one may not detect the faint cries of the Hebrew that behind it By contrast. the German rendition of Martin Buber and Franz in a German bears the earmarks of the on:glnat COlllstalfltly reminds us that the is through an inte~rplrete:r. The reproduction of verbal and other tea!tUR~s Hebrew also facilitates our of and rabbmlC mil
Jewish Publication

Because it assumes Hebrew commentary takes note pec:uli.arities. ambiguitJies. and other that abound in and the conlme~ntaJry conltrtbllite cllUci:ally to the ncllJness the Torah. cannot put QU(~Stll()nS to the text and search it for as traclltiCtnal exe:gesls has done. unfortunate because process as {po Yet a model by producing a commentary that asks Dr(]lbil1Ul QU€~stll()nS for to the more DrOVlac~S answers. and The cOlnmenlary for encounters and limited brushes with the text. such as one of the Torah in the synagogue. It may during an purpose very well. but it does not lend itself to more intensive fill a basic need in modem Jewish and responses. In Torah revealed? tfThe Torah is a book about humanity's un(ler~.taI1ldil1lg of an ext>en,enc:e with God tf "How can events be understood as (pp. Modem tend to historical catasuoplle to human but natural are not divine acts. tfDid God in fact to Abraham and make the in t"h'!1lntAl'''''''' "Abraham acted on his of the Divine..." (p. In cOlnmentary th~()JOj~Y l[.COlrnorate~s the fruits of h. ",'tn""It"a I cri1:1cll;m. understands the Bible as IOrlrnuJ,au()n of its of God. The is not org;amzea like the pluralistic Rabbinic in which text is by a number of dif'ferent with its own and voice. It a Gerso·mr\hn'v commentary. which had three and paraphrastic of the lessons to be learned from the passage. of tenns and a running

"""2

-

inte:rprc~tatjions

Five. exc:eplJOn may be for exa:mpl,e. on p. 39b. where various Garden story are discussed.

and Method in Hlt.UC:a! Criticism and more extensive COrOOC)Delnt as well: anCIent to COllltelTlDOlrary are not atllentions. There may be ways to same of sig:nililcarlce. r"rIL70'n L'on:lm~~ntl'1rV is that it seeks to cornO~lfatlve method. This aOl)rOl~ch ",,,,,,,tin",,, and reached SODlettlllDg cornmentary on . . . "':u"'..,&.., rests assum'pt1c)n holdmjl; that I can know x best by ShfllWlIll:! that bear an aODlarelot r€~selnbJanc;e endeavors to delineate x's most distiDicti"e epiton'liz(~d in the the cOllnmcmtary lin

While there is a Sumerian of the of no account has so far been in Near Eastern records would us the kind of cornparis(m and contrast which the Biblical purpose of the Flood tale seen in relief

MClfOOlver in with this each book of the Torah is introduced with an essay by a historian of the ancient Near W. whose observations on the transmission and standardization of ancient literature are oartic\llarlv valuable. The adduces from M.e;SO[)OUlmla. There are a number of at which extra-Biblical Canaanite V1'.,wu.•", li'tenltu."ecould have been considered. To one in the notes the whole mountain 'the

the

bejl:lnIllmg

of

Two.

How

Matters

implicit in the an assum1pticm or the Biblical text so as its COlnD4JDe:nts The will find acc~eotanc:e if it is not oorcel'vea corntort the audience by the been more in IO\!v'e1'1lDQ' become more arollSelCi. U.tnl~~CI, The flOeneral IntJroouctlon the oerspectl're

cOl1nparatitve, historical one. A svnlchr()nic metnoa which numerous cOlnpcJne~nts intl~ralct concerns of the at the The

in

and con~nt in the Torah. A on the of the Freudian anallv~l~ dreams. Just as dreams are an in~mal of the pat~nls and recurrent motifs of an individual's so is the ~xt inf/"rnlr"l"fll,tt fea:tur(~s and structures and not by an one. Af~r the your dreams can colnp,U'il1lg them ro even if we are both on sYl1lcbJronic method, criticism and structural the Biblical narrative as myth - that of how it the "HH'""..",.,n" Modern outdated ael:1DIUO]J, of as "Toward an Unc:1erlstarloulg Detinit:ion," The Melton 13

The Great Code: The Bible and Literature For fine

of the structural see studies discussed above in

80

and Method in Biblical Criticism

hm1/c\rcr. characterizes myth as "a powers, a tale which was meant and understood as happened and eXl~ttenc:;e eJ{prt~sed, eJ{pUllineO, or validated important about people. embedded in the )jU)llCaI Myths can be the many that exercised the of the over ccllltUl'1leS, and the were conserved and as were because mediated those concerns. are at least two reasons why the Modern Commentary eschew the method. For one such demands intensive textual and many passages at once. It is not to """,alttl1'''' in the synagogue. the invests heavily in the the events in the the election of Abraham, the bXC)(JUS, and the revelation at Sinai e.g., p. of the Bible as of the Torah as myth detracts from the of the truth The insists that the SOlloeniOW oet~en(lS upon the that the Hebrews as a community a at Sinai 5 pn(~nomenoliogicalJly. htlWp.:Vp.r this is only to say that the Sinai was group came away individual members of the K..a1l>ballst Isaac souls assumes that of the Torah to be left to the the Exodus. But is the uncertainties of historical reconstruction? Doesntt the truth of the Torah """"I"''''''''" upon the convictions of each person who will it a and engage in its Can one not embrace the Torah's concerns without acC:OWtltil1l~ the as historical fact? and one could entertain its ideas and But let me my remarks to unfbrtlllDate notions that the conlme~ntaJry DC~I1X~tualtes. in both

rcnJ-cseJnt a "plural to

retce,rre~o

as

" not

may recall the observation in One that frustration in recons~tructiIlg of ancient Israel seems to be one factor behind the attraction of many 61t)llClsts to synchrcmic perspe:cti,,,es. On the Kabbalah and Its pp. 64-65.

How

Matters

81

11"M n»~ in

18:10 means next" as Gen. and a idiom in Akkadian - ana In Gen. 12:10, Nahmanides says that Abraham Dnllgulg his wife into a not, as the cornmentary imlpli€~s to save himself at her expense - which the Zvi HoJtlmanlll). It is about to to rest E. A. "wifestatus in Nuzi and in and on very textual coranel;;tictns. but hardly I do not see why the must COlllSlsltently refer to the human as " even Bible gellenuly ..,~,.~ 1, male and are created and share the name C"'Il\ which must mean here I'human" or, as the itself proposes, ".Q1rthl1nrr tt The sexist of the should be mitigated to a by the remarks of Phyllis in the on p. not attention to the coeval of man and woman in 1, the cornmentary fails to prepare the reader for the on p. that wasfust seni1antic~illy

P..i111iVJ:I]PJilt

......"l•

Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and wyscnogI"OQ, eds.,

Part Two AND METHOD IN BmLE TRANSLAnON

Chapter Five Theories of Modern Bible Translation Sume:riaJls saw it as a r"',.,"''''......'... defense the been some as a barrier to human felJlo\\rshiln an instrument for our pel·ce):>ticms. universalitv of the human must learn that one's Those who want to know what the other person is lantgu:age or a translation. The vast of those who want to hear what the Biblical God is take the latter alternative. The Hebrew or been rendered into two and in Bible To some this trend may with a to learn a langU~lge, eSDecilallv a classical one. But more seems the to measure of truth. Different translations various funds of vn(\'[111pncrp and to bear on of the may a different slice of the truth. As everyone translation means Not different uncler:Stallc111rlgs methods the rex 4 but In the 19608 the Jewish Publication new the or NJV), wrote of to translare to retranslare - the Bible. As it in when a surge in (the classics was COflsidlera,ble attention to the art and nature of translation as an the recent wave of has been by its proper n.H:UU~;••

"The 'Babel of

·.·A'..."'.......·•

A Sumerian

.,ro""..""

lAOS 88

86

and Method in Bible Translation

cornplimictn and critic: the of the of Bible translation. The subtitle of OrlinsJ,y's essay t "Toward a New PllllOSl()pl1ty of Bible II is only one indi,catofrs of the that Bible tnu1lslallOrs task. The merit of any rests not only on the skill of the translator but even more upon the that it. of theories Different It is customlary t

87

Modem art is

an of as sculpture matter and spare. If one if one loses the loses the the art, just as one 1 But a devotion to there are tones or the two other more literal translation. The one is stYJlIStlC. The passage may hinge on repetition a word or an allusion. For in 2 7 the word n':l " intc~f\1I;'ea'ves themes: King David had and was dw'elliin2 . the his God, was then dwelling in a not in a win the Lord a and the Lord will assure rJV"/'lt"iN which is in Hebrew by rr:a, rendering of the King James (or AUltl101ized) V,~U',n cOl1isisl:ently as "house" so that the literary The more idiomatic rendering as "bouse" when it "f'ftl"nlh." when it refers to litl'l'rQ"V

Slle~ncc,s and as

Investiigal:ion of Rhetorical Universil:v Michael J:'ils.tlbllI1e, texts than verse;

langu~lge can

Artful

be replacEld

of

an Renaissance Translations of the to the Bible fC'alrnnnti""" TEV is discussed Moshe argues that ?1f"lIr ~ must be rendered "sons of Israel" and not "Israelites" in Ezek. 2:3 in order to its correlation with the .. of the Use of the Ancient Versions stubborn 0'3::1, for the Hebrew Text: A from Ezekiel ii I-iii 11," SVT 29 for another p. 131.

and Method in

Translation we pause to note that this of translation nec:essary to state the oh\riou:s~ idi()m~ltic translators and content

In to this ooslture of art as the total assimilation of fonn and sense. This unclers:tanldil1ig cornfclrtably ensconced in Romantic as the IOlllOWlDll by von the ninete,entJh-clentlllry llnJ~Ul:;tlC Ollilos()ollier attests: The work of art is a whole; it particll1ar form. Yet form and idea are so no be art. is what is essential.

a can

attllUd,e•. the voice of a sneakeir. eigllteenth-century French put U.NJ.JJU.F..

The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible H. IL: who contrasts Good ,..""',,, ••"'. '" "content-oriented" translation as the "two ways of "form-oriented" pp. 47-67. and Charles R. Taber. The and Practice 1. Nida's more recent rhetOIllcal features of see now Jan de LalIRu,"Re to Another: Functional /:f,Q,uiv,ale,nce

Hoberman. nrrransl:atirlg the " The Atlantic is that this defmition of imlJOrltanC:ie has been attached to gramn:tatilcal features, so on. von Humboldt. "On the ImllgulatlOn." trans. R. R. Read in German Romantic Criticism. Cf. the remarks of Ernst Behler in the "Foreword" to this book Romantic critics...saw the of a work as an with itself:' 1::r"V'll,...l1rn

89

Theories of Modem Bible Translation "is the man."20 In cOIltelnD(>raJry criticism the to the whole the with Ulelmatic c(>l1eJ·enc:e. FisllbaJle has the motif of soe,alcll'lR motif is in very fIrSt verse:

m~mll1lg

of the vault lelia.

TheTEV How How

motif in

reveala God's what he has

The in~~paJrability of form and content informed above all the translation method of Martin Buber Franz who to the Bible into German in and it accounts in what at blush to many as a word-for-word In their essays on and the false division between content and That aODtarent than in reoetit,ive oattenlS repetltJlon, not the selllantic

and th.at to have to un(len~tarldtrlg that in the that we in see

Lecturea in America 67.

York:

L.

pp. 166-

and Method in Bible Translation intc;~rruptctl.

and or ex~nded in the second It is interruption of the position prior to repeatc;~ m:a~l:ml. that creams the example in Ps. KJV render's: more then

SUS~pelBse·-prodIICill!

For 10, thine 0 Lord For 10. thine enemies shall all the workers of

The "1d.llomiaU(:" vc~rslons

NEB and TEV render:

Cfis:sol"e the pattern aitogetlller. A second basis SU{)poruflg is anthropol1ogllcat.

trmlslaltiolB. in addition to the we say it. a li~raI an American novelist renc:lerings of some SCI'ipt ures. rc~nd.erlll!S relfllDl.scelBt of the Buberf*nt'lueo.utrll'Y in tral[lsl~ltic.n Onl!~lnaI'S ullDgtJa~e. "Failure to convey that idi()m~ltic camp would point to its pre~lflinc~nt ancient Near East 1

"""llJiVllf.A.-,

...scholars [who] translate...texts in a more or less 'oriental Biblical in which the idiom does not sound out adds 'color' to the of the text...are

He reasoned further that: us~rchl)lo;litic:al

effects of this pattern in "Two Canaanite and Their esp. pp. "One More

on contrast to the more in James B. ed., Ancient Near Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton "idiomatic" of Michael David ...... VIJj;;.A:U.

H. L. Uinsbelra to tke see the more Ancient Canaan

·I·h,~"""",.....

of Modem Bible Translation

91 his own lan:gua,ges and,

resort:ina to literal tral11Sl11tlCfnS, to accept the existence of a with it, cf the gap between the two civiUzaticl1l1S. i(1i()m~ltlC

tralllsll:ltlCtn can bridge the common ground among literal mode that out the distinctive renlarlc:abJly elJecILJ.ve idiomatic translator, J. B. Phillips, into corlternJX)rw"V hngllsn

This is what the Lord says: Because of after outrage committed Damascus I will not For have battered threshed her with iron-studded i:IIl,",'l~,",~" VUJ,,",".e.v

We wouldn't say it that way but Amos more or t

A more an alien

of the the realia of the

Bible," which tends toward

did.

can

shed on the realia of case, in which even the KJV in Lam. 2:4a:

He hath bent his bow like an he stood with his hand as an adv'ersarv

and J. M. Pcwis The: Short Bible:: An American York: Modern p. 4. For a discussion of the see, e.g., The New method of this 88-101. KllPh~lel. "The J.'rn'nhptlil in Modern Omtinenlfary 67/3

GOI()ds1>e(;~d

contrast the

which alters the

"In

he

92

and Method in Bible Translation on his bow, which "he longbow with one's left hand, SecunCl£t the arrow back in the hnlwC!"rina "PlctulreS;Que," contra UPP6rlheun, If

anthro'pOllogilcal autJtlenticilty bas resurfaced most COClSPI,CU()usJly Dll:UU;:'ll tranSlation. The lmlnment ,n,"" J'~ K~'ll"U'~ SltaDclard v PT~",nn by the National ,""v'uU\."U anllC11pation in its the J:ielOrew rD'M as it is mamtlin(~ to in verses in which example is Ps. 1: 1. The KJV rendered: Y""'1''V\Y''t",rt

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the

The mv cjrc:nmvenlt~

un,rodllv

here by tranislaljng:

are those the advice of evil men...

oci:nciole the

mv opposes "any attc~m]pt

to modernize the "40 but it of the Hebrew Bible nOl1lestJly trarlsmlttte~ it. The corlcellt cOilnoltatJions, may not have been of ancient corlcellt of an lDtc~grai~ "nnjvelr~_" which the mv The once raised a very POI)UI~lC James IIHow far is a trallsl~ltor lUSIUl1e~ in moderniZing an Oriental """"'..IF·'....... male~orienled

xell0ph0l1l'S Anabasis, Book 4, ii == The March Arbor: Ann Arbor p.

II Time, Dec. 8, Council of Churches, Editions of Bible Provoke I "'''nt..''v...... for discussion, cf. N al:lOnal

I }PI'nall,.,,,',,,

'U II

"Plans for a March New York Times, the pp.

lectures on "Male Oriented in Bible Baltimore Sun, Nov. 1977, in Johns 47-48; I heard versions of this lecture at and on occasions. York: Bible

lta,nsla!ltofllS, p. 74.

Theories of Mooem Bible Translation trwlslaltlnJg, then The nature of ..A.·AU".... text and fix its rec:on:stnlCtllng ancient philOlC)gical alDDrIOaC:b understands a int40rlTlatlon. and it seeks to transmit COrlttelTlPOJrary P.l'lllliVAIp.nf in the of the diS4~ourse. or simply exp'oslltory prose, eftltCielDCY an mooe. "Iif'",_ _ ," apttrO~lCb, which views the text as a ......,••vv'., Walter "UrlteqlL1alllea""'''' essay on "The Task of work" does not in essential It it is. In the "lItAro,"""·· to convey the rhetorical features the text and the than it is to convey denoted or ideational Pblllol,oglcal tralilSl~ltiCtn endeavors to pin down m~mirl2 anal'vsis. to proliferalte meanmg. l

evinced in Roland

A New

,uQl ........'..,

York: Hill

Translation with a Phtloli;lgtcja,1 c.;omme,vw"y

Int,,,,rnr,t,fJti'ln

(J:saU:Imc>re: Johns

my review in "Biblical NW7al,olo,gy.

HO]PklllS

pp.201.8.

94

and Method in

Translation

interest. Through minute phlllOlogl,cal makes a noble to recreate, even the Soe:citllC S()Cic)IOJ~CI:l1 circumstances of the to paint in the and the Ruth narTatiive~ lan.gualge. In both may be WOJrklrl2 at cross-purPOses with But in any event the of translation coc.rdinatles with the method Now, although I have appropriated the label "I••".1I'Q"''''' more literal mode of there are others who would argue reverse: the most "literarytt to to metnoa p(oclucle8 the least traI1lslaltion should PITu\lnv a translation that amounts to literatlJfe. or "re:aCtllOn'''J''t its own idiom to an equivalent to what the trallsUlltor oroduc:e. A literal version M..1I.IUlllll. the more yield recent idiomatic Hebrew's "''''11''"'-''''0 are David -who

Oh for your kiss! For love More than For scent and sweet name For this love you.

Take me away to your room. Like a to his rooms We'll there with wine. No love you. of the

of

Translation of the

{~helt1elCl:

Almond Press,

An

Theories of Modem Bible Translation

95

One cannot the of FaIk's verse. In order to actlle'\ire it she was COlnPlene~ to deviate from the Hebrew structure in a nUlnbc~r of ways. She third person to second person she introduced enjamOOl1flelllt; she the noun with the coy pel10Jme~ several The is literattlfe; tral11slalUon should be, too. The traI1lSlator must COl1flpensate the losses in from

Tr811ls1aticln is a CUrmil112 the work into sornetnil1lg charl2e
nmrelizations, even (a Music has been transcribed from a piano score, and versa. We even tolerate of polychromatic in black·oodwhite in a textbook. But in of these the troosfer from one to fact that creates a the is we are made aware of differ~ent work - or a a xerox of the a work from to is (Usgu][sec1, an ImlperSOl1taoon. An idiomatic translation does not switch the of reJ:tre~~enltation. Since most readers of translation are not conversoot. with source Ian;gu8lge, cannot measure gap ood SUflr02illte. This is not so to the other from medium to medium. The difference between a performalflce one full is even to the The distlncllion pai1ntil1tg ood a photograph is evident even to the blind (who can touch alone feel the ditlrer~~noe) In such conversions the bas a continual sense of a troosfer or or realizes that he or she is eXIlerilencin2 a different work of art. But the or a if the trooslation of a poem, text is the say, consists in another poom. In this tenned translation "cannibalism." He explaiolS:

96

Theory and Method in Bible Translation The use of this term emJphasiZles the trace of the and what the and not as an "innocen.t" as a text in which one can still reform the semantic, sYJ1Ltac:tlc,al and gramnlatical structure of the det.arture

aucllellce with a poem that it can

to Cannibalism," Sub·Stance No. Transllltlo:n," trans. A. p. 9; cf. Bulber·Kcu;eJiZv.'elg Translation of the

.. CCAR

II. In the Path of True esp.76. Biblical Translation ' ....u.nuuu. Andr6 1.

U"I.lIb\;U.

p.

Theories

97

adult Jewish edulcatllon, In an extreme DOsltur,e. have reSlooclted. so aucl1el1lCe-onlentc~ The audien(;e-orien.ted, idiomatic concerns.

aucl:iel1lce. to lead them to the Rosenzw1eig would never the "

haDloenc~

to

verSlOltlS '''t: it to IdilJml~t1C translators seek to acl1ne\lre a tla,wle:ss I

rUUJC\,;lb."

p. 21. For a fine recommendation of the authorn.7 or pp.69-70. AmL!rlj~an Translation. cited in Ro1bertso:R, prtnc11pJe of the cited in F. F. York: Oxford Universi1:v /A.''1gu,(l/le to Another. p.

esp. p. 8. Langl'la1!,~e

and Silence

York:

pp.

.......... . ."".... Sltan<:lard Version of the Old Tel;tarnetllt. "Old Testament Translations and p.145. Tra:nslatio.n of the .. esp. p. 83.

98

and Me~m(lO in Bible Translation

audience with in their ""'.,..,........ ,.,.1 sc;,qlJlence. (llIlagme rev'ersin2 the notes of a tnPiJrvilu or the frames of a film.) The and most other recent abandon any adherence to Hebrew word order because in their view an must emnJCllv English

sequence. in

a every The ......""""I..."""J.....

to

traI1lslaltion of the Bible" Herb and

Tnmslatirlg the

.. Conservative Judaism

e.g., Nida and

and

"Different Me;thods, esp. translation of literature prc,auces Contacts and Tr~ms:laUon: Thc30rc3tlcal 30 of translation is a of serves to on that remark. the rust memorandum circulated to the KolbertsOil1, The New Translations. the Preface to Robert G. Bible in to the revised The PrfJrrti,',p

p. 31.

Theories of Modem Bible Translation

99 over Im)re:;SI()O that

"new" method attlempts cOf1npl,etelly new lin~~uis~tlC, hisltorilcal,

in the New York Times. Feb. 1. convinced of this even of the NJV committee likewise hails to translatlll1g; see references in notes 4 and 39. Cf., e.g., the of as no less in an from a recent United Bible Societies pUlculc:atl,on. than Nida: "[The belief that God to Isrillellites VA1'hRlllvl rise to Israel's strong reverence for sacred an atmchment that unJ:ortunliltely later the strict of Jewish sects such as Thus the literal form the into what amounted to an attitude of of the Word was transformed into an of while its melllll1ulg was lost in the Ernst R. Cultural Factor AC;;I~UI"C;;U

B~k

~1~

erdeutlsch111ng der

Die

p. 45. De Waard and has authoritative translation

practi(~e

in Nahum N. Franz His and York: Schocken. 153. ed. Nahum N. Glatzer "..........".... Humani:sm," On pp. 211-16. Cf. also Kot:lert!mn. The New l',t:.rnslaU(,ns.

100

Theory and Method in Bible TmnsJation

After all, Jewish of has slgmtllcaJrlCe not only in the sense of the text but Hebrew even text was could be graslDed only in chunks but was decoded accordling atomt~ea units of sometimes as small as the of a in pre:mlum on the sacred letter of SClipture had the The ancient rabbis an understandable were prCl(Juc~ea antipathy to any sort of Bible translation. But the - and the Greek one the in - endeavored to of the transfer word for for each this resulted from the tralrlSl~ltOI'S' UlrlCe:rullntlc~s parse a difltlC1JU nOl1lcornmitallly render eleimelllt reader to the Mostly, though, took to preserve votc~nUai signit1er in the text, every nota accusativi (I'M partiCle) for because it is all cmcial to the divine revelation. For Hebrew text represcmts a mosaic which must be left unC;nallj1;~tJ, l"'UUI.IAt:l.

170, on Schonfield's "Jewish flavor" in the Christi.an c:.-...ntl",....." I do not mean to that a to literalism was exc::luisivielv Jewish in the ancient world. to classical trend to lC1140m,at1(~auy, or there was another tradition of rendering with sacred see Sebastian AnliqUll:Y," Greek. and 1J'J2~an"ine do I Jewish scholars, e:t.peCliIUlY sense-for-sense translation mode Cf., these remarks of Moses ibn Ezra: "If to Hebrew, take the idea and the and do not word for word, for aU are similar to one another You would do weU to the idea of the source with more apt words than will find in the the translation"; Shirat Yisra'el, trans. from the Ben-Zion 1924), p. 132. For the cf. de and e.g., 3rd ed. n.

'ber setzunRJ~te(~hntk. der dnJ'OD~tDjrlt an

esp. 88.1'theleU1Y

Theories of Modem Bible Translation

101

its Hebrew by Greek ones. n98 Since revealed text encodes meamlngs in the merest characteristic of the Hebrew That such attention to the must find a COlrref~oond]lDg one in the text's is (though not has been by Barr: nThe sort devotion to the of an oriJ~lnjal 12lDgua~~e lllnplioo by it was such that it was not much among Jews."lOO it is doubtfully a that the was the I fust to render the Bible do not mean to that the Bible have not hnJ~l1s,n tran~IJationst notably those influenced John ,t..,QII.lU"""'t not were based I mean ....."'........ in eleOlent of

resurt:ace among Jews in any me,anuilgtllJl lite:raljism has with some anCllent literal ver:~iol1ts. cited in Barr, The antecedents of such a pra!ctice, Se»tullgiJ1.t as

1

Translation: On the Nature of the Aramaic to the Perltat,euch, 3 4149. of Translation exp~laills WOlrO-IOr-'WOJ:O translation as a result of concern to render POSSlbl,e, of course, that factors affected the of of translation. Leilho\1l,it7... Die 11-16. S. Translations of the Bible in fbersetzung~rte(:hnt"

pp.

Barr, The

102

and Method in Bible Translation

as the pages will make Buber and Rosel1lzw'eis:'s were not of the same as their ancient and me(lleval more their methods derived from Ii." . llnJil;ullStlc plltlOSloplllteS that were of a nature from the traclIUlonall.

me~m()Qs

to
may liken the else's message in resc~ml)les the but (lISlceIlU. but the reader who

spe:ak(~r f€~tttng someone

"He who translates a verse Rabbi Judah one is a fatJtricator. And he who adds to it diminishes it.

to its form this this one deforms and

modem Bible two sets are in
406·7.

Theories of Modern Bible Translation

103

the processes of at stake between the two po~utl()ns is the problem in How do I know that what I x and what the other person means x are How do I know the answer to the question HOf2es: "You who read me, are you sure you understand my langu~lge'ir" un~rolsts and Buber and in the pos:sibiilitiles COl1nmiunilcatilon. But led them to antltn€~tlc!al

text to the decoded message into restructure the message in the contrast of

llnl~UlISt1C

ohilosc)ohies, cf.

pp..

Ofoblefn, see Willard V. J. Katz, OOs., The Structure LAJ1.gu,oge fEn21e'woo,d Cliffs: PfeiRtice·H.all. argument. One is that denotiJ12 the same Of(llcec1uf,e. A second is: even as does, how do thOU2flts'! For a mentalist's Hel')re,Sell:tatton \...."......,... D.

4-5, 19-20. 23 and

Taber,

The Translation

104

and Method in Bible TrBtOslaticm

The of upon which the ADS bases itself stretches the from which it derives in critical ways on the it in

Buiber-Rctseflz,\\'eHt relll<1elrlDj~S a self-sufficient Hn~~uis:tict and is Because the basis of multifactoo t would-be critics would have to attack .........'ul!>',.t most discussion of the Buberto l00ff. B Train New York Review t "

Books

2616

and pp. 20-22. above, Nida seems to have become more sensitive to connotative features of in the more recent eX~K)S]ltlOl!'4 de Waard and From One even here it is that is blamed for obstruction in "The loss in translation is to the extent that a is carried form" must make a difference in de and increased attention to form, it is still to the earlier formulation of Nida's because it is that that um:lerJgircis the TEV of discussion both this and in Seven. 5-6. so, for example of Walter "Buber's KelllgllOUS Signifl,caILCe Buber in Paul A. Friedman, eds., The f'luloSODII'lI t

Theories of Mc:xIern Bible Translation

105

This is not hard to understand. Not only does this side appear most DrCtnOUn(:ed and it is the one that most motivated the bet.ter known of the two If one compares the essays in Die Buber on the one hand and on the and then examines the corresOOIldelllce between the two on their collaborative which Everett brOua)lt to one the that was while and that Buber may have that Ro:sen.zweig brougllt to their I do not mean to fault Buber for he RosenizWeig to work with him on account latter's eXllentise DfaCU(:e of translation. It is that in order to aDlJlreciate dUIICUJlt, S(lmc~tll111eS disc~onlcel1:ing mode in Buber and Ro~;em~welg traIlsla'ted, one must also attend to Rosel1izwelg:'s plllilCtSOllhy of languBlge. ,.~ the was of lan~~ua~~e that C1e{~lS:lvellv <"l""",r..

a translator cannot all the I1n~~Ul!~t1C had advised the tra(lucc~r him as most eXJ)re!~hre Ro:senzwelg lonow~~ this program. For was its intention to to corltec~t =SCl1llel(~rm,aClller

TraLnslatlI1lg the Intc~f1)fetiI1lg the

"Franz Km,em~WeH! L:anguage." Judaism 13 "On Jewish '[flll1lS1at1(ms.

.',,#,,··Q.uo: .lilluJ~ne]lme:r,

153·54. 13.

106

and Method in Bible Translation

Spiriltual and spOkelllnes~s,

Buber divided tbe text PUllctlllatlion of discourse Frencb lam~uaJ~e itself

Morals and Ecce Homo. trans. Walter p.295. Hebrew trans. J. Marsh For contributions to Biblical studies. zum Verstehen des alten Testaments (TtiibiJ1lgelrl: 1Jc;},c;r..~.

and Custom in the Old Testament literature is heard. rather than P.vPtrv""hp.'rp. in the Old Testament:' Practice. pp. 28-31. .. Un,......l,....

idem, "The Samson in Die pp. n. 8; see pp. 10-11, for an of the text into langUtllge. Note also ROl;;enzw.~i2. \,IJ"""~Vj'h Beacon Locke to Saussure 288. Cf. Richard exerted over us adJlustE~d to the form in which and teel1nl~S Cf. esp. as the Essential Fact of

Theories

MCKJeJll Bible Translation bard and his cohort - worked the means of not to resuscitate the to translate faltlrtfully

as well as resl~nslbIU~ofthe

But HE hurled a great wind upon the sea. and a stonn was on the sea. so that was on the brink of

to

up.

Now Yona had gone and had gone to

But the more kind of reoeUU()n that Buber and ROl>em~Weu! found in the text was that of words and the we.u·Jj~no!wn ".e:aC11'nO'. by recurrence to underscore a theme or associate disparate verses or In order to convey these DartlclUar Gumm.ere's

f(e~V1Jo'l,Se

"Leitwortstil in der

22 lSuJrnn1ler des

284·99. Cf., e.g., Int,"rn'rpt~.'t"

" Die Bible's "Technical of the esp. pp.

108

and Methoo in

Translation

for the most stem even in contexts

pp. 99*-105*. tecJlmilQue by modem "Old Testament Uul10lme on

Romantic pbilos()pbicaI war cr. also ibid•• idem.

Theories

109

are to the unity that informs the entire text. do not by a author in a Buber im,lgule that the text was voices in the chorus" of sources that stands he detected a a wide edited form the text translation should the network connectors. t1

110

and Method in

prece
autlflenticllty He Denc~trates root level of lanJguages

in Willson. ed.., German Romantic Hebrew

25-26. "'411:11"'J,I,

Kabbalistic influence on the From Locke. to Saussure. pp. 60.

cf. his The Star. the Other, ed. pp. 91-161.

126.

V.

tran.s.

·1·. ." ........,,,...

of Modem Bible Translation

111

The human is the animal (a notion as old as Hesiod with roots in where the human is by the term "the Out of one's of one utters names aJllog€~th(~r QI'hltlrQriilv but not the essence of the emlbodvllnjl universal essences are known llO t

t

...the words hidden under each and every manifest word as secret bases and...rise to the in it. In a certain sense are elemental words which constituted manifest course of l>~N"'Jll••••J,U these inaudible arch~words became WVlYi:I' •••l(;'o,l lan,gua.ge. Those inaudible elemental words, side rel,ilU(llnsllip, were the of the protocosmos,

This ass'umlPucm resolves a para(1C)X

their lSerlJ811run, The p. 13. As

trans. R. Manheim For a brief sketch of HelBJwBur:fs tIlllnk:mg see Anson KablI1lba,ch, If

New German

~,'L"'I
10")ltosenzwei'2. The Star. p.

lan!~Ua!~e

slllbseque:nt to the 1916 HeJBJwrmrfs 'Doctrine of the

and Method in Bible Translation

112

name slgnU:les. tteloe.ggc~r do not become peJ'Ce)lUf)le. NalmnUl dliUe.renltiatc~s that Rosenlzweis; the lesson is more blatantlyl.· uu thelOl()gi(~: thr41ug:1l rc~velati(.n shares with llW1nanlty: which

The word as heard and as is one and the same, The man. but the word of God and are different from the ways man are the same. What man hears in his heart is the very word which comes out of God's

and had been N, Glatzer's The The Humboldlt; cf.

'~ of Modem Bible Translation

113

,L . . . .fV• •

vAU'.tU.t"

or name. For Heide.ggc~r For HerlJalltUn, nanling DrOIJJUCleS knowledge. To langu~lge in order to control tbe eacb of our utterances for a n!ll~tl{'n hlr

Thou in a partlCIUar mec~un,g . ....vIOTV'...nl'!

must translate and I'!vl'~rvt\np. does translate. Whoever his for he expects

is the

From a nellrol,oglic.al stalrldIlOilllt. the equation of and the ability to translate are metaDltlor the makes clear that we to bend our langwlge Tbe funcUc)D

the world stands out bero is and bis

discussions of Ko!;en~r:.we:ig's see, e.g., Nahum N. Hebrew in Particular in KOI;.erur:.we:isz's Phl,losopJlY1,

Y,

Nletzs(~he;

cf.

_. "~""1"''"' and Lomnlen,tar:YIJlLICllenl:Y

Bell1jaJmirl...," New German ....' ....... detlrecaticln of the tendentious use of languslge, converise to New fork Times p. as translated in ....u.n...."" ~ 01 ..<£

"we

p.

Brain: York:

and Method in Bible Translation

114

The Ianf!iuages

oerlceOltion and

gretlttest exoressiveJleSS and knoiwledlle Ianj~uaj~e by mC()f{)OratllUl; teaturles JanJguages will merge the essays on tralrlsl~lUo!n Benjamilrl. and - now - "'""....,.•• u". tra:nSlaU4C)Q. if is meant is The words don't match........... JIUU,UI

Glatzer's "Introduction" to 19-20. 59.

Translation augments and modifies the ..n on. never ceases to be transformed onsunal even as it also modifies the the as well as the contract between and the eXI:IlaiJrls that translation reveals in some that...is of another - what he calls the "hallowed

which insofar as it is to grow. It modifies the This process - is the translation

li;,U"''''

VI"'."'I •••• I I V . . . .

w

~o~

to reconstitute.

but

pp. 123-24: A translation never succeeds in the pure and absolute sense of the term. a translation succeeds in success, in reconciliation....A translation puts us not in the in pre~SeJltlrneIlt of what that fact that there is that there is a of lan,guages which have each other

......£."'...,....

of Modem Bible Translation

out,182 both It but they do not convey that tnl()rmaU()R from the same The terms of one interconnect in a '>1''''"''11,•• and that cannot be found in another One traJlsl~ltes meanlJllgs because each of the more abstract arch-word COVenl1l.2 at least a in Hebrew. The sense of cannot be ~nrlvp.'\I'Pl1 UUII.UU.lUJ in any other of intE~rconne:cti()Ds,and for Ro:senzwc~lg,

Franz Ko:senzweig is more or 45ff. fonnulaticm by de aCknO\lVlel12e that each HTr:ansl,atirtg the " p. "N achwort" to his Yehuda Halevi translation of the Illiad translation.

p. A16.

1

and Method in Bible Translation

Roselllzw'eis; knew they could achieve both Hebraization of and on the at one deft stroke: through a of literal translation. "The demands to be word word. n 191 The literalism would mold the German in and the awkwardness of the result would serious readers to look the What was needed was a that would preserve the Hebrew of of and root the No wonder John UPl'l',",nrHln esteemed literalism and admired Hebrew. In his own BnJgllsln in ways that nouns and verbs from the same root. so does K;o'TV.,n~n raven." and are and his i)UIJ...,"'." qua~;1~t1et~raiIC _",,'LU.CO"".

Hebrew: Medieval: B-R:

r:rf,nrtp'PttrM

un' es trauml traum. traumte eirum traum. dreamed a dream.

Or compare on Gen. 27:34: rm~

Hebrew: Medieval: B-R:

p.url...

un' er schrei gross.... schrie er einen schrei einen i1.b~~rDlrO!t.~en. ...• he cried a great __

The Medieval rendering takes no account UelmaJD; Buber and Ro!;em~weif!

J

,._

.

prC)(1ucmg some sort of sentence in

Franz Ro,sen'ZWI~'R, HeIljaJIllID. 'The Task of version of the 82: ''The interlinear protOt1roe or ideal of all translation. __.. _,; ..•._,.. "Cantatrice. in Theodore ~oJlOhlJ'OI:r. ed., New American Review #3 New American idem, Fate and Other Poems, 1967-1972 York: &. Giroux, 26, 64. For a discussion of artful use of lan,gullLge, E. A. "The Crime': Iconic Grammar," 2/1a U1o.IJfLl.UIUl difference is noted Die U bE!rst2run~rstelr:hn,f", pp. 65-72. The eX2lJ11J:Iles are taken from there, pp. 69-70. ' - ' U U I X. . .

117

aue:stiCl.n of Yiddish influence in on 100*. Roskies. John Milton poem. "Samson Aglcmil>tes:":

German translation. this Hebraic

who hath delivered Samson. and blind into their Them out of thine. who slew'st them many a slain 17VBxllmI.les from the of Genesis 1 in Die J.,AU,UlA>ll Schneider. 1926- ). EXlutll.les from ibid.• on Exodus 19. 17°,EXILmI.les from ibid.• on Genesis 1 and Psalm 29. 177:Ex~Lmt:.les from on Exodus 19.

1

and Melhod in Bible Translation prc,tollDa,ly convinced of the

Im]pm~sltnillty

of

lU1J'ca~~v.

lhe transfer of lhe Bible to to lhe text. traI1lSlaltlon nrOC1uoes language lhat can be read itself. Walter Bel[ljarmn

more in~n,~lSt Imltatu)n of lhe hot sand and roek. of idiom Hell>ralC. For Buber and KO~~eD2~welg was a act. away a of V,,",JUUC;U,1 idiom so lhat lhe faint voice of lhe Hebrew could become more audible.

nel1Ja:J1!Un." On Jews and Judaism. pp. 193-94.

p.242.

Chapter Six The Job of Translating Job

rhetoric, cannot be atlf~ti\,e

Q.::.VV"'' ' of langUl:lge

metallnor corlnotatlon, aSSIOCI~atl(l~n - in order to move an rea:soning embedded in the semantic content can by itself It IS these of that pose speDr(l~ble;ms the translator. two ]ob trallslaltiolils keen llmitatlions that Imt)Os<:~d upon Arr'nrI'Jrll10

to the Traditional Hebrew Text, ureentJ.eld, and Nahum M. Sarna the translation

- 119-

and Method in Bible Translation them. The New Jewish Version translators have tnemslelvles to the Hebrew of Job in '"m()Qelm ht'I"'''~lnl ~ngllsn. wUlmvlv abandon any to constructions of in a sort of Hebraicized bnJ~usn.like what Buber and had done in this but in a number of seeks to preserve two: rhythm of the AlthOlJ£!h it is geIler~lUy COrlSl(len~ unfashionable to compose a translation that sounds like a a version may assume a more authentic tone than an the unfulfilled the late to Bellow Q"".·..\111r\~n revleal(;~ he ;:>VT'''AC'",h,

of mls:lortune.

COIISl(lters the liberties that both SUPPlaIlt. and add to the pos;slble to translate Five. 136/1 notice. is discussed above. in ..........H'w.. Five.

to

The Job of l['raJ1lSlalting Job

121

poem at all from the Hebrew time and there are many instances in rendermg both the mark senlantic,IUy and the punch of the Hebrew: you all faith in "For pain doesntt in your or sorrow

mOlcated prc.gr,unlnaltlCalUy over a Blt.l1C:ll eJ~egete must take a

with strength. the criticism of Mitchell's revised edition Job: A t, The World & I. lJe<;ember NN renders 1"1' here and in 4:8 as "evil" than "misfortune:' Ml1:che~Jl learns from the context here but mistranslates in 4:8. Cf. Ps. 90:10.. the revised it is labelled "A Note on the Text:' Mitchell's reconstruction has been criticized Mitchell's " and James L. "The Cost The World & pp. esp. 381·82. 131 in the revised version. MiltchE~ll's

122

and Method in Bible Translation

the NJV can be counted on more for phillOIOgicai a verse in which Job the demons of CanWlnilte mlYUlOl()gy to exorcise the of his veers the Hebrew when he renders: ..,.n,,-,,,",,,,,o..

Let Sorcerers make the to blast it with

leX[-CrlUCaI p,aralmelters to the limit,

The NJV, streltchilrlg footnote accordling to

SUlJtplU~S

a

the sea damn it. Leviathan.

1

A

and the words of in order to a line that makes sense and finds substantial from ancient Near Eastern most nnl'~hliv Enuma Elish Tablet IV. c: c~ ItWith wind He it seems to me, to wind into net, I, NJV). satisfies neither context nor grammar. the heavens were calmed Translations of a text so nettlesome as that of Job will never the phlliollogian. who will fmd additional difficulties and altema'te P]t'OJ)4)salls. someone who has the text of Job can eD()rmlity of the In the end. even the most careful may at an At that point the committed Job student must and .... u\,}\Ji),"'. albeit Let me The NJV rend.ers 5:26 as ~H,)'htllv ..~.rI',,,'rI'"1't'

lt

You will come to the grave in old As shocks of are taken away in

season.

......."'........... in this comment is that while this NJV committee and I share the two the Biblical text within a .........,' ........"1 context. the committee may, in an prilrlciJ)les may conflict. lean more on

AB 3rd ed. \V~UUIi;,U Fis,hbalJ1e, Text and Texture of Sea in the

The Job f TransJlatirlg Job

123

Vpl"hQ'f\~ the intended m~mirlg not be harvested the Grim J:VVCJ:J:J:J:I,IJ:; that the Torah aOl1ntrc~s

You will die at the and be gatJlerc;~d "RG'rrvnul'n'

"You shall die uniJmpllired. &

as a shock of com in its season:'

Chapter Seven Assessing a Bible Translation lan.gmlge to another may a it within a or tral1lslaltion lie a number of difficult upon our un(lers~taIlldiIllg reasons, tr.ansllatic.n is truly in mentors of the American Bible in one in exttressea in virtually any lan,gu8lge, langlUllg~r! Some say yes, some say no. Que~SUcm it is to note that our UD(Jer~.taIllamlg of the very term everyone ntr~lDSJ!atiIOnn in sense. is em1ol0'vea to refer to a text that is purported to a text written in another lan,gualge. Numerous so called - exist so that no one QUE~stilDns of translation in this sense of the term. Ilmrve\rer. one wishes to of translation as a of me4lnlflg of one text in another text written in a different one plungE~s battle zone, arena of debate. the belief in wnl~tnl~r

and Method in Bible Translation

126

cortve'ved in another atUllinable. Few take so a apprOa(;h of William On <11tterlent way.f1 3

fOUI[)WS that on COlnOJrOlIlised sense, sornet,hill12 that is pOlsSlt)le. For anyone who the term "tr~lns]latil[)n" SUSiPl<;10Iil. Translation in such a will U""'I"""'U~U hj"~'\Jrllv

imllrel;sicln that translation across DafUCIUar langUl1lge. Rather lan,gualge, one looks for

one say say it. But if one were to "What does rDIf• mean?" one The Hebrew Bible may, hls toncally SlleaJK.lnJg;, of a person. It is true it is Slglllu<;ant anthropologicalJly 1

..._ ......,"',but the

The arg\lme:nt more tun<1alnelllal prclblc;~m,

::>m,allev. "I{estrll«;wl'ing Translations of the in On Lal'1.g14lag4e. ed. Matthew Black

p. e.g., de Waard and n. 16), p. 24. references, see

LaI'lgU1age

n.

no.

to Another

As~essIllg

127

a Bible Trwllslation

COJruatne;Q in lal1lgU,ag1e.,,7 "Beneath every word there is nOluulllgJless. fl8 Or consider this from a novel satiirizing phjilo~~phy: There is a level of where words have no part to Words are made for a certain exactness of as tears are for a certain of is least distinct cannot be named; what is clearest is

cannot express vague tnOiuglllS, that that is because

Langllla~~e

text In any case, if one must needs short ideas and serasaltlOllS into one can hardly someone to translate across in this grasps only of what is felt and conceived. may caplture differelrlt tragl1llents

in their repreSCmUll1101rlS will say sofiletlllmg
.uU~F."'''''''

3-7.

and the Allusive in East and West 15

"Is Translation Possible?" Translation 12

pp.

and .."""....,,.... in Iml)ed~t

mSiLrUInellt for the reason for cannot that not been the that Iangmlge is among formulation pmticlJlar world-view. As Jerome translation word own "14 to express a even way of and tnllfl[{lng. To translate one would not only need to enter the world of the of the source one would to with others who that and the world-view to which that ext.reSiStOn. One would have to that those who have no need of translation. even under the very best We can this by COtltCe£1lmg of circumstances translation does not convey A,u;~....,thU''1" that source can mean. Translation is selective. Even the most advocates of in to one must of wrote of the make in only an

and translatlor perhat.s V''''~f,",nu anyone he was reciogl111ze that "not even the senlanlt1Cs lan,gu8.ges cOJDcloe." he discussed the nilTapossHt>llilLy from one to another. and Taber must also concede that translation encounters limitations. When say. "Anything than can be in one can be said ancttne:r." they add: the form is an element of the meanIng. of can be debated in every case. How essential is to But their "unless"-clause in trallsle:mllg sense to lan,guatge. meanllng in a must an Im]pas:se. many and as an ineluctable

d

~

~is

or. in Derrida's term. a tr8111st omnatlon i

rePJroollcticln of it.

trans. and ed. Lauren G. pp. 150.

ASSleSSlJlg a

129

sOI)Ju:stJc:at~~(J

tramUal:ors have ancient times the source they seek to traduce and what are tralrlslclltJCtn sets These are in turn d.etermined the that the translation is meant to serve. In assessmg the of a translation's success. one it to measure the translation's its avowed and may dissent from the a certain translation or a particlliar traJnsl,atu)D one may oppose a But that is a pOllbc:al (JleclS:lOn that is very in own terms. In I of translation with lunCUCtns. as well as their phllJOs:opJrUCal WS1LinctJOllS was and the ev~mg;e1liCal and the sourcedifl'erelnt translation for tnelms<'lv€~s i(Jl(>mcitJc translator mre:n(J€~ alldience in its own There are a number is that an UnllCllOlrnatlc nm<1Jenrlg may lack the prec:lSl(>n in cnn,vPo'\i,jn 0' mu>rmatlC)D a to achlieve_ Let us the Hebrew rr" nJ);) in Gen. and elsewhere. The literal sense is like the tt but the cOl1rlparable e:'lpression in Gen. 17:21 and the Akkadian idioms analadilina time next. year:' The more literalist James Version Cel1allnlY return unto thee to the time of life. tt In a "1 win return. yes. return to you when time nrCIVlCles. a reader would revives. no idea New American Bible and the New an accurate EnJglis:h t"Alni1I1alf~nt~ ttl will return to you about this time next year:' The comes across source of Jerome's bad n A literal translation from one langu~lge In

Review of the NN's The however. makes clear that he Ann1'nV,~!1:: absmdl:>n[:S j mlisllaading literalism for the apJ:lrOt_elate 67. approac:h in de and literal translation of mm~gmal notes to facilitate trarlslaILlOn,s. such as the Revised Standard _"j!>U,,'u. Version offer clear. but in refers to a nine-month

the New Jewish view mcoUiect. of pregnancy.

130

and Method in Bible Tral1Slauon

obscures the sense.',22 An

has the

of

Before procee:Qll1lg to some of the other reasons behind l
In the Fularti lanJ~uaJ~e of Africa the biblical idiom the heart" can be when translated as the head:' A translation of the also makes sense, but it is the wrong sense, for in Fulani "to the heart" means "to be

One cannot but syInplatnlze with de Waard and Nida's concern that a literal rendering would obstruct out a to the full and of Hebrew certain contexts, the best known of which is the of the in Exc:x1u,s. "to be hard of does mean "to be obstinate." in "to be can in contexts mean de Waard and Nida it means in Fulani: Ps.27:14:

LOJlgulrlge to Another, p. 34.

"coura.geo,us" may result from an 2 Sam. Jer. of idioms in ..:n::r.l,IUU'l,i. Derivation of Hebrew ml'kh,

~;essing a

Bible Tralllslation

lito be courageous:' but rather more like lito be mUlQe<J'·· or "resolute" toward one end or another. Only context governs its lani~ai~e langu~lge

of the of the source.

to reorOOuce that t1Al'.ln't'~....... literal cannot of as of translation and the or(JK:.e(lur(~s criticize a method of translation for espouse. modes of as as I can set dit.fenent nh,iA"'I~iu., • ., from those of the idiomatic .>V11\,AJ',1. i"\,U\,;.I.CUl lite~ralistllC to render each and every term of the source because me,anllng inhered not in the sense and rhetorical languclge but in the atomic as it were, of the source of words and Cl,lssical muJra!;n drew of transfer the very James trarlslaltors atte~mots

Fey'eraibend. a.ICw;""~,,. Method p. n. 130. A p. 50. view of the text derives from the belief that even the WOlra1l1l2 olrigi:natc~s in God. It is not, as Wendland asserts, "an. attitude of .<1,,11<1'''''''' text becomes an of Since Wendland adds that ""CJlmkl()VS]CV

and Method in of the Hebrew source and its classic in own after that of the and Hebrew wished I shall dwell on two of them. from the of Rosen,zweljt and 1Dtf~nd€X1 to convey in German of the regj;u-ac:~a as for Biblical text. allUisiollS and connecttOI1IS. In repc~atirlg

more to the (re\,isccl) Buhf~r-}i~osc~nzwe:ln' One of the most C!""""'''',O' the 1926 tr8l11slallon "heaven and their ex]:~ctatlcm

•• BA 46/4

As~;essmga

. . . . "",..""."'..'" and the But if one

culturial and hi ... ,I"""',,,,ol leaturc~s In this instance. appear to be at odds its "heaven and earth From a the introduction of the establishes two distinct areas to be created. The narrative devotes events on to their To this distinction at the outset l'nt'VI'>1"firuT "heaven and earth" into "universe" does more remove a ctullct'lt'" order of in form. as attc~ml)t to

If

and Method in Bible Translation it were. the orderliness of the (Jes:cnl)ed cr~nion. the narrative has God say. in words:

On the second

Be there a vault in the midst of the waters. and be there division between waters and waters!

Itren
Let there be a dome to divide the water and to

separated water Jn._,y it in two mbOOllC~Cl. It is on - to use Fox's 1:1in the text. From a point of secluentl:a1 construction of the created order and presupposing at the what was flfst presel'lltOO inte~mJret~~r as as the well argue of the TEV to make that the idiomatic sufficient sense of the passage. fourth of creation God commands that there in Fox's trans"luminaries in the vault of the heavens." God makes two lUllllinari«~s f,U1\.l •••

and the smaller

IUft11ft£l11'V

for

The TEV seeks to render the references to the two lumlinaries lanj~uaj~e that its term use. it translates "the moon." One wonders and "the smaner by the term Wh,F>.fh/:>;r the TEV translators asked the!mSc~lvc~s 'W'hpthp.r text means sornelhirlg e.g., Michael Fishbane, Te.xt and Texture the

Feminist

York: Schocken,

pp.

AS!;essing a Bible Translation and nmoonn rather than "......'A.,.t"'.." and

very .............,..'' ' ......

135 "e:-WH,nl"''''

it does.

.. .....,n""." .. in terms and tunlction. too. The the luminaries but also certain powers within or for Shapshu (the sunl-go,aa~~ss) mUlOn-IlC'U J. which are with Hebrew ~ In Genesis rs .....,.t,"'ntl" ITlonoUlei~)tic other even indirectly.. n is avoided by the Hebrew's This nineteenth Italian Jewish commentator S. D. do,..etjlil~ with the was created to the lUllllm:mes. Its Luzzatto from God and not from the luminaries. not attribute power them on that account. Whether or not to the luminaries themselves and one is convinced by this it should be that tiltt",..,,,,nt by the text to construct different In this instance the TEV has to

.,U',",IUI""". Genesis. 2nd ed. (Ed!inburgJh: von Genesis. trans. p. 53. For an argument

.... " '.., ....aI ....

alludes to the

Hal)VI()ni~m se~a-g,odcless

Aviv:

and Method in Bible Translation reference of the source. while Fox has reflected the source's own corlcel)tioln or formulation ofcreation. Let us consider one further HltlstraUCJn. which I adduce to argue that even subtler alterations the source's may affect the overall me~:mU1lg text. The Genesis 1 account creation as a series of slnJgullaf and deliberate acts. - Fox pmatl()ns successive unit of Q1S:COll1rSle: ",u..u,,,,,,,,.<••• and so on. God is are menu()neiQ, e~lDe(~laIJlv ft

God orders the water to one so that dry land could emerge. God's COl1nmlan
Let the waters under the heavens be and let the be seen. LO'lgtfllUS" on Sut~llTllllt}l,

D1()1c~e:U-lJl1J

to one

trans. D. A. Russel ......".u"'..... Clarendon

As~~ss,ing

a Bible Translation

Consi:stellt with its embellishment lends the water and land the active

verb "to be" in this passage, the my by the verbs in

Unllf'p.!'1''''·

Let the water below the sky come will appear.

togiethl~r

in one

so that the land

even toward ascribing power to creatures, the my also turns us man in our after our nouns into verbs. Where Fox the creature the of verbs: the my And now we will make human us. senlantic~llly

that the creation but through is use of

will be lik.e us and resemble ~('tlvl1rv not tral1ls1altion may by

On one side it is said that the translation to be such "that the reader should. if POI;sit)le. that it is a translation at and be lulled into the an work. - sornethin,g UlljglUiU ••• One that he prel~isely the opp,osU:e: pec:uharilty of the UU!~UUIU, as he is able. it may

of SlmiPUJtyirlg

In

of trarlSfctrm:atio,nally the ball versus The them. do not have the same meaning.

138

and Method in Bible Translation be"; so that it may "never lmlltat:lng in a different material.

that he is

and

Rosentzwetg; mc:line:d toward the latter no translation can serve in lieu of the source. The of translation is to share of the source with the reader that the reader will want to find transJlaU(m tlltnction~~d to share For Buber and Ro~;en2:we]lg; source with a umrall1utun' with it, or un1t"amliUcn' in l:hnstlan traJ1SUltlO,ns. teflllll1l01()gy used to render the like most bn;gw;h te:rmm()lIOJl~Y assc)Cia,tiOl1lS. Buber wanted a diUerelrlttennjnol,ogy accordlmg; to the Hebrew. An to - not a " The unnaturalness translation langw:lge RO&enzwei2 develoll1f'AI was intended to the Helbre'w to carry on the tracUtlC)I1 that the means to Jews in its very Hebraic The Jew must hear the Bible in and if not Hell>re'w then a or that is bent a This is OOtnltlte
A~;essing

a Bible TraoslaUon

139

Idiomatic translations serve what I there called eV~lngeU(~aI" Intlere:sts, a concern that is eXI>UCit in the work of the American Bible """,,,'·u",,,, One should not overlook, phlllOS,oplblcal interests motivate translators. in Jacob

that not only or may have more Sp(~tJ:tC~IUy for contrasted two The one seeks to of a work, the other the substance of the dislcourse. annlted the to the Mllmn:a, ju.dgll1.g ""..1"1,,,..1... rhetofJlcaI pat:tel11ung to reflect the essence the Mishna's meamng. the idio,matlc at>Dro.ach to intelligible only by means elabOlratton. In a sense, Neusner allows that discourse is fonnulated such that a version of the would share the same difficulties that the poses. Because translators DrO(lU(;e texts with different to nertorm dltt€~rel1.t tllinctlons, there will always be n8lt~lns of one or another would aclc:n01wletl2e trarlslatiOI1I'S would then eVAluAlte tr,anslatl!ons on the basis of their and not some or "truth"

the Palestinian Talmud into "TJ'an!,lating Bavli: A Fresh

Apl:>Ioawh.

Index

Adamic oer~;oectIve

110 57

J. Basemat43

.......... ,..vu,

11,

S. 120 67

55

110-1 1

89

anachronism 11

100 101

Aramaic

7, 1

43

M.4 audience-oriented translation

125 of

canon

31

142

on Biblical Method and Translation

E.H. """«i::i,i)UliJV~ U.

61 65 91

128

31

104

DelJlter()nOInlst 7 ~

9~

37

41. Christi,ln translation Chlll1cn\!'Q1cv

' ..' \..,I&I"-'U.

K.

138

DJ.A. H.R. 75

diachronic analVSIS

71

R.L. 86 Colossus of Rhodes ix-x 135

78 concorclant translation 108 COllcolrdalrlt Version 108 LonalllalC~ E.B. 106 Canaan

12 con:siste~ncy 8~

7~

U.27 blOsteIn. A. 57

117

91

122

Enuma Elish 119

65

44 76

71-74 H.63 46~51

Ezekiel 19 facts 5.

68

M. Dead

texts

t'eyc~raf)ena.

P.

Index

143 H. 5, 8, 65 W.W. 118 HaltJem. B. 6,

16

VUallA....l .

leR(,~mel'lQ

R.E.

38 74-76

Het.rew uni(~Uerless of 115 Hebrew constructions 116-117

Freudian QnA1V~1~ 79 Frjc~drrlan.

1

9, 10,

29-

115 1

47 Garden of Eden lAvrnn~l,v S. P.T.72

49

115

96

German constrUictiOJllS 117 Gel'sonlaes 77 v"'u~vu. A.

97

Y.19 lanj~uaJ~e of 110. .... v .., ...........

114

hOltloiollele,Jton 67

A.73

Greenberil. M. 122 Grec~nspalm, F.E. V.LUUUl.

J. 110

1

on Biblical Mel;noa and Translation

144

litpq..~rv

translation

132

LOl1lgmus 136 Lot 42 I. 80 Luther 97 LU2:zau.O, S.D. MallaSSlen 46 1\/I(1''''''/'\1''Pfl(' Text

J

51

Jacob

109

121

P.K. 9, 29 MenaelSSC)nn, M. 101 Me:naennau, G.E. 12 • _I "--",--

130, Jewish 35 Jewish translation 99-101 book of 1

John Paul II

115

book

49

126

107

Leah

47

106 V.86

109

145

Nahmanides 81

Plaut,

110,

1

71,

58, 68-

116

pollution, ritual 48

NelJSne~r~

J. 139 New American New hnjl:IlSn New

21,

135

70,

narrator

79

R.3, 18,

130

57 Popper, K.R. nn~itiviC1rn.

X,

72 21

pOssibi:lity of translation 126

Noth, Nuzi 81

63 68 5,6, 8,

oral

Rachel 43

P 44

G. von 7,. 8,

54 oatJ-iarc:hal narrative!': 4, 5, 11,

Y.T. 10 Kavvioclwicz. S. 54

Kadldav

114 J.B.91 nnilolc)jtic:al translation 93

73

KeU(1[Orn,

21 R.8, 10,

135

146

on BjbJljcaI Method and Translation Standard

Version

Solomon 7, 11,

138 131

(RSV) rhetoric

119,

source criticism 8,

72 R.M.86 R.60 Ros:enber,R, D. Ros:enberjt. Joel

~_~,_~1.

tablets 4

70

F. Ruth, book of

94 43

57

114-1

semantic sense

1

textual criticism 121

101 .:)Ui:lUA;),

H.

14

U. sket)ticil>m 5, W.

J.H.

104

147

Index

J. de

N. Wars of 26

131

85-111,

66 1 1

118

younger sonJfbrother \._•..,.....,J

122

40 z.mlmermaln. H. & J. 99

41

47

11111111111111111111111111 9 781930 675353