Isaiah 24:3b-5a
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:45 am
Dear List-members,
I present a small portion of my translations from the prophets with comments where the nuances and subtleties of the text are marked. (From my book: The Fallacy of Prophetic Perfect With Translations of Verses from the Prophets). First I present a word for word translation, and then I present a normal translation.
24:3b
For yhwh speak (perfect) word this.
For Yehowa himself has spoken (perfect) this word.
The Hebrew has five words, and my translation has seven words. In most cases, the verb stands before the subject. But in this clause, the subject, yhwh, stands before the verb. This shows that the subject is stressed, and I express this by using the pronoun “himself.”
24:4a
mourn (perfect) wither (perfect) the land.
It will indeed mourn (perfect), the land will certainly wither (perfect).
The Hebrew text has three words, and my translation has nine words. The syntax of 4a is the opposite of the syntax in 3a. In 3a, the subject, “the land,” was connected with the first verb. In connection with the second verb, the same subject was implied, and it was expressed by “it.” In 4a, the subject “the land” is connected with the second verb. In connection with the first verb, the same subject is implied and is expressed by “it.”
A strong emphasis is expressed by the three Hebrew words. First, the two perfects stand side by side without any waw that is connecting them, and both are sentence initial. Second, there is a play of words because the spelling of the two verbs with slightly different meanings differs only in one letter—the verbs are ’ābal and nābal.
The first verb with the meaning “morn” constitutes one independent clause, “it will mourn.” But because it is sentence initial, and therefore emphatic, my translation is “It will indeed mourn.” The subject “it” refers to the subject of the second clause, to “the land.” Because the perfect of the second clause is sentence initial, it is emphatic as well, and I translate the clause as, “the land will certainly wither.” Each clause is emphatic in its own right. And used together, the emphasis is even stronger.
In modern prose, we also use a construction similar to the Hebrew one to get the attention of the readers or the audience: I start a lecture by saying, “They will be destroyed.” The audience wonders who “they” are. Then I say, “God’s enemies will be destroyed.” Now I have the full attention of the audience when I explain the identity of God’s enemies.
24:4b
Fade away (perfect) wither (perfect) the productive land.
It will indeed fade away (perfect); the productive land will surely wither (perfect).
Verse 4b has the same syntactic construction as 4a. The Hebrew text has three words, and my translation has 11 words. The subject of the first clause is implied, and is expressed by “it.” This pronoun refers to the subject of the second clause. This subject is “the productive land,” while the subject of the second clause in 4a was “the land.” Here we also find a play of words: the word translated “fade away” is ’āmal, and the word translated “wither” is nābal. The unusual construction of the two clauses in 4a expresses strong emphasis, and the same is true with the similar construction of the two clauses in 4b. When there are two pairs of clauses, each with strong emphasis, the total emphasis of the four clauses becomes even stronger. The subjects of the two clauses in 4a are “the land,” and the subject in the two clauses in 4b is “the productive land.” The fact that the two subjects are synonyms adds to the emphasis.
24:4c-5a
Fade away (perfect) prominent people the land and the land defile (perfect) under its inhabitants.
The prominent people of the land will undoubtedly wither (perfect) because the very land has been defiled (perfect) by its inhabitants.
The Hebrew has eight words, and my translation has 19 words. The emphatic syntax is continued, both because the perfect of 4c is sentence initial (marked by “undoubtedly”), and because the verb is ’āmal (“fade away”) is used, as in the next-to-the-last clause. The use of this verb connects this clause with the clauses in 4a and 4b.
But here a new element is added. In the previous four clauses, the subjects were “the land” and “the productive land.” But now the subject is “the prominent people of the land.” And an explanation is added: The inhabitants have defiled the land. The subject, “the land,” in 5a stands before the verb, and therefore it is stressed. I express this by the adjective “very.”
The clause in 5a is connected to the previous clause by the conjunction waw. This conjunction is, in most cases, translated by “and.” But because the clause shows the reason why the prominent people will wither, I translate waw as “because,” which is a legitimate translation of waw.
The verses that I have discussed above show in an excellent way how English readers can recapture “to an extent, the terseness of Hebrew.” The Hebrew text of the verses has 24 words, and my translations have 60 words. To convey all the nuances of the terse Hebrew text to English readers, it is not possible to use fewer words. Thus, to recapture “to an extent, the terseness of Hebrew” is based on the use of many English words showing how much meaning there is in much fewer Hebrew words.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
I present a small portion of my translations from the prophets with comments where the nuances and subtleties of the text are marked. (From my book: The Fallacy of Prophetic Perfect With Translations of Verses from the Prophets). First I present a word for word translation, and then I present a normal translation.
24:3b
For yhwh speak (perfect) word this.
For Yehowa himself has spoken (perfect) this word.
The Hebrew has five words, and my translation has seven words. In most cases, the verb stands before the subject. But in this clause, the subject, yhwh, stands before the verb. This shows that the subject is stressed, and I express this by using the pronoun “himself.”
24:4a
mourn (perfect) wither (perfect) the land.
It will indeed mourn (perfect), the land will certainly wither (perfect).
The Hebrew text has three words, and my translation has nine words. The syntax of 4a is the opposite of the syntax in 3a. In 3a, the subject, “the land,” was connected with the first verb. In connection with the second verb, the same subject was implied, and it was expressed by “it.” In 4a, the subject “the land” is connected with the second verb. In connection with the first verb, the same subject is implied and is expressed by “it.”
A strong emphasis is expressed by the three Hebrew words. First, the two perfects stand side by side without any waw that is connecting them, and both are sentence initial. Second, there is a play of words because the spelling of the two verbs with slightly different meanings differs only in one letter—the verbs are ’ābal and nābal.
The first verb with the meaning “morn” constitutes one independent clause, “it will mourn.” But because it is sentence initial, and therefore emphatic, my translation is “It will indeed mourn.” The subject “it” refers to the subject of the second clause, to “the land.” Because the perfect of the second clause is sentence initial, it is emphatic as well, and I translate the clause as, “the land will certainly wither.” Each clause is emphatic in its own right. And used together, the emphasis is even stronger.
In modern prose, we also use a construction similar to the Hebrew one to get the attention of the readers or the audience: I start a lecture by saying, “They will be destroyed.” The audience wonders who “they” are. Then I say, “God’s enemies will be destroyed.” Now I have the full attention of the audience when I explain the identity of God’s enemies.
24:4b
Fade away (perfect) wither (perfect) the productive land.
It will indeed fade away (perfect); the productive land will surely wither (perfect).
Verse 4b has the same syntactic construction as 4a. The Hebrew text has three words, and my translation has 11 words. The subject of the first clause is implied, and is expressed by “it.” This pronoun refers to the subject of the second clause. This subject is “the productive land,” while the subject of the second clause in 4a was “the land.” Here we also find a play of words: the word translated “fade away” is ’āmal, and the word translated “wither” is nābal. The unusual construction of the two clauses in 4a expresses strong emphasis, and the same is true with the similar construction of the two clauses in 4b. When there are two pairs of clauses, each with strong emphasis, the total emphasis of the four clauses becomes even stronger. The subjects of the two clauses in 4a are “the land,” and the subject in the two clauses in 4b is “the productive land.” The fact that the two subjects are synonyms adds to the emphasis.
24:4c-5a
Fade away (perfect) prominent people the land and the land defile (perfect) under its inhabitants.
The prominent people of the land will undoubtedly wither (perfect) because the very land has been defiled (perfect) by its inhabitants.
The Hebrew has eight words, and my translation has 19 words. The emphatic syntax is continued, both because the perfect of 4c is sentence initial (marked by “undoubtedly”), and because the verb is ’āmal (“fade away”) is used, as in the next-to-the-last clause. The use of this verb connects this clause with the clauses in 4a and 4b.
But here a new element is added. In the previous four clauses, the subjects were “the land” and “the productive land.” But now the subject is “the prominent people of the land.” And an explanation is added: The inhabitants have defiled the land. The subject, “the land,” in 5a stands before the verb, and therefore it is stressed. I express this by the adjective “very.”
The clause in 5a is connected to the previous clause by the conjunction waw. This conjunction is, in most cases, translated by “and.” But because the clause shows the reason why the prominent people will wither, I translate waw as “because,” which is a legitimate translation of waw.
The verses that I have discussed above show in an excellent way how English readers can recapture “to an extent, the terseness of Hebrew.” The Hebrew text of the verses has 24 words, and my translations have 60 words. To convey all the nuances of the terse Hebrew text to English readers, it is not possible to use fewer words. Thus, to recapture “to an extent, the terseness of Hebrew” is based on the use of many English words showing how much meaning there is in much fewer Hebrew words.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
After all, Kenneth, this is B-Hebrew, not B-English (or any other modern language), or B-Translation.