An Ambassador of Yahweh

You stated: "I suppose this gets down to absolute accuracy verses successful communication and comprehension of the message. Thanks for your input"

This is an extremely perceptive statement. This is the question every translator must face: Do I remain faithful to the syntax and grammar (i.e. form) of the text and make a formal translation that hinges on a literalness of carrying over words and forms, regardless of meaning OR do I remain faithful to the meaning the words are expressing and look at the text as a discourse.

Within the above examples are dozens of intermediate levels that try to attain a proper balance. The degrees go (roughly) from interlinear, literal, formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase. Yet the truth is, NO translation is "literal"; interlinear Bibles are fairly literal, but even they make concessions at times that would, technically, exclude them from being considered literal.

This is a fundamental issue that has been argued time and time again within scholarly circles. The issue is not as cut and dry as commonly thought. Bibles like the KJV use dynamic equivalence at times, and Bibles like the NIV, while they employ dynamic equivalence where the translators feel necessary, use far more formal equivalence than anything else (even paraphrases use a lot of formal equivalence at the phrase level).

A question missing in this discussion is how do we treat the text? Are we translating words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or are we treating the text as a interconnected discourse that is meant to be read as such.

And this raises the question of "accuracy"--what is accuracy? A phrase in Ex 34:6 is a good example of this dilemma:

KJV Exodus 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

The word "long suffering" is actually two words in the Hebrew: ’erek ’apayim, which literally means, "Long of nose(s)". Obviously "Long of nose(s)" means absolutely nothing in English, but in Hebrew it is an idiom meaning, "longsuffering" or "slow to anger". This is an example where an "accurate" translation is NOT accurate of what the author meant if we transfer the words/forms over directly into English. This is why the KJV decided to dump their standard practice of "literalness" (or more accurately, formal equivalence) and carried over a two word phrase as a single English word that does not represent the lexical value of the Hebrew words, but does carry over the Hebrew idiom.

Translating is more than just reading a word in the native language/text, finding it in a lexicon, and writing the definition into the receptor language. There are MANY factors that directly influence a translation:

• Authorship and Audience: It is irrelevant what the text means to me; the question is WHAT did it mean to the author and what did he intend for it to mean to his audience.
• Language compatibility: How are the two languages the same? How are they different? What limitations and abilities do they both have?
• History: What was the political landscape at the time? Was the country at peace or at war? Are there linguistic and cultural influences that are significant to our understanding of the text?
• Idiom: Does ’erek ’apayim mean slow to anger or long nose? Is ’êt haššâmayim we’êt hâ’ârets properly "heavens and earth" or a merism meaning "Universe"? When an idiom is used for someone's death, should we likewise use a colloquial idiom like "kicked the bucket"?
• Text genre: Is the text narrative or poetry? Wisdom literature or apocalypse? Is the text full of innuendos and rhetoric or is it case law? CONTEXT IS KING, and you have to understand the use of words not only within their immediate context but also their genre.

We could add to this list, but the point I believe is made: translation is not an easy one-for-one task. In many ways it is an art. And, this is important, the method, intended audience, and bias (every translator has a bias) will influence the translation significantly. A translation for Sunday school children will be different from an academically oriented translations as they both will be different from a devotional Bible for adult Jewish readers. These groups have not only different understandings of words (and abilities), but they also have different interests. A single translation can never cover the enter chasm of Biblical thought (even if that was the intent, for we do not know 100% of what a Biblical author meant, and what he intended for his audience to understand, when he penned his words).

The fact is English functions differently, in significant ways, from Hebrew and Greek. For example, in English we have the following paradigm:

Verb: Run
Noun: Runner

Note how the verb and noun are related. This is fairly rare in English, but is a foundational principle in Hebrew. This is a dilemma every translator must face... but even if our language was built similarly, we cannot take that for granted. For example, the Spanish and English words for eat and drink are used in fairly similar ways, but there are differences. In English we eat soup and ice-cream, but in Spanish you drink ice-cream and soup. Why? The English verb is dependant on the operation of the mouth (i.e. mastication/chewing is "eating" while swallowing is "drinking"), whereas in Spanish if a food is liquid you drink it, if it is solid you eat it. Thus we are introduced to the dilemma of semantic domain: a words use in one language will not always overlap exactly in the receptor language.

This is getting long winded, so we will move forward to your questions:

(a) Y'hûdâh would be "Judah" in most circumstances while y'hûdî is the usual word for "Jew".

(b) This is a stickier issue. First, is this word a formal title or is it a word with a clearly derived meaning? It would appear Messiah was a royal title that carrier certain theological ideas (but does it always?), yet does the value we invest in the word the same as the Biblical authors? A few months ago I had used this word as an example of how the value we impress on a word is different than the intended meaning. The title "Messiah" is a royal title of the promised King, yet when I asked the question of what it meant, the people I asked mostly agreed Messiah meant, "Savior".

Mâšîach is a good transliteration (which would give an opportunity to reconsider the intended meaning of this word), but is lacking because the significance of its relation to anointing is lost to all those who are ignorant of the Hebrew paradigm and language. In Hebrew, mâšach and mâšîach can be paralleled to our English run/runner example above; in this light a translation of "annoint"/"annointed one" forms a harmony similar to that by which the text is built upon and conveys the grammatical (and often intended) meaning of these words. But the question would remain, would such a translation convey the idea (in every passage) the author intended to invoke when he penned the word mâšîach? That is left to be shown.

This is like translating the Heb. melek; this title can refer to what I would consider a "King-proper" while other times it is a reference to city-state leader, much like feudal lords, and you would not rightly compare this type of King, to say, Pharaoh (king) of Egypt at the height of its some of it dynasties or Assyrian, Babylon, Greece, and Rome when they ruled the world (world... yet another conception word!)

101 Grammatical Concepts of Biblical Hebrew by Long has a short but excellent introduction to some of the dilemmas a translator faces. I highly recommend it to anyone learning Biblical Languages.

I hope these comments (please do not read much more into them than that) are helpful. Yahweh bless - Joshua

I guess my concern is to accomodate the average person who today has literally no bible knowledge or religious education, and those who are advancing in their studies and would benefit from additional information. I believe both can be achieved in a single translation - and should be. Coming up with the best format is the challenge.

One note, my feeling is that proper nouns should be as transliteral as possible. Jerusalm = Yerushalem, which is still recognizable to most. Yehudi may require a note or transliteration guide in the forward pages.

My struggle is what to do with "Alaha" which is a benefit to some readers and not to others. "God", although many sacred namers are opposed, I don't believe they have any solid ground for being so. In fact God can be literal, but not according to the intended meaning of the author. "The Almighty" is probably the most literal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
If one wanted to make an accurate, yet accessable translation would you prefer that Jews are referred to as "Jews" or "Yahudaya/Yahudim" and the same for "Messiah" or "Mashi'ahh/Mashiach" or even "Annointed" etc.?

I suppose this gets down to absolute accuracy verses successful communication and comprehension of the message. Thanks for your input.

---

It would all depend on the context and what exactly is being translated. For example Yahudah (Yehudah) could mean either Judea, Yahudah (as in a personal name), as in the tribe of Yehudah. Yahudim coud be descendents of Yahudah, people of Judea (Judeans), or it could be Jew (in the modern sense).

The issue then gets more complicated if one is translating Yisrael as in Benei Yisrael (literal descendents of Ya`aqov), residents of the land of Yisrael, spiritual Yisrael, Northern Kingdom of Yisrael.

It all depends on what the Hebrew says first and the audience. There are some whom know the word Jew, but have never heard of the word Yahudi and would be confused if they saw a lot of unfamilier terms. Translation in some cases is about the audience. An example of this is with the Scriptures which is produced by that committee out of South Africa. There are some people who love that, but there are some whom returned it because they could not understand all of the terms they were translitterating.

For some audiences Jew(s) is a better term for others Yahudim. In some cases all the common person needs to assist them is a good and honest biblical encyclopedia. Hope that helps.

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

That was a great answer. I think I should get some college credits for reading it! That really helps us to understand the dillema that translators face and how the readers can sometimes miss the true intention of the author.

Perhaps it is good to allow that to distinguish between those who call themselves Jews but do not live up to it. Let them be called a slang term that does not disgrace YHWH's Name, and let's the righteous be called as they should by His Name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
The deeper issue over Jew vs. Yahudi is the defining scriptures that say "My people are called by My Name.." because "Jew" rather obscures Yahu's Name, whereas "Yahudi" demonstrates that His people are really called by His Name. I am afraid without that revelation, then there is no understanding of the greater scriptures.

Perhaps it is good to allow that to distinguish between those who call themselves Jews but do not live up to it. Let them be called a slang term that does not disgrace YHWH's Name, and let's the righteous be called as they should by His Name.

---

Once again though it goes back to whether one is making an accurate translation or not. If the text has Yod-Hey-Waw-Daleth-Hey and the context is clear to translate in another fashion wouldn't be correct. It is kind of like the Torah saying that Qorahh came from a certain tribe, and then a translator taking out the name of the tribe in order to make a statement about Qorahh because he went against Mosheh ben-Amram zs"l. Especially in terms of Torah and Revelations is supposed to not add to it or subtract from it. This is when it becomes translation vs. interpretation of the text towards one way or another. The best way to translate is with the tools that Joshua mentioned, and free from having an opinion on the subject matter. That is in the strict sense of translating.

P.S. On the issue of a Yahudi(im) in concern with the Name of Elohim. The problem with the stance you mentioned is that in the Torah even a person whom does not do the will of Elohim (if they came the tribe of Yahudah) are still a Yahudi (a descendent of Yahudah) just a rightous or un-rightous Dani (Danite) would still be a Dani (descendent of Dan). Changing things like that in a translation would not be an accurate translate if that is what the text being translated says.

Blessings,

------------------
Eloah immakhem,

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mountain Jew:
The deeper issue over Jew vs. Yahudi is the defining scriptures that say "My people are called by My Name.." because "Jew" rather obscures Yahu's Name, whereas "Yahudi" demonstrates that His people are really called by His Name. I am afraid without that revelation, then there is no understanding of the greater scriptures.

Perhaps it is good to allow that to distinguish between those who call themselves Jews but do not live up to it. Let them be called a slang term that does not disgrace YHWH's Name, and let's the righteous be called as they should by His Name.

---

I have a question for you guys. "My people are called by my name". I understand the original term for Jew is Yahudah. But what about the rest of Israel who are not of the descendant of Yahudah (Judah)?? My understanding was that being called by His name would be just that, we are a peole of His Name, YHWH.

Is there a place where we all are included when being called Yahudim??

Just wandering.....

Shalom,
AriYah

------------------
What is His name and what is His Son's name, if thou canst tell?

There is a distinction in Hebrew between a Judahite, Judean, and a Jew.

Yahudi - A descendent of Judah (applies to tribe of Judah)
Yahudah - The territory of the tribe of Judah originally and name of forefather
Yahudai - A son of YHWH by way of religion (can apply to any tribe)

The true believers were Nazerines and the Hebrew redeemer came to warn them about their filthy practices coming down from a mountain NOT heaven.
"Heavev" from "aven" was a place were the wickid spirits dwelled!

Why do you think He was killed?

Some additional thoughts on the word "Messiah". While the English word Messiah ultimately comes from the Hebrew mâshîach, it does so only after it traveled through Greek, Latin, and French (practically the same road that the name Yeshua traveled to arrive at Jesus).

(1) mâshîach (Heb.) to
(2) messias (Grk.) to
(3) messias (Late Lat.) to
(4) messie (Old French) to
(5) messias/messie (Old Eng.) to
(6) messiah (Eng.)

Note that from (1) to (2) the "sh" is reduced to "s" because Greek does not carry this sound and that the guttural ending is lost and the masc. Greek ending is added; the word then passes practically unchanged into Latin; the French transliteration (4) appears to drop the final s; the Old Eng. versions (5) appears to represent both (3) and (4), probably no doubt to the strong liturgical tradition of Lat. and due to the fact Lat. was the language of scholarship.

In all the thirty-nine instances of mâshîach in the Hebrew Bible it is rendered as christos in the Lxx. Christos, which means "anointed (one)" in Grk. and comes from the verbal adjective chriein, "to anoint". This is a very good translation for the Greeks. Consider:

Language: Verb / Noun
--------------------------------------------------
Hebrew: mâshach / mâshîach (anoint / anointed one)
Greek: chriein / christos (anoint / anointed one)
English: anoint / anointed one

Messiah is a good example of a word we invest "Hebrew" value and is viewed as a Hebrew word (contra Christos/Christ), though Messiah is the result of a Grk. transliteration.

Translating is not an easy task, one needs to not only be familiar with the language, culture, history, and idiom of the text being translated, but they must know the same of the people they are translating for and know their specific audience’s needs.

While I am posting, I thought I would throw out a few more examples of the dilemma a translator confronts, mainly with the issue of idiom. My first two examples deal with the "nose".

In Gen 3:19 we read, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" (KJV) and "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food" (NIV). The problem is the text literally reads that it is by the sweat of the NOSE. It appears that both the KJV and NIV tried to translate this passage idiomatically. I believe "sweat of your brow" is a pretty common English phrase, and thus works well; the KJV "face" is likewise reading into the fact that the nose is in the middle of the face, thus to have sweat on the nose would also mean it was on the face. I would contend that in this passage, while both are acceptable and do not violate the text, a literal translation is best to convey the meaning the author intended (he could have said face or brow if he wished).

Why? As a child I worked a lot with my dad outside on our small farm. When you are working on a hand maintained garden (which appears to be part of the context of this passage) you are frequently bent over. I have many memories of my dad working so hard that, as he worked bent over, the sweat would run off his nose like a leaky faucet. Sweat from ones nose I think conveys the type of back breaking labor the man would be involved with: he would be working very hard (thus the sweat) and it would be dripping from his nose (indicating the tough manual labor he would be involved in while working the earth).

While I am a big proponent of dynamic equivalence for devotional Bibles, this is an example where literalness conveys an earthiness of the text and brings to mind strong images if explained.

Another interesting "nose" issue relates to the "longsuffering" point I made earlier. Longsuffering = long of nose(s), so what would "anger" be? Yep, a burning/shortening nose! e.g.

Num 25:4 ...and (may) turn back the burning nose of YHWH from Israel (charôn ’ap-YHWH mîyisrâ’êl)

Other examples:

Gen 30:2 and Jacob's nose burned against Rachel...

Deu 32:22 for fire flared up in my nose...

The Deuteronomy passage gives a hint of how this idiom came about. When one is angry they tend to breath hard, which when done through the nose it becomes hot. In English we talk about a "red face" or "burning face" because of the tendency of someone who is angry to have their face become red. If we were to compare idioms, we could probably translate "burning nose" as "red face". On the other side, this idiom is very firm in the language and one could easily say that ’ap (nose) was so closely connected with the idea of "anger", that ’ap itself bears that meaning. Meanings have words and the development of ideas influence how a word is to be understood and used.

With all these nose dilemmas in the text, it appears a translator almost needs to get some experience as a plastic surgeon to deal with these things. Or, I guess, we need to keep our "noses" in the text :)

Shalom - Joshua

Ps- the reference for the origins of the English Messiah: