Alward's Confused
JAlw@aol.com JAlw@aol.com
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 00:48:25 EDT (00909049705, cba68c78.362eb919@aol.com)
Joe Alward:
> On a related matter, let me ask about the use of the words "did so". I
could
>be completely wrong about this, but it seems that Farrell was making the
point
>that the magicians "did so" with their enchantments meant that they did
>everything Moses had done with his rod waving and water conversion. Now, it
>seems that "did so" in the lice story only meant that the magicians had
waved
>their rods in an attempt to match Aaron's magic. Since they failed, doesn't
> that mean that "did so" in the lice plague story only meant "waved their
rods
> like Aaron did"? If so, then how can we be sure that "did so" in the blood
> plague story meant "did everything that Moses did"? We're not told the
>result
> of the magicians' rod waving, so aren't we left somewhat in the dark? Or
is
> my confusion purely the result of consulting a flawed Strongs translation?
>=================
>Farrell Till:
>
> <Alward snips important comments he'll think about later>
>
> I have checked different translations of verse 18 and found entirely
> different renderings from the KJV's "did so with their enchantments."
>
><snip five translations which show that the magicians "tried to bring forth
>lice">
>
> Other versions also render the verse to mean that the magicians tried but
> failed, so surely there is a textual reason for this translation. An
> identical expression in two verses of an English translation doesn't
> necessarily mean that the expressions were identical in the original, and
> that appears to be the case here.
>==================
>Joe Alward:
>
>My lack of understanding of the origins of the various translations cause me
>to be suspicious, I guess. It is hard for me to accept (blame it on
naivete,
>I suppose) that the exact same expression in English in the blood and lice
>stories, "and the magicians did so with their enchantments", did not have
>exactly the same Hebrew to back it up, especially given that the verses are
so
>close together in Exodus.
>
>Believing as I do that, say, that the NIV is a politically correct KJV whose
>translators arbitrarily removed some embarrassing errors, I have to wonder
>whether the translators of the versions Farrell cites were just being
>expedient. Did the translators recognize the questions that would be raised
>by readers who would wonder whether the magicians succeeded with the blood
>plague, and therefore they arbitrarily decided to remove the ambiguity by
>restructuring the words in the lice story?
>
>In summary, let me just ask this: Is is generally accepted that the correct
>translation of the lice story is "tried to do so with their enchantments",
and
>not "did so"?
CREA
I'm afraid so. Here's a transliteration of the Hebrew for Exodus 8:14
(in the Masoretic text -- that would be Exodus 8:18 in the various English
translations) without the vowel pointings which were a later addition, along
with a rough but literal interlinear rendition:
[8:14] WAW-YOD-AYIN-SHIN-ZAYIN KOPH-NUN HEH-CHETH-RESH-SAMEKH-MIM-YOD-
MIM
BUT-DID THE-SAME THE-MAGICIANS
[8:14] BETH-LAMED-SAMEKH-YOD-HEH-MIM LAMED-HEH-WAW-TSADE-YOD-ALEPH
WITH-THEIR-SECRET-ARTS TO-BRING-FORTH
[8:14] ALEPH-TAU HEH-KOPH-NUN-YOD-MIM
D.O. marker THE-GNATS/LICE
[8:14] WAW-LAMED-ALEPH YOD-KOPH-LAMED-ZAYIN
BUT-NOT [THEY] WERE-ABLE/HAD-POWER
[8:14] WAW-TAU-HEH-YOD HEH-KOPH-NUN-YOD-MIM BETH-ALEPH-DALETH-MIM
AND-THERE-WERE THE-GNATS/LICE ON-MAN
[8:14] WAW-BETH-BETH-HEH-MIM-HEH
AND-ON-BEASTS
CREA
Hope that this helps.
=============
Joe Alward:
That's extremely interesting. Thanks very much. Does it help? Yes, it
absolutely does. It helps make me even more suspicious.
"But-did the same the magicians with-their-secret-arts to bring forth the-
gnats-lice
but-not [they] were-able/had power and-there-were the-gnats/lice on-man and-
on-beasts"
This is similar to the the KJV translation. Your Masoretic translation does
not show the magicians TRIED to bring forth the lice, although it's perfectly
clear that they failed to do so. I'm looking for the key word "tried" in the
first half of the verse that Farrell found in the several other translations.
Why is it not in the Masoretic?
Thus, it seems I'm back to where I started, wondering whether we have good
reason to believe that the "did so" in the blood plague story meant "did
everything Moses did, including converting all the water to blood". On the
one hand, Farrel shows several translations which show the word "tried", while
you show that the Masoretic does NOT have this crucial word.
To summarize, unless we have a definitive translation which shows that "did
so" always meant "did everything that Moses did", instead of sometimes just
meaning "waved his rod the way Moses did", then I remain unconvinced (but
still sure that you'll show that I've overlooked something) that the blood-
plague story is unequivocal.
Can you help further?
==================
TILL
For pity sakes, Joe, didn't you have to learn another language in order to
earn your Ph. D.? If so, then you should know at least a little more about
linguistics than your statement above shows. Why don't you get a KJV
concordance and look up the word "try"? If you do, you will see that there
was apparently no word in Hebrew that was exactly equivalent to the English
word "try" in the sense of "attempt." You will find the word "try" listed
in a concordance, but it is always "try" in the sense of "test" or "prove,"
as in 2 Chronicles 32:31, "God left him, to try him, that he might know all
that was in his heart."
So if you are looking for the Hebrew word in Exodus 8:18 that in and of itself
meant "try," you won't find it, but you won't find it anywhere else either.
However, the meaning of a statement in one language can depend on morphology,
syntax, inflection, tense, mood, etc., so the translation of it into another
language can't always be done on a literal, word-for-word basis. The
translators of various Bible versions obviously recognized in the structure of
Exodus 8:18 something that connoted the sense of "trying," but I am not expert
enough in Hebrew to know what
this was.
=================
Joe Alward:
Responding to Till above:
It appears that the Masoretic text makes no implication about the magicians
"trying" to do what Aaron had done. By what logic do we not attach importance
to that omission in interlinear translation? Not being insulting here, just
wanting to know the reasoning; this is all very new to me.
=============
Farrell Till (continued):
However, I certainly do know that language doesn't function in
the way you apparently believe it does, because when I read your postings on
subjects like this one, I sometimes get the idea that you think all
languages are just like English except that different sounds are used to
make words, but that isn't the case at all. When I lived in New Mexico, I
took a few lessons in Navajo, because there were so many Navajo students at
the school where I taught. I learned that in this language the meaning of
words is sometimes determined by the tone that the speaker gives to them.
Try to get out of your head the apparent notion that the Bible was written
in a language equivalent to English but with the words just pronounced
differently.
=====================
Joe Alward:
I understand that; I just need to know why, if the Masoretic doesn''t imply
"try", while apparently others did, we should disregard the Masoretic in favor
of translators, who you say
"obviously recognized in the structure of Exodus 8:18 something that connoted
the sense of 'trying' but I am not expert enough in Hebrew to know what this
was. "
If we don't know what it was on which the translators based their
translations, how can we judge their translations to be superior to the
Masoretic? Just asking, not knowing, not insulting. Are these fair questions
to ask?