Ancient Hebrew Proverbs in 21st Century America

7/29/2019 Ancient Hebrew Proverbs in 21st Century America

1/21

Ancient Hebrew Proverbs in 21st Century

America

Trevor Peterson

2001?

If scholarly consensus is correct, proverbs represent wisdom of the mas-

ses. Whether that is understood as wisdom produced by the average person

or as wisdom disseminated for the average person, their popular appeal

should be the same. The fundamental paradox of the proverb is that it is

not merely popular wisdom, but its very bite-sized packaging, the devices

that make it so memorable and give it such a ring of truth, also represent

the best of language as art. To put the point bluntly, a proverb is not a

grain contract. To produce a translation of a proverb or of a collection of

proverbs is not the same task as culling economic documents for insight into

the social structure of a long-dead people. This may seem like a self-evident

observation, but perhaps it is for that very self-evidence that it ought to be

made explicit. Sometimes it is the self-evident that proves most elusive to

scholars.And I do mean to address scholars. It is, after all, scholars who pro-

duce the translations on which todays massesby that I mean, those who

lack the philological training to read these ancient proverbs for them-

selvesmust depend.1 The Bible is still one of the best-selling books in the

world these days, which means a lot of people are paying a lot of money,

presumably to compensate the eorts of scholars who are still laboring af-

ter ve hundred years to give them the best modern translations possible.

How, then, are we doing? What is the latest pinnacle to which we have at-

tained? Perhaps it is unfair to perform such an investigation on Proverbs,

of all books. But it seems that, if this material is arguably written more

than any other for the consumer, it is worth looking at more closely. Also,1This is, at least, the way things normally work in English translation. Translators work-

ing on Bible versions in previously unreached cultures are generally less expert in the bib-

lical languages but more conscious of the end-user side of the process, often working in

teams of linguists, Bible teachers, and native speakers of the target language.

1


2/21

if Proverbs is indeed one of the more dicult books to translate, then per-

haps it will give us the best sense of what we are currently prepared todo.

In what follows, four sources will be consideredtwo relatively recent

translations and two recent commentaries. The oldest is (1989), fol-

lowed by (1995), then the two commentaries by Van Leeuwen (1997)

and Murphy (1998).2 While there is a lot that could be said about these

resources, the focus here will be on how well they seem to provide English

readers with material that is otherwise beyond their reach. The material to

be considered is Prov 12, from the middle and largest division of the book.

1 Structure

This central material of Proverbs yields no obvious structure. It contains

few internal headings, and the ow of the text provides no consistent point-

ers to a formal pattern. The sources considered here respond by dividing

the section according to already existing chapters in the standard editions

of the Hebrew or English Bible. , for instance, abandons its use of

lesser divisions marked by blank space in the text and applies headings

only at the chapter divisions in chaps. 1021. identies sections by

blank space only, unless there appears to be a heading in the text. Chaps.

1015 and 16:122:16 constitute the two longest unbroken sections in the

book, and even their division from one another is not obvious. Murphy,

2These are not the only resources that could be considered, nor in hindsight are they

necessarily the best, particularly in the case of the Bible versions. represents what is

normally categorized as formal equivalence translation style. Formal equivalence tends to

retain the form of the source textword order, syntax, and a more rigid correspondence be-

tween lexical elements. This is not to say that a version like never adjusts any of these

factors to produce more natural English wording, but such adjustments tend to be minimal

and unsystematic. is variously classied but seems to t best in the category of dy-

namic equivalence. (These terms seem to have been developed by E. Nida, who apparently

changed his own usage, to refer to functional equivalence. Dynamic equivalence still

seems to be the more popular term, perhaps for no other reason than that it can be easily

abbreviatedDEdistinctly from formal equivalenceFE.) Dynamic equivalence tends to

be more intentional about replacing idiom with idiom but still remains rather close to the

mechanisms of formal equivalence. The third category, which is missing from this analysis

and could arguably be called the state of the art in Bible translation, is meaning-based(MB)the attempt to render the meaning of a text written in one language according to

the way a native speaker of another language would be inclined to communicate the same

thing. I still think there is value in comparing the rst two categories, but there are MB

translations currently in production that are making attempts to render poetry as poetry. I

cant speak for their success, but I think the attempt is a step in the right direction.

2


3/21

who states that his commentary is based on the recognition that the book

is a collection of collections prefaced by an introduction (chaps. 19),attaches headings to a few major sections, but most of his divisions are iden-

tied by blank space only.3 The major section The Proverbs of Solomon

extends from 10:1 to 22:16. Within that section, only chapter breaks are

indicated.4 Van Leeuwen places chap. 12 within The First Solomonic

Collection of Sayings (10:122:16), specically in The Antithetical Col-

lection (10:115:33).5

Headings of chap. 12 itself are accordingly vague. calls it Con-

trast the Upright and the Wicked, while Van Leeuwen simply prints the

rst line of the chapter, and Murphy gives no heading at all. The particu-

lar edition of that I used, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, heads the

pages with generally descriptive titles, which can be a bit dicult to as-sign with any specicity. Vv. 120 appear under the heading The dangers

of wickedness, while vv. 2128 appear under The rewards of wisdom.

Perhaps both can be applied to the whole of chap. 12, at least in some

respects. These headings are extrinsic to itself, however, which pro-

vides no sections and consequently no headings.

None of this is meant to indicate that there is no cohesion within chap.

12 or in Proverbs in general, or that structural arrangements are utterly im-

possible. In his discussion of form and structure, Murphy points to a care-

ful assembling of the proverbs, specically in 12:1413:2, as evidenced by

close similarity between the beginning and end, 12:14a and 13:2a [and]

chiasms and parallel repetitions within this section. He also stresses the

prevailing antithetic parallelism and catch words, as well as the concen-tration on speech in vv. 6, 1323 and the compatible identication of

wisdom and justice.6 Unfortunately, many of the textual indicators that

might point the reader to cohesive elements in the book are obscured in

translation, sometimes inevitably, but sometimes because translators dont

seem to approach the bulk of Proverbs with any particular sense of unity

or cohesion beyond the level of the individual verse.

3Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs (vol. 22 of WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), xix.4Murphy, Proverbs, xlvixlvii.5Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary, and

Reections, in The New Interpreters Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 5:30.6

Murphy, Proverbs, 8889, 94.

3


4/21

2 Sources

In turning to the work of translators and commentators, it is helpful to

have a sense of what they saw themselves doing. This is not to say that

their work should not be evaluated on external criteriapresumably it is

written, or at least published, for the sake of the readers; and as such, they

are accountable to the readers demands. But no one work can accomplish

everything, so perhaps readers owe to translators and commentators the

simple courtesy of trying to discern what they have intended to accomplish.

According to its Foreword, the aims of the are to be true to

the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek [to] be grammatically correct

[and to] be understandable. The translators sought to preserve last-

ing values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and

Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current time-honored

English. Specically, they preferred word-for-word literalness unless

it seemed unacceptable to the modern reader. In such cases, they used

more current English idiom and included more literal renderings in the

notes.7 No justication of this strategy is provided, but it should not be

considered self-evident that being true to the original, being grammat-

ically correct, or being understandable is best accomplished through

word-for-word literalness.

According to their statements To the Reader, the translators of the

took their place in the long line (and increasingly great crowd) of

Bible translators, editors, and revisers, to account for various textual dis-

coveries and philological studies, while following the maxim, As literal aspossible, as free as necessary. They describe the product as essentially

a literal translation, with the major exception of paraphrastic renderings

chiey to compensate for a deciency in the English languagethe lack

of a common gender third person singular pronoun. What this means is

that masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can

be done without altering passages that reect the historical situation of

ancient patriarchal culture. The translators therefore engaged in simple

rephrasing or introducing plural forms when this [did] not distort the

meaning of the passage. What does and does not distort the meaning of a

passage is hardly a matter of well-established policy; but there it is, for the

readers to deal with as they may.8The work of a commentator is much less restricted that that of a transla-

7New American Standard Bible (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, 1995), v.8The New Oxford Annotated Bible (ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy; ;

New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), x-xii.

4


5/21

tor, since the commentary itself may explain much of what the translation

can leave unclear. The NIB does not even include Van Leeuwens owntranslation, providing instead the and in parallel columns. In his

introduction, Murphy stresses the juxtaposition of nouns and predicates,

or nominal sentences. He objects to inserting the copula or the adverb

like and asserts that a literal translation is the best translation in such

instances. Similarly, Murphy anticipates occurrences of what grammar-

ians have called the waw adaequationis, or the and of equivalence, and

suggests that such uses of the conjunction are best left untranslated, by

using instead a dash or comma.9 In an excursus on translating Proverbs,

Murphy amplies his concerns regarding more idiomatic translation, in

which the rhythm and the deliberate density of the Hebrew is attened

out for the sake of clarity. Moreover, the relationship of the subject andpredicate, which may have been ambiguous in the original, is now deter-

mined.10 He goes on to justify his general strategy of literal translation

from two angles. First, the dierent idiom becomes a challenge to the

readerand this purpose is inherent to a proverbial saying.11 Second,

a more literal rendering does justice to the ambiguity of a saying.12 He

does stress, however, that it is the format of a detailed commentary that

provides an opportunity to depart from the traditional style.13 Naturally,

in both commentaries under consideration, it is the authors fuller discus-

sion, not the accompanying translation, that must bear the nal weight of

analysis.

3 Problems

The task of translating a literary piece is a good deal more complex than

might rst appear. Particularly with a work like Proverbs, there are com-

plexities related to its status as poetry, as wisdom literature, as a collec-

tion of relatively self-contained sayings, and as an ancient Hebrew product.

Hopefully a translation or commentary will convey all such aspects to the

9Murphy, Proverbs, xxiii-xxiv.10Murphy, Proverbs, 251.11Without questioning whether proverbs are meant to challenge readers or not, I do have

to wonder whether they were ever intended to do so by sounding linguistically foreign. This

is not to deny a translator or commentator the right to confront readers with the cultural

distance between them and the text; but it does not seem to be in any sense a strategy

driven by some internal purpose of the proverb.12See especially the discussion below of subject/predicate ambiguity.13Murphy, Proverbs, 252.

5


6/21

reader, but with any restricted work, especially with a translation, there

will inevitably be trade-os. This realization should not lead to completedespair, for language is a versatile thing, and it can be used to accomplish

a great deal. Nevertheless, language is inextricably linked to culture and

should not be expected to operate independently of it. The more sophisti-

cated the use of language becomes, the more apparent this challenge seems.

In what follows, some of the problem areas that can be observed in the

treatment of Prov 12 will be addressed in a general arrangement of lin-

guistic phenomena. These features that are sometimes obscured in trans-

lation include: phonological similarity, morphological derivation, word

class, homophony, lexical ambiguity, poetic terminology, topoi, syntactic

ambiguity, unusual word order, syntactic parallelism, noteworthy gram-

matical distinctions, and intertextual connections. The major deciency ofthis arrangement is that many of the issues under consideration are sig-

nicant in ways that transcend their linguistic levels. Nevertheless, the

pre-existing linguistic categories aord a useful beginning point in trying

to lay out the relevant issues systematically. We begin from the bottom,

with the individual phoneme.

3.1 Phonological

English readers have generally come to expect that biblical poetry will not

sound quite like the English poetry we know. Particularly absent is the com-

mon structure of rhyme and meter upon which so much of our own poetry

is based.14 Granted, Hebrew poetry does not use rhyming as commonly asEnglish, but that does not mean it is quite so absent as the English reader

might think from most translations. The rendition of Prov 12:5, for

example, reads, The thoughts of the righteous are just, /Butthe counsels of

the wicked are deceitful. The MT, on the other hand, reads,

/ . It may appear from the English that there is norhyming of any sort in this verse, but there is almost full, word-for-word

rhyming in the Hebrew text. (Admittedly, it may not be a rhyme scheme

that we expect in English poetry, but its probably worth noting nonethe-

less.) Only mipt and mirm fall short, with assonance in both syllables.15

Similarly, v. 6a and v. 7a in Hebrew read, / -

. The rhyming is not as complete, but there does seem to be a sound14For the purposes of this discussion, rhyme is dened as precise matching of the stressed

vowel and what follows it in a word.15Assonance indicates a matching of vowel sounds, without regard for the consonants.

6


7/21

correspondence between the two instances of rm and between rob-

dm in v. 6 and wnm in v. 7. Likewise, v. 1 in Hebrew reads,/ . While there is no full rhyming in the vocalized

pronunciation, there is assonance between hb (twice) in line a and n

in line b and between dat and bar. None of these examples is visible

in the English translations or addressed in either commentary; but perhaps

the very rarity of their occurrence in Hebrew ought to require special at-

tention when they do appear. Instead, the English reader is left completely

unaware of what may or may not be going on at the phonological level.

3.2 Lexical

The level of the lexemeindividual wordsreceives a good deal of treat-

ment in secondary literature, and especially for a translation that tries to

achieve word-for-word literalness or even essential literalness, can be

one of the more fruitful areas of investigation. Unfortunately, in the end

the translator must limit the English representation to one or two words,

which cannot always do justice to what is really going on in Hebrew. This

is especially the case when diering lexical elds force the translator to

use dierent English terms to represent the same Hebrew word in dier-

ent contexts, or vice versa. For the English reader who is trying to trace

textual or intertextual cohesion, such a lack of verbal correspondence can

complicate the task beyond reason. Granted, complications are inevitable

in any such eort, but it may be that a lack of awareness on the part of the

translator is at least partially to blame. This particular issue will be takenup later under the heading of intertextuality; but there are plenty of other

concerns to be addressed at the lexical level.

3.2.1 Derivational Morphology

One relevant issue in the lexicon is that of derivational morphology.

The complexity of Hebrew morphology creates two possible subcategories

within this issue. Not only do words display derivational relationships to

one another that can be used to show cohesion of thought in a passage, but

their derivations occur in fairly regular patterns that also become potential

cohesive devices in themselves. The rst category often can be reproducedin English, at least where we have similar relationships to exploit; but the

second is almost as dicult to preserve in English as the phonological con-

siderations above. Both at the end of v. 5a and at the end of v.

5b, for instance, follow a miqtl pattern. In this case, they end up showing

7


8/21

assonance, as noted above, but the correspondence of derivational pattern

is a deeper issue that sometimes manifests itself in such phonological sim-ilarity. In v. 9, and both follow a segolate pattern.16 Underlying

both is an original qatl form, but their appearance here is quite dierent,

both because of the phonological changes in the language that eliminated

consonant clusters and because is in pause. Other examples of words

of related formation types include and in v. 15, and

in v. 18, and in v. 20, and in v. 23a and in v. 24a.

None of these relationships are observable in the English translations, nor

are they addressed in the commentaries. It is also possible to include in

this category the problem of verbal stem treatment that appears in v. 14.

is written in the Hebrew text, but it is pointed to be read . The

rst appears to be a G verb, while the second is a C verb. and Mur-phy translate it as a G, contrary to normal practice of following the MT;

is so idiomatic as to avoid the problem altogether.17 Both Murphy

and Van Leeuwen make the subject divine if the C reading is accepted, but

neither makes any suggestion as to which stem is more appropriate. 18 Van

Leeuwen goes as far as to suggest that both should be taken together, to

show the unity of divine intention and accidental occurrence.19

The category of words that are derived from common roots fares some-

what better. As noted above, it is possible to trace in English, particularly

in a more literal rendering such as that found in or in Murphy, the

continuity of such forms as righteous, right, and righteousness (from

the Hebrew root ), but sometimes other concerns overrule derivational

consistency and produce forms like honest (v. 17, ). In all threetranslations, in v. 2b and in v. 3a are translated as condemn

and wickedness, respectively, even though they both come from the root

and could be associated by using something like treat wickedly or

return wickedness in v. 2b. (Murphy does identify the linkage in his

commentary.) Likewise, all three render (worker) in v. 9 as ser-

vant and (work) in v. 11 as till, thus hiding the common root

. All three fail to associate (dishonored) in v. 9, variously trans-

lated as lightly esteemed, lightly regarded, and despised, with in

16It is worth noting that Murphy seems to have a mistake here, when he translates v.

9b as than the one who puts on airs, but lacks senseperhaps an error of sight based

on v. 11, which in his translation ends with the same words. Presumably he would haveexplained himself, if he intentionally emended to get sense.

17 reads, and manual labor has its reward.18Murphy, Proverbs, 91.19Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 126.

8


9/21

v. 16, as dishonor and insult. links vv. 15, 20 with counsel

and counselors, but Murphy and render as advice and ascounsel. also renders the N verbal form in v. 16 as show,

which obscures its connection to the other words from the same root as-

sociated with knowledge throughout the passage. Again, it is impossible

to follow every derivational connection in Hebrew with corresponding En-

glish connections; but this is one more way in which the cohesion of a

passage can be obscured.

3.2.2 Word Class

Beyond derivational morphology, another lexical issue in translation is that

of word class. There are not many examples in Prov 12, but at least two

seem signicant. In v. 5a, is rendered as an adjective in all three

translations, even though it is clearly a noun in Hebrew. Likewise,

and render the parallel noun in v. 5b as an adjective. Perhaps

this is not terribly crucial to a correct understanding of the verse, but calling

someones thoughts justice, rather than calling them just, seems to be

something dierent. The adjectival translation also disambiguates the rela-

tionship between subject and predicate in the two verbless clauses, which

in Hebrew is somewhat less clear. Van Leeuwen notes the noun form in the

rst instance, but not in the second, and his comments do little to explain

its signicance.20 Indeed, both commentaries may complicate as much as

they clarify, since they give the impression that one of the two parallel

terms is a noun and the other an adjectiveperhaps a worse situation thanthe consistently adjectival renderings of the versions. A slightly dierent

issue arises in v. 9, where the noun is sometimes repointed to agree

with the participle in the Greek version. Murphy does address the issue

in his commentary, but all three translations render the verse as it stands,

leaving no indication for the reader that another sense might be achieved

with very slight adjustments.21

3.2.3 Homophony

Closely related to the issue of word class is that of homophony. Similarly,

this phenomenon tends to introduce ambiguity into the Hebrew text thatcannot help but be removed by most English translations. The similar-

ity extends further in that homophony can occur between dierent word

20Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 125.21Murphy, Proverbs, 88.

9


10/21

classes. The clearest example in Prov 12 is in v. 1, where can be the

adjective stupid in pausal form or the perfect form of the stative verbto be stupid. The English translation is virtually incapable of showing

a dierence, yet a verbal reading would disambiguate the relationship of

the subject and predicate.22 Perhaps a more interesting example is in v.

27b, where can be an adjective or noun having to do with sharpness

or diligence or a noun meaning gold. This ambiguity combines with the

awkward word order of the line, as discussed below.

3.2.4 Lexical Ambiguity

Another important lexical issue is that of overlapping lexical elds. As is

understood by anyone who has spent much time trying to translate from

one language into another, it is rarely the case that words have a one-to-one

correspondence across linguistic boundaries. The translator must therefore

choose one of various glosses, which can obscure inherent ambiguities. In

Prov 12:2, for instance, the C verb can mean to condemn, as all three

translations and both commentaries take it, with the subject carried over

from the rst line. It can also mean to act wickedly, however, and would

t with in this line as the subject. In vv. 16, 23, Murphy translates

both times with clever, translates it both times with prudent,

and translates it rst as prudent, then as clever. The Hebrew word

allows for both glosses and more, ranging from prudent on the morally

positive end to crafty on the morally negative end. Both verses stress the

notion of concealing ones thoughts, which can be a clever strategy withoutbeing ethical. To gloss it as prudent, however, assumes that the intent

here is morally positive, which may or may not be the case. The

rendering complicates matters still further, since it appears to the reader

that two dierent words are used. On the other hand, Murphy understands

the reexive meaning of the Dt participle in v. 9 as one who puts

on airs, while renders it, self-important. Both glosses are overtly

negative, while the Hebrew term does not seem to be. Perhaps better is the

rendering, he who honors himself, which can be negative in the

right English context but does not have to be. Especially since both place

the text of the rst line under question, it seems that the commentaries

should have noted this ambiguity.23

22As the Masoretes have accented this word, it should, in fact, be taken unambiguously

as a noun.23Murphy, Proverbs, 88; Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 12526.

10


11/21

Other examples relating to this issue of lexical eld include in v.

1, which Murphy renders as instruction, as discipline, and splits the dierence by placing one in the text and the other in a footnote.

Murphy lightly mentions the implication of discipline as a part of instruc-

tion, but Van Leeuwen dwells on the notion of discipline as such without

mentioning the alternative.24 In v. 12, Murphy translates as the

snare of the evil, while reads, the booty of evil men but adds in

a footnote that it literally says net. is somewhat more idiomatic at

this point, reading the proceeds of wickedness in the text but adding the

catch of the wicked in a footnote. Both Murphy and Van Leeuwen con-

tend that the text is too awkward for a clear solution (Van Leeuwen calls

the reading an educated guess),25 but Murphys own translation is

an attempt to read the text as it stands.

26

Still, it seems that if the net itselfor what is in the net are two legitimate readings, the reader might want to

know that; only the reading and note give that information.

The last example is not so much an issue of lexical overlap between

individual words, but of the lexical value of a predicate complex. In v.

10, is rendered variously as has regard for the life of hisanimal, know the temperament of their livestock, and know the needs

of their animals. Probably all three translations are suciently vague, but

the question may be raised as to what yda nepe means, particularly in

reference to livestock. Both terms can be used in a lot of dierent ways, and

how they might qualify one another is not readily obvious. Van Leeuwen

explains the clause in plausible terms, but there is little real evidence to

evaluate whether his understanding is right or wrong.27

3.2.5 Poetic Terminology

One thing that quickly becomes evident in working through a passage such

as this is that there are words used in the Hebrew Bible only or predomi-

nantly in wisdom or poetic contexts. Examples in Prov 12 include (v.

2), (v. 3), (v. 3), (v. 4), (v. 5), (v. 5), (v. 8),

(v. 10), (v. 12), (v. 23), (v. 27), and (v. 28). The

chief diculty is nding a way to express this in translation. Should trans-

lators put the work into nding words that are similarly rare or specialized

in English usage? Will the readers be that much better o for having to24Murphy, Proverbs, 89; Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 124.25Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 126.26Murphy, Proverbs, 90.27Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 126.

11


12/21

use a dictionary as they read their Bibles? It is a hard call to make, and for

many translation committees, such an approach would probably be deemedin violation of their standards of readability. But if the point is to convey

as accurately as possible what is really going on in the Hebrew text, is this

complexity not an aspect of poetry that should be brought out? The editors

of the point to a distinction in the English style used to render the

Old Testament and the New Testament, based on what they believe to be

a distinction between more classical literature and more colloquial.28

What about other literary distinctions? There is no apparent distinction in

the stylistic rendering of these poetic terms between the three translations;

if anything, the renderings are arguably less sophisticated. Nor are

there obvious signs in what they share that words were translated with a

view toward explicitly poetic language. The commentaries, likewise, aresilent on all of the examples cited here.

3.2.6 Topoi

Finally, although it is not a precisely lexical issue, there is the matter of

topoi, or commonplace themes that can trigger associations in the mind of

the reader. Often this triggering can be accomplished through individual

terms, which makes it a lexical issue; but the relevant concepts usually are

not restricted to particular key words that must appear. Consequently, they

often come through in translation, as the themes of sight and sound in Prov

12:15, wounding and healing in v. 18, lasting and transient in v. 19, ruling

and serving in v. 24, and life and death in v. 28. Sometimes, though, theconnections are more subtle, and a careless translation can miss them. In

vv. 11, 12, for instance, all three translations show the theme of farming

in v. 11, but only Murphy makes clear the theme of hunting or trapping

in v. 12. Granted, the text is dicult, as noted above, but the way it

stands, there does seem to be agreement that v. 12 includes a net or snare.

Because both and focus on what is brought in by the net and

use imprecise terminology to do so, the point can be missed. 29

28Oxford, xii-xiii.29Interestingly, the other place in this chapter where hunting seems to turn up is also

problematic textually. appears only in v. 27a, but all three translations follow the

traditional rendering of roast.

12


13/21

3.3 Syntactical

On the level of the individual clause, there are a number of grammatical

features that are signicant and can be missed in translation.

3.3.1 Syntactic Ambiguity

First, there are individual words whose function in the clause is potentially

confusing. renders Prov 12:6a as The words of the wicked lie in

wait for blood. In light of the verbal character of v. 6b, it would be

perfectly natural to think that both clauses are verbal; but v. 6a is actually

verbless, as is more evident in the other translations, which call the words

of the wicked a deadly ambush. The dierence is their treatment of the

G innitive construct , which has verbal qualities but can confuse thereader if it is treated exactly like a nite verb. A similar situation that

can confuse the English reader regarding clause types is seen in the

rendering of v. 18a: Rash words are like sword thrusts. The Hebrew

clause actually starts with the particle , which is a dierent clause type

than the ordinary verbless construction. Murphy notes that this type is

frequent in Proverbs for the purpose of stating a fact. If that is so, then

it should probably be made evident if at all possible in translation, as the

other two begin, There is one . One more issue to address here is the

temporal clause in v. 19b, - , which all three translations rendersomething like only a moment. The precative verb form seems so out

of place here that it is probably a frozen use that may not merit specicrepresentation in translation.

A bit higher up structurally are relationships within genitive construc-

tions. In v. 13a, both versions render as if the evil one is the

victim of the snare.30 Murphy leaves it ambiguous in his translation, but

he assumes that the evil one sets the trap, even if he himself is caught in

it.31 Van Leeuwen, on the other hand, also gives a literal translation but

sides with the versions in favor of an evil victim.32 in v. 1b

is rendered in as those who hate to be rebuked. While this is a

possible reading, it could also mean those who hate to rebuke (or both).

Both Murphy and leave the meaning ambiguous, as it probably should

30 reads: The evil are ensnared by the transgression of their lips. reads: Anevil man is ensnared by the transgression of his lips.

31Murphy, Proverbs, 90. His translation reads: In the transgression of the lips, an evil

trap.32Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 126. His translation reads: In the transgression of the lips

is an evil trap.

13


14/21

be,33 although Murphy does seem to come down on the objective side in

his commentary, as does Van Leeuwen.34

There is a similar ambiguity in v.5b ( ), which all three translations preserve (unintentionally, it

would seem).35

On the level of the whole clause, there does seem to be a common trait

of Hebrew proverbs that the relationship between subject and predicate is

frequently ambiguous. Because English lacks a proper verbless clause, this

is a dicult phenomenon to reproduce in translation, except perhaps by

Murphys strategy of leaving the translation basically word-for-word. Both

lines of v. 1 are ambiguous, since stupid can be an adjective. and

together render it as if the initial participles are the subjects of their

respective lines, but they could just as easily be the predicates. The two

versions, on the other hand, take the initial participle in v. 15b as thepredicate. Murphy joins them, oddly, in disambiguating v. 23a to make

the participle predicative and in making folly the object of the verb in

v. 23b, rather than the subject. Granted, in most such instances it can be

determined with reasonable certainty which component is more assumed,

but unfortunately that thought process escapes the English reader.

3.3.2 Unusual Word Order

Some nal problems with word order need to be observed. Although He-

brew can be more exible than English in this respect, there are basic limits

to how words can be positioned, even in poetry it would seem. In v. 27b,

all three translations make roughly the same sense out of the individualwords, but they dont seem to t together in any obvious way. Murphy

suggests that the verse needs to be emended and settles on transposing the

last two words to yield, but the wealth of a diligent person is precious.36

seems to stick with the order of the words as they stand but treats

the nal adjective as a noun: but the precious possession of a man is

diligence. seems to read something similar to Murphys suggestion,

with a note that the meaning is uncertain: but the diligent obtain precious

33Murphys translation reads: But a hater of reproof, stupid! reads: But he who

hates reproof is stupid.34Murphy, Proverbs, 89; Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 124.35

reads: The advice of the wicked is treacherous. reads: But the counselsof the wicked are deceitful. Murphys translation reads: The guidance of the wicked,

deceit!36Murphy, Proverbs, 88.

14


15/21

wealth.37 Murphy also emends v. 28b, which seems awkward with two

words for path or way. He reads for and for as theway of abomination, to death. seems to read the two road-words

together as in walking its path there is no death, and perhaps omits

one as in its pathway there is no death. It may be that the line is incom-

prehensible without emendation, or another alternative not mentioned in

any of the sources is simply to take as in construct: That path is

the road without death. Then again, the awkward structure may be an

intentional device of the poet, which the need to render more selectively

in English will eectively obscure.

Above the level of the clause, it gets a bit more dicult to set specic

boundaries, especially in Proverbs. The chapter divisions do not seem ter-

ribly signicant, but neither is the whole book one indistinguishable mass.The introductory material and the concluding chapters seem to be more

structured, even if this middle section is not. It is dicult, therefore, to

know where to draw the line between intertextual issues and lower-level

relationships. This section will be restricted to phenomena that aect struc-

ture and cohesion on a demonstrably low level that is hard to dene more

technically than within a few verses. Such issues as pronoun antecedence

and parallel clause structure would tend to fall under this umbrella, since

their associations can only be sustained so long before they drop out of the

readers memory.

Because of the self-contained nature of these proverbs, there is generally

little need to look beyond the boundaries of a single verse in the search for

pronominal antecedents. Nevertheless, there is still room for ambiguity inplaces, as in v. 2, where the subject of the verb in the second line is in

question on more than one level. As discussed above, if the sense is act

wickedly, the subject is probably the man mentioned in the same line.

If, on the other hand, the sense is condemn, then this man becomes the

object of the verb, and the subject must be carried over from the preceding

line. It would make good sense grammatically for the subject to be the same

in both lines, but it would also make sense semantically for the subject of

the second line to be divine. Because both Murphy and inect the

verb in the rst line as plural, the singular antecedent is disambiguated

for the English reader. Likewise, Van Leeuwen explicitly states that God is

the one who condemns, although it is unclear how he knows this.38 Even37If this line is using the gure of hypallage (exchanging syntactic references of words),

perhaps emendation can be avoided altogether. The double sense of diligent/gold for

may combine with the awkward word order to produce a pun.38Van Leeuwen, Proverbs, 125.

15


16/21

more problematic are the feminine object suxes on the two verbs in v.

25, since the only feminine noun in the verse is the rst subject.39

Bothversions make them refer to the heart, while Murphy takes them with

reference to the person. He is probably right, that the sense of the verse is

the same regardless, but it does leave ambiguous whether the heart or the

person is in view.40

3.3.3 Syntactic Parallelism

The issue of parallelism is an overworn one, but it seems possible at least

to watch for specic parallel structures in the syntax and word order of

the lines. They may not all be signicant, but the English reader is at a

disadvantage when they are lost in translation. In vv. 17b, 18b, for in-

stance, the syntax is exactly parallel: a singular noun in construct with a

plural substantive comes rst as the subject of a verbless clause, while an

abstract noun serves as the predicate. They are nearly opposite semanti-

cally, as well. Both and insert words that upset this parallel,

while Murphys more literal rendering preserves it. In the Hebrew of v. 14,

- at the start of the rst line and - ) at the startof the second line, even though the syntactical roles are dierent, are quite

similar structurally. They begin with a triple construct: rst an abstract

noun of production, then a body part used guratively, then a noun indi-

cating a person; this complex is followed in both lines by the verb. Both

and Murphy lose this parallel sequence, and what preserves, it

obscures with an idiomatic rendering of the second line. The rendering ofthe participles by and in v. 1 loses the parallel between the two

lines: participle in construct with noun, participle in construct with noun;

participle in construct with noun, adjective. Both versions treat the rst

participle as subject in both lines and the second participle in the rst line

as a verb. A related issue is chiasm, which reverses the parallel structure.

There seem to be chiasms in vv. 4, 19, and 26, but they are almost always

obscured by the versions and even by Murphy in v. 26, despite his desire

to preserve the Hebrew structure. He notes only v. 19, while Van Leeuwen

fails to mention them at all.41

39That subject, in turn, disagrees with the masculine gender of its verb!

40Murphy, Proverbs, 88.41Murphy, Proverbs, 91.

16


17/21

3.3.4 Noteworthy Grammatical Distinctions

Finally, there are issues that may be best classied as gratuitous obscurings

of noteworthy distinctions. These are cases where for one reason or another

a potential point of contrast will go unnoticed by English readers because

of the way the translation diverges from the grammar of the Hebrew text.

In v. 16a, for instance, uses an active translation for the N verb,

which, while semantically correct, may obscure the distinction between

the passive revelation of the fools anger and the active concealment on the

part of the prudent, highlighted in Hebrew by the dierent stem forms used.

All three translations fail to show in v. 21 that the righteous is singular,

while the wicked are plural. In v. 23, the clever ones action is expressed

with a participle, while that of fools is expressed with a nite verb. None

of the translations shows this. Finally, none of the three translations showsin v. 17 that the rst line comprises two juxtaposed verbal clauses, while

the second line is verbless. Perhaps it is insignicantperhaps all of these

observations arebut the English reader will never know, even if he checks

Murphys or Van Leeuwens commentary.

3.4 Intertextual

The nal level to be considered is the intertextual. Commentaries are ob-

viously better on this count than mere translations (at least, as far as the

translations are concerned, apart from whatever aids a particular edition

may add); but it seems that translations can be more or less helpful, de-pending on how consistently they render key terms. As noted earlier, it

is impossible to translate the same word the same way everywhere it ap-

pears and end up with a workable translation. Still, especially in a book

like Proverbs where the reader almost has no choice but to read intertex-

tually, since practically every verse could be considered a text unto itself,

it seems that more careful attention should be given to the preservation of

such cues. The following words are problematic within each of the three

translations of Prov 12:

Verse Hebrew Murphy Compare

2 favor favor favor 22

2 - - 8, 14, 253 nd a solid support nd security 19

3 one one 14, 23, 27

5 treacherous 17, 20

8 person one 2, 25

8 heart mind 11, 25

17


18/21

Verse Hebrew Murphy Compare

9 lack 11

11 be satised have enough have plenty 14

11 have no 9

11 sense sense 8, 20, 23, 25

12 wickedness 13, 20, 21

13 evil 12, 21

14 person one 2, 25

14 have plenty be lled be lled 11

14 manual 24

14 his - 3, 23, 27

15 way 28

16 ignore 23

16 prudent 23

17 truth truth 22

17 honest 2817 false false 19, 22

17 deceitfully 5

19 endure endure 3

19 lying lying 17

20 deceit 5

20 heart mind 11, 25

20 evil 12, 21

21 trouble 12, 13, 20

22 lying lying 17

22 faithfully faithfully 17

22 delight pleasure delight 2

23 person one 3, 14, 27

23 clever 16

23 conceal 16

23 heart mind 11, 25

24 hand 14

25 heart heart 8, 11, 20, 23

25 person human 2, 8, 14

26 way 28

27 person - 3, 14, 23

28 righteousness 17

28 walking 15, 26

Both Murphy and Van Leeuwen are good about noting cross references

to other passages within Proverbs, but it is worth noting that Murphys

translations of key words do not match in the following: as resourceful(12:4) vs. of valor (31:10); as disappear (12:7) vs. no (10:25); ,

, and as the tiller, have enough, and nothings (v. 11) vs.

whoever works, get plenty of, and empty goals (28:19).

18


19/21

4 Conclusion

In the end, it seems that a lot more could be done to convey the language

of proverbs to an English-speaking audience than is seen in current prod-

ucts. This is not to argue for a more literal, in the sense of word-for-word,

translation; on the contrary, it is to suggest that so much more is present

in poetic wisdom material than the individual words, or even phrases or

verses. Much of its linguistic quality as poetry is lost in translation, which

in turn tends to diminish its rhetorical force as proverbial wisdom teaching.

The answer is probably not a mechanical reconstruction of Hebrew poetry

in English dress; rather, it seems that the linguistic power of Proverbs can

only be restored for English readers with a thorough metamorphosis that

produces real, poetic, English proverbs. One would think that after four

centuries of English Bible translation something on this order ought to have

been achieved.

What I would propose, then, is that translations ought to translate,

and commentaries ought to comment. A bit more specically, transla-

tions and commentaries intended primarily for the English reader should

be developed with the only fundamental assumption appropriate to the en-

deavorthat the intended readership does not understand one word of He-

brew. When an English reader approaches a text like Proverbs, the goal is

not to understand Hebrew poetry as such but to understand the text. Since

an English reader cannot engage the Hebrew text, only what is available

in the English translation is accessible for analysis. Translations should

therefore be as poetic, dynamic, polyvalent, rhetorically forcefulas ca-pable of meaningas the source text. Commentaries should augment this

meaning potential by discussing features that cannot be rendered straight-

forwardly in translation, especially where ambiguity of one sort or another

forces translators to produce more specic renderings than what the source

text seems to exhibit. In this way, commentaries can serve the needs of the

English reader by explaining, for instance, why two translations appear to

dier in meaning.

I make no pretense that every feature addressed here is always rele-

vant or that a perfect translation is possible, but I do think that some basic

steps can be taken to improve translation eorts. Poetic material should

be translated as poetry. What is structural to Hebrew poetry should beconverted into structural features appropriate to English poetry, and what

is ornamental to what is ornamental. (For instance, something should be

done with rhyming that appears in Hebrew poetry, but since rhyming is of-

ten structural to English poetry, it should probably be represented by some

19


20/21

other feature.) Overtly poetic language (rare vocabulary, varied word or-

der, etc.) should be reected where appropriate. There is nothing wrongwith good English poetry requiring a native English speaker to use a dic-

tionary every now and then; the same ought to be true of translated po-

etry. Polyvalence should be preserved as much as possible. This is not to

say that the vague or ambiguous constructions of Hebrew need to be re-

produced verbatim; but English can also be vague or ambiguous in its own

waysways that should be employed by translators. Finally, consideration

needs to be given to the rhetorical features of Proverbs. The translation of

each verse should be tested for rhetorical force against that of the source

text. Additionally, more attention should be given to the arrangement of

the proverbial material in both translations and commentaries. Perhaps a

comprehensive structure to the book will elude scholars for some time yet;but at least what can be observed should be presented to the English reader.

My nal recommendation is a cooperative eort between idiosyncrasy

and plurality in both translation and commentary. Instead of hiding trans-

lators behind an assumption of transparency and objectivity, treating them

as mere conduits for an uninterpreted, uncolored message from source to

reader, they should be recognized for the unique authors that they are (or

should be). The work of the translator, especially with more artful liter-

ature, is often as creative as that of the original writer. Far from mere

copying of someone elses message, the translator is required to encounter

the text, internalize its meaning, and generate a new text out of that mean-

ing. I dont see how the translation can have anywhere near the power

of the source text, as long as the translator shies away from this creativeenterprise. A plurality of such unique productions would provide multiple

readings for the English reader to considerto compare and contrastand

similarly plural commentary would help to explain how these readings are

generated. The end result would be a wealth of English reection on the

Hebrew text, which no English reader could easily exhaust in the search

for meaning.

References

[1] Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. The NewBrown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Ap-

pendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

1979.

20


21/21

[2] Joon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia biblica 14. Trans-

lated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Ponticio IstitutoBiblico, 1996.

[3] Koehler, Ludwig et al., eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Study ed. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

[4] Murphy, Roland E. Proverbs. Vol. 22 of Word Biblical Commentary.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

[5] New American Standard Bible. Anaheim: Foundation Publications,

1995.

[6] The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and

Roland E. Murphy. . New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

[7] Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. The Book of Proverbs: Introduction,

Commentary, and Reections. Pages 17264 in vol. 5 of The New

Interpreters Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abing-

don, 1997.

21

Ancient Hebrew Proverbs in 21st Century America

Documents

Transcript of Ancient Hebrew Proverbs in 21st Century America