June 5th: Naso
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
The re-translation of well-known Biblical texts is a very delicate endeavor. When people know a passage and find it meaningful, changing the translation can be quite disturbing.
I remember how disconcerting it was when the Reform Movement’s 1975 prayer book, Gates of Prayer, changed the Shema from the translation I had grown up reciting. Instead of, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” we were instructed (forced!) to say,
“Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”
Adding that extra “is” changed the grammar and the rhythm—and, to me, the holiness and mantra-like quality of this “watchword of our faith” was disrupted.
Similarly disturbing was the change of the next line (from Deuteronomy 6). The old version (Jewish Publication Society, 1917, and “old” Union Prayer Book, 1940) had rendered it,
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might. The new version:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind, with all your strength, and with all your being.”
Many modernists appreciated changing the Elizabethan “thou’s, thee’s, and thine’s” to “you’s and your’s,’” but many traditionalists felt that the archaic language gives the passage a special and holy feeling. A larger problem was the retranslation of heart, soul, and might to mind, strength, and being. Though the old translation is literally correct, it does not accurately convey the original meaning. The ancient Hebrews thought that the mind resided in the heart, so references to the lev/heart involve the intellect—and not the emotions. The word nefesh/soul can refer to the divine part of us that God implants within our bodies to give life, but, idiomatically, it means one’s resolve. The final word of the three, m’odecha is much more ambiguous, and all your might does not seem that much different from the newer all your being. The three terms seem to be a hendiadys, a grouping of words intended to convey a single thought: you shall love God completely.
One may wonder why scholars feel the need to re-translate ancient texts since the texts themselves are set and unchanging. As it turns out, this is not the case. From time to time, slightly different versions of the ancient texts are found—in archeological digs or in rare manuscript collections. Or, other ancient texts may be found that use words or phrases differently. When a variant version or usage is found, scholars must then try to figure out which is more authentic and what the differences can tell us about the original intent. This is one of the issues in translating Isaiah 7.14, which Christians see as a prophecy of the Virgin Birth. While the Hebrew alma is clearly young woman (a reference to Isaiah’s wife who will shortly give birth), the Septuagint, a Greek translation that Christians consider a revealed translation, has a Greek word that, at the time of the Septuagint translation, seems to describe a young woman without sexual experience, a virgin. Finding additional ancient manuscripts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can help us to understand better terminology, connotations, and the figures of speech—and this can lead to the need for newer and better (?) translations.
There is also the fact that modern languages change. There was a time when English speakers used terms like “thy, thine, and thou,” but that is not the way we speak anymore. While some people like the archaic language because it sets the Bible and prayer apart from daily English and makes it more special, many moderns prefer modern English usage—a usage that continues to change every year. Each new translation must come to terms with what words will mean to the people who read them.
Examples may be found in this week’s Torah portion, in the very well known Priestly Benediction. The older translation renders Numbers 6.24-26 as:
“The LORD bless thee, and keep thee.
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”
The new one changes/improves it to:
“The LORD bless you and protect you!
The LORD deal kindly and graciously with you!
The LORD bestow His favor upon you and grant you peace!”
Aside from the Elizabethan “thee’s,” there are some other issues here. First is the term keep. In olden days, this word could often mean guard or protect, but modern people think of it in terms of acquisition and control. It is not a bad thing to think about God possessing us and holding us dear, but the Hebrew yish’m’recha is talking about protection. Hence, the modern (New Jewish Publication Society translation 1964-2000) translation renders it, “...and protect you!”
Another issue is the second line’s “make his face shine upon thee.” The Hebrew does use the word for face, panim, but what does it mean for someone’s face to shine on someone else? One could also ask about the phrase “and be gracious unto thee.” Is this a separate blessing, or is it a synonymous and parallel part of the first phrase? The newer translation sees the whole line as an idiom with a single meaning (hendiadys) and renders it, “The Lord deal kindly and graciously with you!”
The third blessing line involves a matter of English meaning. What is a “countenance?” The Hebrew uses the same word as in the second line, panim/face, and I do not know why the King James translators used this Elizabethan synonym for face. Perhaps it was an attempt to minimize repetition. In any event, the modern translators also approached the phrase as an idiom and spoke to the idea of God favoring the person being blessed—a beaming face being an indication of approval and fondness. Thus do we have, “The Lord bestow His favor upon you...”
We could also ask a question about the choice of grant over the traditional give, but I think we’ve had enough for today.
Suffice it to say that this ancient blessing asks for protection, favor, and a sense of closeness. When God is paying attention to us and we know it, then we feel loved and are induced to bring forth the best that is inside!