Can we set the bar higher for future study editions of the Hebrew Bible in translation?

The bar can be set higher. First of all, the whole question of text and canon merits discussion in a study Bible. Editions of the Hebrew Bible in translation published so far gloss over the question of the multiformity of the text as it is now known to us from ancient manuscripts recovered in the Judean desert, and has long been known to us, but insufficiently appreciated until recently, from ancient translations, the Old Greek / Septuagint first of all. As Emanuel Tov puts it, “Both the Hebrew parent text of G . . . and certain of the Qumran texts . . . reflect excellent texts, often better than that of M.”[1] That being the case, one would think it opportune for a translation team of the Hebrew Bible to explain why M is translated even when, from a text-critical point of view, another text is preferable.

Even if the multiformity of the biblical text in antiquity be judged an unfit topic for an essay in a study Bible, it might still be nice to inform readers of the numerous instances in which a translation picks and chooses from among the ancient witnesses, or translates based on a conjectural emendation. Translations that base themselves on MT in most particulars nevertheless depart from it in other particulars. A quick example may illustrate. The NET Bible, available online with a glorious set of notes, translates Isa 38:9 as follows: ‘This is the prayer of King Hezekiah . . .’ To be sure, there is no doubt that Isa 38:10-20 contains ‘the prayer of Hezekiah . . .’, but Isa 38:9 says something else: מִכְתָּב לְחִזְקִיָּהוּ ‘a written something of Hezekiah,’ that is, a written account of how, when Hezekiah was sick, he recovered from his sickness.

The NET Bible’s ‘prayer of Hezekiah’ repeats, consciously or unconsciously, the paraphrase of the Hebrew already attested in OG Isa 38:9 Προσευχὴ Εζεκίου. If the NET translation team wishes to follow OG here, that is fine and dandy, but a note to that effect, and argumentation to back the decision up, should be forthcoming. That is the kind of thing the NET Bible generally does. A note attached to ‘prayer’ would seem to be a desideratum.

The assumption that most readers are not interested in knowing when a translation departs from the received text it normally follows is, I think, mistaken. Even if the assumption were correct, it can no longer be used to justify the non-publication of notes which outline the text-critical decisions behind the departures a translation instantiates, or the non-publication of notes that point out examples in which a normally ‘literal’ translation departs from a ‘literal’ representation of the original. The opportunities electronic publication affords means that such notes can be made available to scholar and non-scholar alike with little or no necessary extra financial investment on the part of publisher or consumer.

A number of translations provide a robust set of “Text & Translation” notes, in particular, La Bible de Jerusalem (BJ) in some editions and translations (but not the NJB!), NRSV, NJPSV, and the NET Bible. The notes of the latter are the fullest, but, as I have already suggested, far from complete. The notes of the others are far less complete. They can only be described as spotty and inconsistent.

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament translations are, almost without exception, based on a diplomatic edition - BHK, BHS, BHL, or similar - of a medieval manuscript known as Codex Leningradensis. However, these translations occasionally set Codex L aside in favor of a text which differs from it in one or more of the following ways:

(1) A sequence of letters attested in L is occasionally rejected in favor of an alternative sequence. Sometimes an alternative internal division of a received sequence is preferred. The adopted string and subdivision of consonants may or may not be equivalent to that found in another textual witness, or to the presumed Vorlage of an ancient translation.

(2) The reading tradition represented by the vowelling of the consonantal text is sometimes set aside in favor of another. The adopted alternative vocalization may be equivalent to the inferred vocalization of the ketiv of the text; to that implied by an ancient translation, or to a vocalization judged to be more appropriate on contextual grounds.

(3) The prosodic – syntactic parse instantiated by the neumes or musical symbols of the masoretic text is not infrequently set aside in favor of an alternative prosodic – syntactic parse. The adopted alternative parse is often based on contextual considerations, and/or, in the case of poetry, on a tacit working hypothesis about how ancient Hebrew poetry works.

(4) L’s division of the whole into “closed” and “open” paragraphs is rarely respected in translation. The stichographic layout of a number of poetic texts and lists, as well as of whole books in, for example, Codex Aleppo, is rarely reproduced. These patterns of unit delimitation, nonetheless, have roots in the Second Temple period.[2]

In short, Bible translations to date almost universally ignore the paragraphing and stichographic layout of the received text. Not infrequently, they overrule the masoretic prosodic-syntactic parse. They emend the vocalization of the consonantal text more often than one might imagine, and emend the consonantal text here and there, all too often failing to alert the reader of the fact.

On-again off-again rejection of MT’s division of units into subunits above and below the verse level is not surprising. The divisions are not always convincing, and furthermore, are easily ignored, given the limited attention they have received to date. Curiously, an almost blind adherence to MT’s division into verses is also characteristic of Bible translations. But the traditional division into pesuqim is not always convincing either.

Bible translators would do well to signal instances in which they depart from MT’s delimitations above, at, and below the verse level. This level of attention to detail has so far not found its way into a Bible translation to date, but there is no reason why it could not receive attention in the future. The venue of electronic publication provides a way for a team of Bible translators to inform interested readers of all those instances in which they depart from the text they otherwise follow.

I would suggest that future translations and future editions of past translations be more forthcoming about the extent to which the translation offered departs from MT in the four areas described above than they have in the past. It would be helpful to supply without fail some means by which readers are alerted to departures from the tradition that is otherwise followed - if not in print, at least in electronic form.

In a series of posts I began a couple of weeks ago, I began to illustrate the problem, and conceivable solutions, by looking at translations of the prayer of Hezekiah found in Isaiah 38:10-20. Examples of silent emendation across this unit, about 20 in all, are identifiable in major modern translations in use today. It turns out that the amount of work necessary to document the problem with full bibliography goes beyond my initial expectations. I am not yet ready to present the results of my study, and have not yet been able to consult all of the pertinent secondary literature. But it shouldn’t be too much longer. I will, however, present a provisional edition of Isaiah 38:9-20 inclusive of a concise footnote system designed to alert readers to departures from the copy text (MT) and translation issues in a consistent way. See the next post.

A handy explanation of NRSV’s system of “T & T Notes” is available here.

---

[1] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, ²2001 [1992]) 24.

[2] The pioneering researcher in the field, Josef M. Oesch, noted an 80% agreement between 1QIsa^a and MT in this respect (idem, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen su einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO 27; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979). The Pericope project, founded by Marjo Korpel, has set about putting the field of delimitation criticism on surer foundations (www.pericope.net).

Comments

[ElShaddai Edwards]

Have you seen the Library Edition of the NEB Old Testament? I've been reading Geoffrey Hunt's "About the New English Bible" and he mentions that the Library Edition included a significantly larger number of footnotes than the Standard Edition, especially around the subject of material sources. I've not seen a copy of this, but it sounds promising, as least for that translation line.

[Nathan Stitt]

I think that there is not enough attention paid to the format of the text on the page. Adhering to tradition, verse layout, etc. sometimes has me wondering how the translations would be different if those were not taken into consideration. A good example of what I am referring to would be The Books of the Bible project as well as Fox's The Five Books of Moses. Similarly with the emendations and other things you've been discussing, but which I am not educated enough to talk about in more depth.

[JohnFH]

No I haven't, El Shaddai. The best guide, no longer in print, is:

Brockington, L. H.
Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible
(Oxford University Press, 1973)

[Iyov]

I don't understand this post, since as you have previously pointed out, there are a number of efforts to make new critical editions of the Hebrew text. As you mention, in English, there are a number of resources (including the NJPS and NRSV translations) addressing textual variants. Textual guides such as the Brockington text and the Anchor Bible also address these points. However, the popularity of the NJPS among non-Jewish audiences (as well as stated efforts in translations such as the TNIV to purely translate the Hebrew text) seem to point that the audience wishes translations more faithful to the Hebrew text rather than eclectic texts.

E-S, I have both the Brockington and the Library Edition of the NEB OT. The Library Edition is quite fine and is well worth acquiring.

[ElShaddai Edwards]

Thanks for the feedback, Iyov and John. I have my ticklers out for the Library Edition, but will look around for the Brockington volume as well. From what I've been able to gather, the NEB OT truly was an eclectic text.

[JohnFH]

The Brockington volume (used) is currently on sale through Dove in MI for $25.

One of my points, Iyov, as I will eventually lay out in gory detail, is that NJPSV departs from MT in particulars far more often than one would guess from the textual footnotes. And, in the case of Isa 38:10-20, translations that stick to MT at all costs (quite unlike NJPSV) serve up gobbledygook.

[Iyov]

Your observation is consistent with my comment -- as we both note, the NJPS notes that it varies from the MT. However, there is a real difference in the frequency of such notes between the NJPS and an eclectic text such as the NEB (or even the NRSV).

[John]

On the notes of the NET translation, and though there may/not be fully in agreement, I find the treatment of the notes in the NET at http://bible-researcher.com/net.html to be interesting. Hope it'll be helpful or provoking (to thought). : )