Note: All comments are moderated. Anybody that wishes to post a comment must phrase it in a way that is relevant to the discussion and not incendiary.
Notwithstanding my preference for the KJV and NKJV and any formal equivalent translation based on the Byzantine or Majority texts, I'm not one of these guys that likes to bash translations other than the KJV. In fact, I believe that the King James translators themselves were incredibly theologically astute when they stated,
"Now to the latter, we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen one of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where." ("The Translators to the Reader," in the section "An answer to the imputations of our adversaries").
Having said that, I am about to strongly criticize the NET, which for a long time I have considered to be a lower quality translation in the OT (not quite as lower quality in the NT). A recent study in sermon preparation has, sadly, reinforced that opinion. In the spirit of Christian brotherly-love, however, I offer here two points of appreciation of the NET before my criticism:
1. I fully applaud their work in making the NET freely available. It can be freely downloaded, legally. While in this day and age being totally copyright free may be difficult for a new Bible translation (and even the King James is still technically copyrighted in Great Britain), the people behind the NET have the right idea. This is not a minor matter and should be applauded.
2. The NET notes are [usually] awesome. Seriously, it's like a free commentary on every verse of the Bible written by top scholars, accessible anytime you have internet access. I have personally benefitted multiple times by their notes in my own translation work from Hebrew into Japanese. Ironically, their notes have often benefitted me precisely at those points where I felt the translation was flawed. So, dear reader, consider the NET less for its translation value and more for its commentary value.
Now my criticism. The other day I was writing a sermon and basing a key point off of the expression לְשֵׁם יְהוָה in 1 Kings 10:1. Now, I was already comfortable with seeing the lamed preposition as a preposition of reference, or what Arnold and Choi call "specification," (4.1.10.h), "with regard to." Still, I wanted to see the NET notes (2nd edition.) because, as I have already strongly stressed, they function as a top-notch technical commentary in exegetical matters.
To my surprise, the NET omits the phrase entirely in the text of the translation. "When the queen of Sheba heard about Solomon, she came to challenge him with difficult questions." Compare this to even the NLT (very much a "functionally equivalent" translation), which retains the phrase as "which brought honor to the name of the LORD," perhaps a debatable translation decision but, still, at least the NLT didn't omit the entire phrase like the NET!!!!!!
To be clear, there is no textual basis for the NET's decision to omit the phrase. Even the LXX has καὶ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου, slightly different, but the Hebrew original is still reflected in the text.
So why did the NET omit the phrase? Here is the NET's note on the matter (2nd edition.):
“tc The Hebrew text also has, ‘to the name of the LORD,’ which is very awkward due to its unusual syntax. The phrase is omitted in the parallel passage in 2 Chr 9:1. The word ‘report’ is followed by the preposition ל (lamed) in Isa 23:5 and Hos 7:12 and indicates whom the message came to. And otherwise the collocation of לְשֵׁם (lᵉshem, ‘to the name’) does not follow either a proper noun or the word report elsewhere in scripture. If retained, perhaps it should be translated, ‘for the reputation of the LORD.’”
So basically they omitted the phrase because it was "very awkward due to its unusual syntax"? Seriously? As if Hebrew scholars were all in complete agreement as to what constitutes "unusual syntax" anyways? As if the inspired biblical authors are not allowed to use "awkward" expressions if it fits their theological, discourse, or rhetorical agenda better? As if commentaries throughout the centuries have not grappled with the construction and offered suitable explanations? (C. F. Keil, in Keil and Delitzsch's commentary from 150 years ago, far from being outdated, offers a helpful discussion with a reasonable explanation of this very expression).
Furthermore, despite the fact that the NET notes are usually good, their syntactical analysis for 1 Kings 10: 1 is not up to their normal standards, in my opinion. A mere two references where שֵׁמַע is followed by the preposition lamed is inadequate to establish what is awkward syntax and what is not. An Accordance search (שֵׁמַע followed by within three words לְ) indicates that there are only 5 verses with this relationship between the two words. This is not nearly enough to presume that its occurrence in 1 Kings 10:1 is somehow "awkward," besides the bigger issue of why something deemed "awkward" should be dropped.
Furthermore, the variety of meanings that lamed can have when prefixed to "name" (שֵׁם) is very clear in such passages as Numbers 26:55, Joshua 7:9, Joshua 9:9, Judges 13:18, etc. etc. Notice especially Judges 9:9, which has the exact expression לְשֵׁם יְהוָה. In fact, is it hypothetically possible that the author of 1 Kings 10:1 might be deliberately mimicking the language of Joshua 9:9, considering the similar context? (I would not call this an allusion, per se; perhaps more like an "echo," to borrow Richard Hays' term). At least the possibility should be considered.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the expression לְשֵׁם יְהוָה is not merely providing factual data. It has deep theological significance that I intend on exploring in a sermon I am preaching soon at a missions conference.
It is not my desire to be overly-harsh, and I know that the Holy Spirit can still use the NET to save and sanctify, but seriously, folks, omitting an entire phrase in the text of the translation, without any textual (i.e., text-critical) justification, is totally inexcusable. I hope any 3rd edition, if published, will correct that (and also the NET rendering of Isaiah 7:14, but that's another discussion for another time).
Sources cited:
The New English Translation. 2nd edition.
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
The King James Translators. "The Translators to the Reader )Original King James Bible Preface)." Appendix A in Translation that Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible. Edited by David G. Burke. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Accordance Bible Software, version 13.4.2. OakTree Software, 2022.
No comments:
Post a Comment