Thou shalt not silently emend the text (Part 2)

Bible translators are in the habit of emending their source text without alerting readers to the fact. A look at Isa 38:10-20 serves to illustrate the point. An earlier post treated Isa 38:10-11. This post treats Isa 38:12-13.

12 5 דּוֹרִי נִסַּע         וְנִגְלָה מִנִּי

 6     כְּאֹהֶל רֹעִי* קִפַּדְתִּי*     כָּאֹרֵג* חַיַּי

 

13 7 *מִדַּלָּה יְבַצְּעֵנִי  מִיּוֹם עַד־לַיְלָה תַּשְׁלִימֵנִי  שִׁוִּיתִי* עַד־בֹּקֶר

 8 כָּאֲרִי כֵּן יְשַׁבֵּר  כָּל־עַצְמוֹתָי  מִיּוֹם עַד־לַיְלָה תַּשְׁלִימֵנִי

 

Line 6: vocalize רֹעֵי (archaic spelling and pronunciation of ‘shepherd’).

Line 6: vocalize קֻפַּדְתִּי and associate (against MT) with the preceding two words.

Line 6: vocalize כְּאֶרֶג in parallelism with כְּאֹהֶל רֹעִי.

Line 7: read מִדַּלָּה יְבַצְּעֵנִי with the following, not the preceding. The division of vv. 12-13 into four lines suggested above goes against MT’s prosodic subdivisions 5 times.

Line 7: read שועתי (aural error).

 
Literal translation

My dwelling was pulled up

       and taken from me.

Like a shepherd’s tent I was folded up,

      like a woven cloth, my life.

 

He will cut me from the thrum,

     in a dawn to dusk interval you will finish me!

          I cried out until morning.

Like a lion he will break

     all my bones;

          in a dawn to dusk interval you will finish me!

 

Idiomatic translation:

My dwelling was pulled up

      and taken from me.

Like a shepherd’s tent I was folded up,

      my vital energies, a cloth put away.

 

He will cut me from the thrum,

      in one day’s time you will finish me!

          I cried out until morning.

Like a lion he breaks

     all my bones;

           in one day’s time you will finish me!

 Isa 38:12-13 is difficult in spots. As with 38:10, so here: MT’s division of the unit into subunits is not always convincing. There is, however, no consensus regarding the subdivision to adopt. For this very reason, Bible translators would do well to footnote instances in which they depart from MT’s phrasing. That level of attention to detail has so far not found its way into a Bible translation to date.

Silent emendation #3

MT has כְּאֹהֶל רֹעִי. As vocalized, that would be ‘like the tent of my shepherd,’ which does not fit the context. Two of the more plausible solutions to this textual crux are the following:

(1) Assume that רעי is a mistake for רעים ‘shepherds.’ This is the route that a Targum variant, Symmachus (as corrected by Ziegler), the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and NJPSV take.

(2) Assume that רֹעִי is a mistake for an oddly spelled רֹעֵי ‘shepherd,’ or in any case is to be understood as equivalent to רֹעֶה in standard biblical Hebrew. Targum, Symmachus (uncorrected), and most recent translations translate accordingly.

In both cases, an emendation is presupposed. To be sure, Barré suggests that רֹעִי so pronounced may have meant ‘shepherd,’ but in that case, one must assume that רעי ‘my shepherd’ was concurrently pronounced rōʿiya or the like. There is no evidence for this.

Silently emending translations: NRSV, REB, NJPSV, NJB, NAB, KJV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, and TNIV.

Silent emendation #4

MT has  קִפַּדְתִּי כָאֹרֵג ‘I drew together / bundled up like a weaver.’ חַיַּי ‘my life’ following is phrased with the next group of words. It is difficult to make sense of MT. Two of the more plausible solutions to this textual crux are the following:

(1) Vocalize:  קֻפַּדְתִּי כְּאֶרֶג‘I was drawn together / folded up like a woven cloth’ and associate (against MT) with the following word, חַיַּי ‘my life’. This is the route that Symmachus, Theodotion, Vulgate, Syriac, the Targum, NJPSV, take. As Barré points out, the double subject construction this interpretation implies is discussed in an important article by W. Randall Garr. Parade examples include Ps 57:5; 73:21.

(2) Vocalize קֻפַּדְתִּי ‘I was drawn together / folded up’ and associate (against MT) with the preceding two words ‘like a shepherd’s tent.’ The double subject construction would still obtain, but be distributed across two cola. Vocalize: כְּאֶרֶג ‘like a woven cloth,’ and treat it and חַיַּי ‘my life’ as a stich unto itself, with verb ellipsis.

LXX also seems to have taken קפדתי with the preceding, but its construal of the whole is problematic. 1QIsa^a reads ספרתי, perhaps סֻפַּרְתִּי ‘I was cut off’ (a meaning of D ספר in post-biblical Hebrew).

REB and NAB, without saying so, emend to קִפַּדְתָּ חַיַּי כָאֹרֵג ‘you have rolled up my life, like a weaver . . .’ REB and NAB phrase חַיַּי with קִפַּדְתָּ and כָאֹרֵג with the following stich. כָאֹרֵג can govern the words following, ‘from the thrum he will cut me off,’ if and only if כָאֹרֵג and חַיַּי are transposed. Barré so emends.

Silently emending translations: NJPSV, REB, and NAB. NRSV, NJB, ESV, HCSB, NASB95, and TNIV do not emend. They translate ‘like a weaver I have rolled up my life’ with variations regarding punctuation and word order. KJV has: ‘I have cut off like a weaver my life.’ These translations go against MT’s phrasing, but otherwise adhere to it. However, it is not clear how ‘like a weaver I have rolled up my life’ is appropriate to the context. KJV’s translation of the verb fits the context better, but is not justifiable from a philological point of view.

Barré goes too far in suggesting that the translation ‘roll / fold up’ is without foundation. ‘Draw together / contract,’ as J. Levy notes, is probably the basic meaning of the verb in Aramaic. In English, however, one says ‘fold up’ or ‘roll up’ a tent for the action of drawing it together. The Targum and the Syriac - the latter per the explanation of a native speaker, Ephrem - so interpret. ‘Take a tent down,’ it would appear, seemed an idiomatic translation of the verb to the translator of LXX Isaiah.

Silent emendation #5

MT has מִדַּלָּה יְבַצְּעֵנִי ‘from the thrum he will cut me off.’ God would seem to be the subject, as often in 38:12-13. But the verb’s subject is not God in LXX, Theodotion, and the Syriac. The verb, variously rendered, also lacks an object in these versions.

REB, NAB, and NJPSV follow these versions in the elimination of God as the apparent subject and in the omission of ‘me’ as the verb’s object. The omission, however, is not reported in a footnote. REB translates ‘like a weaver when he cuts the web from the thrum.’ As noted under #4, this translation depends on a transposition of two words.

Silently emending translations: NJPSV, REB, and NAB. The other translations cited above do not emend.

Silent emendation #6

 

MT has שִׁוִּיתִי. The meaning is not clear. KJV: ‘I reckoned.’ ESV: ‘I calmed myself.’ HCSB: ‘I thought.’ NASB95: ‘I composed my soul.’ TNIV: ‘I waited patiently.’ None of these attempts at making sense out of the Hebrew are particularly convincing. If you know that God is about to finish you off and break all your bones like a lion, you do not calm yourself or wait patiently. The emendation I adopt yields ‘I cried out.’ So NJPSV, which is careful to describe this and much of 38:12-13 as of “uncertain” meaning. But this is inexact; in effect, NJPSV silently emends MT in this instance. NSRV is explicit: ‘I cry for help,’ with the following footnote: “Cn: Meaning of Heb uncertain.” NAB and NJB translate likewise, but without an explanatory footnote. REB, it is known from Brockington’s notes, follows 1QIsa^a, understood to read שפותי, vocalized שַׂפּוֹתִי, and rendered as ‘I am racked with pain.’ A footnote in REB makes it clear that a Scroll is being followed.

Silently emending translations: NJPSV, NAB and NJB.

A full bibliography will appear at the end of the series.

 

 

Comments

[Kyle]

John,
Enjoy your posts on this subject. I find text crit fascinating - like assembling an ancient puzzle.
I'm curious as to what you think the implications are for these silent emendations (other than the obvious misrepresentation of the original). The average layperson does not even take an occassional peak at the text notes. The scholar reads, or at least confers, the original.

[Nathan Stitt]

I would disagree with the statement that laypersons do not take an occasional peak at the footnotes. As I asked in part 1, without a reply, I am curious how a lay person is supposed to arrive at anything close to this discussion; since their only means are generally the text and footnotes.They are wholly reliant on the translation committees and... the internet? libraries?

I love the series and look forward to the next post in it.

[JohnFH]

I think you're right, Nathan, that some laypeople try to make sense out the footnotes, though many of them are probably end up being baffled. Most are not exactly presented in a user-friendly fashion.

I also think it would be appropriate for a study Bible to give a concise picture of the textual diversity attested across ancient Hebrew manuscripts (especially from Qumran) and the ancient versions (especially LXX, the Vulgate, and Targums).

[Nathan Stitt]

Now there is a novel idea. I wonder if there is anything like it out there already?

[JohnFH]

The Dead Scrolls Bible, edited by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, is a very useful resource.