I would tend to believe that Coogan is familiar with the quote from Josephus. However, while we're not sure what he meant, there is good reason for believing that the Masoretes devised the vowels system for Hebrew as we know it.
One article offers some ideas on what Josephus likely meant. So does Gerard Gertoux. Please see http://www.creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/5-FourVowels.pdf
I've got to run, but isn't ancient-hebrew.org also saying that the vowels were not originally there either, like Coogan notes. They came later with the Masoretic Text, right? That's what Coogan is saying. He is not denying that the current Hebrew text has the vowel markings.
There has to be some sense in which the vowel markings of the Masoretes are reconstructive. I would say most scholars accept this point. Isn't the somewhat reconstructive nature of the Masoretic vowel system demonstrated by the Masorah convention, qere and kithiv?
I'm not sure what's problematic about Coogan's remarks on Judg 6:24. Shalom can be rendered "peace" although we recognize that the English rendering is pretty much a gloss. Of course, there are other shades of meaning with shalom. That doesn't invalidate the translation "peace."
Furthermore, Tam also has that sense of soundness, wholeness. But I don't understand how "Lord of peace" implies that God YHWH can possibly be less than whole.
I've been heavily critical of Coogan before, so it's interesting that I now find myself defending him (to an extent). None of what I say below should be taken personally.
1) We must consider the use of Judges 6:24 within the context of Coogan's entire work, and how it was intended to be used in the picture (box) I submitted to this blog.
He's simply quoting Judges 6:24 with the familiar translation of "peace" to make a larger point about the divine name. The information I posted was not intended to be a thorough analysis of Judges or any other particular text or Hebrew word: He's simply making a brief pedagocial point about God's name in the Tanakh.
"Peace" as a translation/gloss is fine. There's a difference between defining and translating words. I'm sure you would agree that many translation approaches also exist. It's very difficult to say that the rendering "peace" is wrong.
2) Translations are not usually about explaining, are they? If I render the Latin expression "De gustibus non est disputandum" into idomatic English, my task is not to explain the expression, but translate it.
3) Mt 5:48 is a good verse. It would be enlightening to see how Hebrew NTs treat that passage.
All I'm saying about Coogan's take on Judges 6:24 is that he's simply trying to demonstrate what YHWH could mean. The rendering "peace" has a subsidiary role in his sideline discussion. I don't see how a focus on Shalom contributes to an attempt to discover what YHWH could denote. At any rate, I also see nothing wrong with the translation "peace" for Shalom, even if we know that more explanation should be forthcoming when one is discussing this Hebrew term.
To be clear, when I posted this blog entry, it had nothing to do with Shalom: I was completely focused on Coogan's explanation of YHWH. But I can see that we have differing translation approaches (philosophies) although my feeling is that you're assuming a little too much about my stand on Hebrew-Greek to English translation.
No, I don't believe that a strict word for word translation from Hebrew/Greek to English is possible. However, there are clearly instances in which Hebrew/Greek terms can be rendered with approximate target language by translators. Remember the old saying, "The translator is a traitor." But translation (IMO) is not exegesis/commentary. That work should follow translation.
For the record, I'm not offended by anything you've said. My attempt at this point is to clarify and see where we might differ.
The word "peace" (like other words) has a semantic range; it doesn't necessarily have to convey the thought of quiescence. It can also refer to serenity, tranquility, or freedom from anxiety, etc. We can explain (exegete) after we translate.
As for 2 Cor 13:11, the same translational difficulties that plague Shalom in Hebrew, also challenge Eirene in Greek. The words are similar but let's not flatten out the differences between Shalom and Eirene. :)
That is not meant to imply that you're guilty of failing to differentiate these differences.
Couple of thoughts from 2 commentators on Judges 6:24:
"Jehovah-shalom, i.e. the Lord's peace; the sign or witness of God's speaking peace to me, and to his people; or the place where he spake peace to me, when I expected nothing but destruction" (Matthew Poole).
And from Gill's Exposition:
and called it Jehovahshalom; the Lord is peace, the author and giver of peace, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; so Jarchi,"the Lord is our peace," a fit name for the angel that appeared to him, who was no other than the man of peace; who is our peace, the author of peace between God and man. This name he gave the altar, with respect to the words of comfort said to him in his fright:
peace be to thee; and by way of prophecy, that peace would be wrought for Israel by the Lord, and prosperity given them; or by way of prayer, the Lord grant or send peace:
I enjoy these discussions also. Though I often take the role of disputant--it's really a 2-way street for me in terms of learning.
The rendering "peace" makes more sense to me as I read 6:22-23 in conjunction with v. 24. My only point in referring to Rashi is that he also seemed to understand Shalom in terms of peace, although I'm sure he knew that way of translating does not exhaust the potential meaning of shalom.
This conversation goes to the heart of what I've been saying about Hebrew lexicality and etymology. Meanings and roots often are disputed by Hebrew scholars, but almost everyone agrees that context is king.
We should think of the rendering "peace" as a starting-point rather than view it as a terminus.
Rashi did write his commentary in Hebrew. He also had secretaries, to whom he dictated his thoughts. See Martin Sicker's Introduction to Judaic Thought, page 138.
I can second much of what is said on p. 117. Granted, the translator is a traitor and must perforce interpret. But I guess that translation/interpretation must be kept in check. E.g., the Amplified Bible or K. Wuest's NT.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCoogan acknowledges that vowels came later in Hebrew. But they weren't there originally.
ReplyDeleteAnother point is what he says about the potential meanings for YHWH.
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd to me that these commentators make no mention of Flavius Josephus calling the letters four vowels. Is this an earlier work?
ReplyDeletePhilip,
ReplyDeleteI would tend to believe that Coogan is familiar with the quote from Josephus. However, while we're not sure what he meant, there is good reason for believing that the Masoretes devised the vowels system for Hebrew as we know it.
One article offers some ideas on what Josephus likely meant. So does Gerard Gertoux. Please see http://www.creationcalendar.com/NameYHWH/5-FourVowels.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI've got to run, but isn't ancient-hebrew.org also saying that the vowels were not originally there either, like Coogan notes. They came later with the Masoretic Text, right? That's what Coogan is saying. He is not denying that the current Hebrew text has the vowel markings.
Best,
Edgar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteThere has to be some sense in which the vowel markings of the Masoretes are reconstructive. I would say most scholars accept this point. Isn't the somewhat reconstructive nature of the Masoretic vowel system demonstrated by the Masorah convention, qere and kithiv?
I'm not sure what's problematic about Coogan's remarks on Judg 6:24. Shalom can be rendered "peace" although we recognize that the English rendering is pretty much a gloss. Of course, there are other shades of meaning with shalom. That doesn't invalidate the translation "peace."
Furthermore, Tam also has that sense of soundness, wholeness. But I don't understand how "Lord of peace" implies that God YHWH can possibly be less than whole.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI've been heavily critical of Coogan before, so it's interesting that I now find myself defending him (to an extent). None of what I say below should be taken personally.
1) We must consider the use of Judges 6:24 within the context of Coogan's entire work, and how it was intended to be used in the picture (box) I submitted to this blog.
He's simply quoting Judges 6:24 with the familiar translation of "peace" to make a larger point about the divine name. The information I posted was not intended to be a thorough analysis of Judges or any other particular text or Hebrew word: He's simply making a brief pedagocial point about God's name in the Tanakh.
"Peace" as a translation/gloss is fine. There's a difference between defining and translating words. I'm sure you would agree that many translation approaches also exist. It's very difficult to say that the rendering "peace" is wrong.
2) Translations are not usually about explaining, are they? If I render the Latin expression "De gustibus non est disputandum" into idomatic English, my task is not to explain the expression, but translate it.
3) Mt 5:48 is a good verse. It would be enlightening to see how Hebrew NTs treat that passage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteYes, I did mean pedagogical.
All I'm saying about Coogan's take on Judges 6:24 is that he's simply trying to demonstrate what YHWH could mean. The rendering "peace" has a subsidiary role in his sideline discussion. I don't see how a focus on Shalom contributes to an attempt to discover what YHWH could denote. At any rate, I also see nothing wrong with the translation "peace" for Shalom, even if we know that more explanation should be forthcoming when one is discussing this Hebrew term.
To be clear, when I posted this blog entry, it had nothing to do with Shalom: I was completely focused on Coogan's explanation of YHWH. But I can see that we have differing translation approaches (philosophies) although my feeling is that you're assuming a little too much about my stand on Hebrew-Greek to English translation.
No, I don't believe that a strict word for word translation from Hebrew/Greek to English is possible. However, there are clearly instances in which Hebrew/Greek terms can be rendered with approximate target language by translators. Remember the old saying, "The translator is a traitor." But translation (IMO) is not exegesis/commentary. That work should follow translation.
For the record, I'm not offended by anything you've said. My attempt at this point is to clarify and see where we might differ.
The word "peace" (like other words) has a semantic range; it doesn't necessarily have to convey the thought of quiescence. It can also refer to serenity, tranquility, or freedom from anxiety, etc. We can explain (exegete) after we translate.
As for 2 Cor 13:11, the same translational difficulties that plague Shalom in Hebrew, also challenge Eirene in Greek. The words are similar but let's not flatten out the differences between Shalom and Eirene. :)
That is not meant to imply that you're guilty of failing to differentiate these differences.
Couple of thoughts from 2 commentators on Judges 6:24:
ReplyDelete"Jehovah-shalom, i.e. the Lord's peace; the sign or witness of God's speaking peace to me, and to his people; or the place where he spake peace to me, when I expected nothing but destruction" (Matthew Poole).
And from Gill's Exposition:
and called it Jehovahshalom; the Lord is peace, the author and giver of peace, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; so Jarchi,"the Lord is our peace," a fit name for the angel that appeared to him, who was no other than the man of peace; who is our peace, the author of peace between God and man. This name he gave the altar, with respect to the words of comfort said to him in his fright:
peace be to thee; and by way of prophecy, that peace would be wrought for Israel by the Lord, and prosperity given them; or by way of prayer, the Lord grant or send peace:
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteif you have access to Rashi's commentary, see his treatment of Judg 6:24 too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy these discussions also. Though I often take the role of disputant--it's really a 2-way street for me in terms of learning.
The rendering "peace" makes more sense to me as I read 6:22-23 in conjunction with v. 24. My only point in referring to Rashi is that he also seemed to understand Shalom in terms of peace, although I'm sure he knew that way of translating does not exhaust the potential meaning of shalom.
This conversation goes to the heart of what I've been saying about Hebrew lexicality and etymology. Meanings and roots often are disputed by Hebrew scholars, but almost everyone agrees that context is king.
We should think of the rendering "peace" as a starting-point rather than view it as a terminus.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteRashi did write his commentary in Hebrew. He also had secretaries, to whom he dictated his thoughts. See Martin Sicker's Introduction to Judaic Thought, page 138.
Best,
Edgar
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSee Jonathan M. Weiser's article, "Translation as Interpretation" in Tradition 29.4.
ReplyDeleteI can second much of what is said on p. 117. Granted, the translator is a traitor and must perforce interpret. But I guess that translation/interpretation must be kept in check. E.g., the Amplified Bible or K. Wuest's NT.
ReplyDeleteToo much elaboration might obfuscate translation.
ReplyDelete