Some translators and translations have agendas, and some are just lazy. Whatever the reason, let’s look at a very simple occurrence of the preposition ב, and how the NIV, ESV, NLT, NET, and even JPS manage to mess it up. Do you see agenda? Do you see carelessness? Or do you think we’re off the wall?
Exodus 6.3
וארא אל־אברהם אל־יצחק ואל־יעקב באל שדי ושמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם
NIV - I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.
ESV – I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.
NLT – I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, though I did not reveal my name, the LORD, to them.
NET – I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name ‘the LORD’ I was not known to them.
JPS – I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them by My name.
WBC – Even John Durham of the WBC translates as, though he footnotes that ב might “literally” be thought of “in the person of”.
For some reason, the translators of these various versions seem to have forgotten some very basic biblical Hebrew- the difference between ב (bet) and כ (kaf). כ is most often understood like or as in English, and while ב has many usages (in or through work best here), as is not one of them.
We translate – I let myself be seen to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob in EL SHADDAI, but my name YHWH I did not make known to them.
Old Related Posts: Mike Heiser and Claude Mariottini.
“Or do you think we’re off the wall?”
“Or”? Why not “And”? And we think the LXX translators were as off the wall:
καὶ ὤφθην πρὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ,
θεὸς ὢν αὐτῶν,
καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου κύριος οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς·
Both Lancelot Brenton and Larry J. Perkins (NETS) find English for this Greek to be “being their God.”
JK,
As Calvin has noted, this seems to be the bet essentiae reading of the text. Is it off the wall? One of us is.
I agree that on a basic level ב means in, with, among and כ means like, as. But to say that “as” is not a meaning of ב might be a little too specific. There are plenty of places where it is normally translated “as,” (Ps. 35.2, Is 40.10, Dt. 10.22, Ez. 46.16, Nu. 26.53, among others). The specific example which you bring up is listed in both Dictionary of Classical Hebrew and BDB as an example of the beth essentiae. In other words, it denotes the predicate “as that in which the subj. consists, or in which it shews itself,” (BDB, “ב” cf. GKC 119i, IBHS 11.2.5e, JM 133c). van der Merwe doesn’t specifically list this type of ב in his grammar, though he does say “The examples below, however, attest to the fact that בְּ in BH has a more general meaning than ‘in’ or ‘within’. It is a preposition that is not very specialized semantically,” (section 39.6).
I think that the translators have not forgotten any basic Hebrew, but rather have learned that Hebrew is more complex than one might be lead to believe at first.
As for which translation is best…there is no best translation. One ought to learn Hebrew, and read the text for themselves.
Calvin,
According to the OG info JK provides, it seems the LXX agrees with you (and Mike Heiser here, though Mike takes it a bit farther).
D&T, of course–but the question is do you agree with me? Or perhaps I’m just off the wall?
Calvin,
A second look at the examples you’ve invoked-
Ps 35.2 – The subject that the predicate would allegedly refer to is implicit within an imperative phrase, not explicitly stated as in Ex 6.3. Close, but not the same.
Is 40.10 – Not bet essentiae. Adverbial modifier.
Dt 10.22 – Great example of bet essentiae
Ezk 46.16 – textbook example of “through”
Num 26.53 – Which ב? Our current understanding is “For these (601,730 Israelites in v51), the land will be divided up, due to inheritance customs, by number of names.” But how does the subject consist of the predicate in this example?
So far, only one example you’ve given is a clear-cut bet essentiae (though I don’t mind conceding that Ex 6.3 is also. But if we do go there, we ought to go all the way a la Mike Heiser)
Thanks for coming back with thoughts so quickly!
D&T
Ps 35.2 – I still think this is an example of what we’re talking about. It may be part of an imperative phrase which lacks an explicit subject, but the ב still functions to indicate essence. The Psalmist implores God to arise as his help–that is, God is supposed to be this person’s help.
Is 40.10 – Adverbial modifier is certainly a possible way of reading this, “Lord YHWH comes mightily.” We could also translate “Lord YHWH comes with might,” or “Lord YHWH comes through might,” or any other number of possibilities. I think one of those is “Lord YHWH comes as strength.” I’m not saying that is the correct way to translate it, I’m saying it is one possibility.
Ez 46.16 – “through” works, as does “by.” Again, my point was not that there was no other way to translate it, but rather that seeing it as a ב of essence and translating “as,” is one possibility among many.
Num 26.53 – The first ב thus translate, “the land will be divided, as an inheritance, according to the number…”
My point here isn’t so much to say these verses are clear examples where ב can only be translated “as,” but rather to say that there are examples where several translations translate as such–or at the least that there is an argument to be made for translating it in such a way.
I’d do a search in Accordance for this verb ראה followed the bet. I don’t have the time to do a thorough search, but I did find 4 instances where the bet is used to indicate the word that would be an English direct object. Thus, a bet of “transitivity” (Williams §244). Check Gen 44:34, Ex 2:11, Num 11:15 and Deut 1:33.
This is not a direct match to your situation because in your example we have a Niphil, wayyiqtol, first person. Nevertheless, it is easier to “understand” in the Hebrew than to translate into (for example) English.
I’m just saying that you need to be careful with bet. It has many, many uses (as I’m sure you are aware and as Calvin quoted from BDB).
The reason that BHRG doesn’t deal explicitly with this occurence is because Christo wants to focus on the forms most likely to be encountered by students. The current edition of BHRG is not comprehensive (on purpose). I think his expanded/updated grammar will examine all occurrences and give percentages to show how frequently a particular kind of use occurs.
And as to agenda. Why, every translator has an agenda!
I figured that BHRG didn’t mention it for that reason. One does, eventually, have to stop listing things if a book is going to be useful to intermediate students.
I also agree completely that translators having agendas!
I’m pretty sure that if the author had used כ it would have changed the meaning of the verse. If כ had been used, it would mean, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai (did).”
In other words,
1. Adonai appeared to xyz like El Shaddai had appeared to xyz at some previous point in time, or
2. Adonai appeared in the same manner that El Shaddai is in the habit of appearing.
If the author wanted to say that Adonai appeared in the form (or perhaps we should say “guise”) of El Shaddai, as we have here, I don’t believe he would have used כ.
In regards to this כ/ב discussion and translation theory, I think what we have here is just English confusion. “As” in English can encompass both the ב essentiae and some meanings of כ. However, in the case of this translation, I don’t think any English reader is going to misunderstand the meaning to be #1 or #2 above, so “as” is a perfectly acceptable English translation.
Of course, translation theory isn’t my specialty. I agree with Calvin, everyone should just read Hebrew.
Prepositions, prepositions, prepositions…
Very helpful thoughts Mandy.
Karyn, every translator has an agenda. So everyone should learn Hebrew, Calvin and Mandy. And English, Mandy. Greek too – as it’s as ambiguous (maybe even as if it’s ambiguous
).
Thucydides has the Greek phrase (ὢν αὐτῶν, Book 1 chapter 136 section 1 line 3 of his History) which goes at least a couple of different directions, depending on the English translator.
So back to LXX: θεὸς ὢν αὐτῶν doesn’t have to be analogous to ב essentiae (just because Brenton and Perkins translate as “being their God”), does it? Isn’t it quite plausible (if off the wall) to read θεὸς alone as an appositive of the implied subject of the verb ὤφθην. In English: “I appeared…, God.” And ὢν αὐτῶν could be there as an emendation. “I appeared…, God – who is theirs.” If it really were some ב essentiae equivalent, then why not just θεὸς αὐτῶν (without ὢν) as a lighter, more prepositionish genitive construct? Or “I appeared…, that God of theirs.”
Now that I’ve proposed ambiguity in the Greek, the LXX translators (we’d all agree) weren’t trying to confuse anybody. Their agenda might well have been OG in 6.3. Look, for example, at Exodus 3.14, where they leave little interpretive wiggle room with their literal “Ἑγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν” and “Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.” The name of God is spelled out in 3.14 and is not κύριος as in 6.3 – which (to me anyway) speaks to the essentiae importance of ὤν in 6.3. Translator laziness perhaps and definitely an agenda, and delightfully off the wall.
I should have made clear that I love your translation Daniel and Tonya, and I love “off the wall.” That that’s what I meant by yours and the LXX’s being off the wall – albeit in different ways.
Great discussion.
I read it as “in” as well, but I’ll admit that could have easily been an effect of my grammar-influenced translations which tend to occur in initial readings.
You know,I think we are sometimes unfair when we try to describe the Hebrew language so consistently. We don’t do this for English. I’m going to make a few comments and then move on…
Speaking of moving “on,” let us consider this mighty preposition (along with its cousin “in”). We get ON the train, but IN the car. We may get IN a train, but never ON a car (unless we are climbing onto the roof). If the train arrives according to schedule, it is ON time. But if I rush to get to the station just as the train arrives, I say I am just IN time. And if I somehow missed the train, I would say I am IN trouble. A native speaker of English would not be confused, but if you were a foreigner trying to write a descriptive grammar (or better, a person from the far future) you would be hard pressed to find a consistent explanation for usage.
It is not only syntax that we must pay attention to, but also (and probably more importantly) semantic frame that will give us the proper understanding of how a word is to be understood.
Ha! prepositions. I think one can do with them as with tense and aspect – almost anything! But I have my tongue in my cheek just a bit. There are long prepositions and short ones, connected and disconnected, and some that are just implied in the verb itself. I listed the ways I have used ‘against’ in my translation of Job so far here. Is it careless? (tiring!) or just that precision is not so careful as we might think it ought to be.
Good post, thanks. This is another example of why we should spend time studying the original Hebrew text of the Scriptures. Then you won’t have to worry about how to translate it. The hours people spend over different translations would be better spend over the Hebrew text itself
Absolutely! It’s nice to know the best way to translate something into English, but it’s better to be able to understand how Hebrew works – in Hebrew.
Robert Alter, who understands how Hebrew works – in Hebrew – just about as well as anyone, I think, has this:
“And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but in My name the LORD I was not known to them.”
Alter loathes any translation that will (attempt) to make the difficult Hebrew more comprehensible than it is (an attempt he calls “the heresy of explanation.”) Fortunately, Alter does offer some explanation of the Hebrew in footnotes, which, as often, also give insight into his translation agenda. Here’s the long note on Exodus 6.3. It points to some of the Hebrew as a rendering, possibly, if not an outright borrowing of Canaanite terms. And it touches on – not Alter’s decision to use the English pronoun “as” but his choice in the preposition “in”:
“The designation El Shaddai, which is in fact used a total of five times in the Patriarchal Tales, is an archaic, evidently Canaanite combination of divine names. El was the high god of the Canaanite pantheon, though the Hebrew term is also a common noun meaning ‘god.’ No satisfactory explanation for the meaning or origin of the name Shaddai has been made, but some scholars link it with a term for ‘mountain,’ and others associate it with fertility. The usage of ‘in My name’ is a little odd because there is no equivalent here for ‘in’ (b [+ superscript]e) in the Hebrew. William H. C. Propp has proposed that the ellipsis implies a distinction of meaning, but the grounds for such an inference seem rather tenuous. Were the patriarchs in fact ignorant of the name YHWH? It is true that Genesis has no special episode involving the revelation of the syllables and mystery of this divine name, as we have here in 3:13-16; but there is also no indication that the name was withheld from the patriarchs, and the Primeval History reports that the invocation of this name goes back to the time of Enosh son of Seth (Genesis 4:26). Source critics see this passage as striking evidence for the original autonomy of the Priestly source, which does not share J’s assumption that the name YHWH was known to the patriarchs. All the sources drawn together in the Exodus narrative assume that it was only on the threshold of God’s intervention in history to liberate Israel that He revealed His unique name to the whole people.” – pages 339-40, The Five Books of Moses
May I butt in here? I realize that the discussion on this particular thread has already stopped, but I couldn’t help but comment on something I saw. [I have other thoughts, too, but no time to develop them right away in this post.]
“Hebrew Student” had written:
>This is another example of why we should spend time studying the original Hebrew text of the Scriptures. Then you won’t have to worry about how to translate it. The hours people spend over different translations would be better spend over the Hebrew text itself >
I don’t see how the second sentence follows from the first. As a professor of Greek and Hebrew, I *wholeheartedly* endorse the first statement and am trying with all my might to convince students that they *ought* to spend time studying the biblical texts in their original languages. But just because I succeed in doing so, does it then follow that I don’t have to worry about translating the text? Studying the text of Exod 6:3 in Hebrew is certainly a good thing, but there’s still the problem of *understanding* what the Hebrew grammar is trying to communicate to the reader. If you know what the Hebrew grammar is communicating, then you will in the nature of the case have to provide some rendering in the language that you think in–whether in your own mind or on paper for Dr. so-and-so. It’s a translation whether it’s a loose paraphrase or a tight one-for-one rendering, whether it’s mental or given through some medium. Anyone who seeks to *understand* a Hebrew construction will, in the nature of the case, be involved in some level of translation work. Even a native speaker of modern Hebrew, when seeking to understand a classical Hebrew syntactical expression, will explain that Hebrew expression by *rendering it* with other Hebrew words–and that’s translation work.
In other words, everyone on the thread *already* reads Hebrew. The problem is that not everyone *understands* the Hebrew in the same way, and those different understandings will evidence themselves in different renderings. It’s impossible to think that we can focus on the Hebrew and never have to worry about translating the Hebrew that we’re conceptualizing. Any thoughts?
Phillip Marshall makes some compelling points here, saying to “focus on the Hebrew” cannot ever mean we “never have to worry about translating the Hebrew that we’re conceptualizing.”
D&T started off with an equally compelling question: “Do you see agenda?” It’s a great question when Jewish ancient Hebrew readers translate “the preposition ב” into Greek either as “ὢν” or as nothing at all (i.e., “πρὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ, [-0-]
θεὸς”). Likewise, we do wonder whether there’s an agenda or just a lazy copying of the the Revised Version and American Standard Version, when the Jewish Max Margolis leads a translator on his JPS team to translate “ב” as “as”; that translator likely knew some modern Hebrew as well as ancient Hebrew and English in 1915.
In addition, Robert Alter by mimicking JPS with “as El Shaddai” betrays both his agenda and his “understanding” of the Biblical Hebrew. In his preface to his translation of “The Five Books of Moses,” Alter gives his “understanding” of Hebrew:
“[T]he language of the canonical texts was not identical with the vernacular. . . . [T]he language of biblical narrative in its own time was stylized, decorous, dignified, and readily identified by its audiences as a language of literature, in certain ways distinct from the language of quotidian reality. . . . vernacular syntax and grammar probably differed in some ways from their literary counterparts. . . . The plausible conclusion is that the Hebrew of the Bible is a conventionally delimited language, roughly analogous in this respect to the French of the neoclassical theater: it was understood by writers and their audiences, at least in the case of narrative, that only certain words were appropriate for the literary rendering of events.”
In a fn to his own translation of Exodus 6.3, he betrays his agenda to interact with JEDP, and more to suggest that there is absolutely “no indication that the name [i.e., YHWH] was withheld from the patriarchs.” Thus, he explains how liberal he can be with an English preposition in this verse: “The usage of ‘in My name’ is a little odd because there is no equivalent here for ‘in’ (b [+ superscript]e) in the Hebrew.”
Given that, I think Alter might really like, as a good English translation, D&T’s plausible rendering “in EL SHADDAI, but my name YHWH I did not make known to them.”