The title does not quite catch the facts on the ground, but it is tempting to think that it does. That’s because much of the best work that is done in the field is digested by very few people. Even those with sufficient training rarely wrestle with new research to the extent necessary to overcome the inertia inherent in sitting put on previously acquired points of view. Finally, even when new research is metabolized at the theoretical level, it is rarely applied to practical issues, such as producing more reliable translations of the biblical text in the languages of the world. In all of this, the field of biblical studies is similar to, not different from, other fields of intellectual endeavor.
In this series of posts, I give examples of what I mean
from the research of one of the best linguists working in the field of biblical
Hebrew, Cynthia L. Miller.
Miller 1996: 103-116 examines a problem of
Hebrew grammar and comes to the following conclusion (116):
Instances of direct speech in which כי appears at the boundary
between frame and quotation are formally ambiguous - כי could belong
either to the quotative frame (as a complementizer) or to the quotation (as its first word). However, after
considering the various functions of כי, and its use in the larger
pragmatic context, we conclude that כי should be understood as the
first word of the quotation, rather than as a complementizer.
As Miller points out at the beginning of her
discussion (105), “The use of כי at the head of the quotation
may be understood with reference to the ordinary functions of כי as causal, temporal, adversative and
asseverative.” D’accord, except that, like Barry Bandstra and Anneli
Aejmelaeus, I reject the notion of asseverative כי. כי is a clause-initial conjunction.
The best language work is often highly
technical. The more technical your writing style is, and the more careful you are in carefully qualifying your conclusions, the less likely others will pay
attention to what you are saying. These are the vicious rules of communication.
A blog in this sense can be a bridge-builder between diverse publics. This post is written with the community of Bible translators in mind, since Miller’s conclusions have ramifications for the work of translation.
Few Bible translators, I'm guessing, have read the research I reference. But if
Miller is right, the translation of a number of passages in all or many existing
translations is flat out wrong. The translation committees in working mode to
which I will forward suggestions include ISV, NIV, and CEB. I will also try
NAB. If readers know of other working committees who might be interested in taking
up questions of translation anew in light of recent research, let me know.
To be continued.
Bibliography
Cynthia L. Miller, The Representation
of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM 55; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1996). On כי , see
Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Function and Interpretation of כי in Biblical
Hebrew,” JBL 105 (1986)
193-209. For a demonstration that most if not all putative examples of emphaticכי in clause-initial position are demonstrative, see Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphatic
Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem/Leiden:
Magnes/ Brill, 1986) 158-64. See further Barry L. Bandstra, The
Syntax of the Particle ‘ky’ in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic. Ph.D. diss.,
Yale University, 1982, chapter 2; Carl Martin Follingstad, Deictic
Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic Analysis of
the Particle kî (Dallas: SIL
International, 2001) [both unavailable to me].
Ah, this is my life.
Posted by: Pete Bekins | September 24, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Two things here. First, I think the latency is a good thing since sometimes twenty years are required for a concept to fail to have a whiff of the novel and thus be considered respectable enough to make it into a translation. And in that time enough experts have tested out the ideas of someone like Miller and given it their endorsement. Second, even when we know that a translation could be better expressed the translational arc guarantees that old choices are preserved. I just saw that on 1 John 5:7 this evening where even though everyone accepts the text as being a corruption it's still included (although in brackets) because all the old Bibles have it.
Posted by: David Ker | September 24, 2009 at 03:36 PM
David,
You would think 20 years would be enough time for well-argued theses to take root in the field, but such is not the case.
It sounds like the best approach would be for experts in the field to hire a PR agent to make sure their work is endorsed by others. But that won't work because many of the best scholars are shrinking violets who would never dream of hiring PR agent even if their salary permitted it, which it doesn't.
For the rest, I John 5:7 is in all the Bibles I have except KJV, which alone includes the late interpolation. To be honest, I'm disgusted that some recent translations do not have a note that reports the addition. That's because, unlike you and Bart Ehrman, I don't consider such additions as corruptions. They were meant to be clarifying additions and without exception do not say anything that corrupts my faith or yours. If they stood in the text of our Bibles without parentheses, as they did for other Christian communities in other times and places, we would not be the worse for it. So I would honor the scribe who made the clarifying addition with a footnote reporting it.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 24, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Me and Bart. Made me giggle...
Posted by: David Ker | September 25, 2009 at 01:11 AM
If you reject asseverative כי
how do you explain Gen 18:20
זעקת סדם ועמרה כי רבה וחטאתם כי כבדה מאד
?
Posted by: Jan Joosten | September 26, 2009 at 08:59 AM
Hi Jan,
Isn't it elliptical for:
שמעתי זעקת סדם ועמרה כי רבה
ראיתי חטאתם כי כבדה מאד ?
And isn't
ראיתי חטאתם כי כבדה מאד
equivalent to
ראיתי כי כבדה מאד חטאתם ?
I understand כי as a complementizer (I think Schoors called it a nominalizer) in such cases. That would be the case in Gen 18:20 even if the ellipsis I imagine is eisegetical.
Posted by: JohnFH | September 26, 2009 at 09:39 AM