"O how I am filled up with rage against you,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘by your doing all these things, the work of a woman, a domineering prostitute!" (Ezekiel 16:30 1984 edition)
Compare the 2013 Revision:
"'How sick your heart was,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when you did all these things, behaving like a brazen prostitute!'"
I'm particularly focusing on the first part of Ezekiel 16:30 which reflects an utter difference in the text: "O how I am filled up with rage against you" versus "How sick your heart was"
Why the disparity between 1984 and 2013?
In the footnote of the 2013 edition, it informs us, "Or possibly, 'O how I am filled up with rage against you.'"
That leads to another question. Why relegate the words about Jehovah's rage to the footnote in the newer version of NWT?
To help answer this question, consider that the ESV chooses the rendering: “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord God, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute,"
ESV explains that "How I am filled with anger against you" comes about from revocalizing the Hebrew words of Ezekiel. So NET translates Ezekiel 16:30: “‘How sick is your heart, declares the sovereign Lord, when you perform all of these acts, the deeds of a bold prostitute."
No explanatory footnote is offered, but we again witness the translational assonance between NWT 2013, ESV, and NET here although NWT in the latest iteration uses the verb "was" as opposed to "is."
Back to the original question, why prefer "How sick your heart was/is," to "O how I am filled up with rage against you"?
The explanation is complex and lengthy, but here are some preliminary remarks:
Bob Utley:
"how languishing is your heart" This is the only occurrence of this verb (BDB 51, KB 63, Qal participle) in the Qal stem. Its basic meaning is "weak," implying weak-willed. But this does not fit the context of the next phrase. Some early copies of the Hebrew OT were found in a hidden room behind the shelves that contain the Scripture scrolls in Cairo, Egypt. These copies have 'How inflamed was your heart,' which fits the context much better and may be the source of the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of "how strong" (cf. NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 426).
See https://bible.org/seriespage/ezekiel-16
K.J. Cathcart Writes:
The unsatisfactory translations of 'mlh lbtk (Ezek. 16:30) in many modern English Bibles illustrate what might be described as an example of wilful resistance to knowledge gained from comparative philology. The NRSV has: ‘How sick is your heart’; the NAB, 'How wild is your lust’, and the JPSV, ‘How sick was your heart’. The JPSV translator does admit in a footnote that, on the basis of the Akkadian, a change of vocalisation will give, ‘How furious I was with you’. The NEB and REB have a satisfactory version: 'How you anger me!’ The correct understanding of this verse was first published by David Hartwig Baneth in 1914, when he published a suggestion made by his father Eduard Baneth that Akk. libb¯ati malˆ u, ‘to become angry with’, had a counterpart in Ezek. 16:30.17 It was noted that the same idiom occurred in Aramaic too. Godfrey Rolles Driver made the same proposal in 1928, and elaborated on it in 1931. All the main Hebrew lexicons admit this identification by Baneth, and the Akkadian loan has been subjected to further scrutiny by Harold Cohen and again thoroughly by Paul Mankowski in his very important published Harvard dissertation. Among early modern commentators, G.A. Cooke accepted the Akkadian and Aramaic evidence for the correct understanding of the text, but some commentators still prefer the interpretation apparently intended by whoever pointed the ˜M. The interpretation of the Akkadian loanword, lbh, ‘anger’, as a cognate of Heb. l¯eb, ‘heart’, is an example of a loanword in the consonantal Hebrew text of the Bible being wrongly interpreted in the Massoretic text. It is interesting to note that the Ì (‘How should I dispose of your daughter?’) and the Í (‘Why should I judge your daughter?’) did not interpret lbtk as ‘your heart’.
See The Old Testament in Its World, edited by R.P. Gordon and J.C. de Moor, pages 5-6.
Knox Translation: "Salve is none, says the Lord God, for such a heart as thine, set on following a harlot’s ways."
Latin Vulgate: In quo mundabo cor tuum, ait Dominus Deus, cum facias omnia hæc opera mulieris meretricis et procacis?
LXX: τί διαθῶ τὴν θυγατέρα σου λέγει κύριος ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαί σε ταῦτα πάντα ἔργα γυναικὸς πόρνης καὶ ἐξεπόρνευσας τρισσῶς
7 comments:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
30. How weak is thine heart] i.e. how passion-sick, consumed by desire. The term “heart” (fem.) occurs nowhere else, and the plur. (Psalm 7:10; Proverbs 15:11) is hardly evidence for it (Ges.). LXX. renders: how shall I deal with thy daughter (exactly as Hosea 11:9 how shall I deal with thee, Ephraim). Our present text lay before the translator: “with thy daughter” is “thy heart” with different points; and “weak” was probably read as part of verb “to fill” (spelled as Job 8:21) and rendered freely. The text, however, may be faulty.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 30. - How weak, etc.! The weakness is that expressed in the Latin impotens libidinis, with no strength to resist the impulses of desire. The word imperious (perhaps masterful would be better) is that of one who is subject to no outward control. One is reminded of Dante on Semimlnis ('Inf.,' 5:56). The strange renderings of the LXX. (τὶ διαθῶ τὴυ θυγατέρα σου) and the Vulgate (in quo mundabo cor tuum) are difficult to account for, but probably indicate that the present text is corrupt.
Maybe a corrupt text explains the difficulties, but based on what Cathcart and Utley observe above, that may not be a necessary move. Will try to contribute more later.
From Daniel I. Block's Commentary, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1-24:
The charges are interrupted by a sudden outburst: How furious I am with you! The meaning of this line is not clear. LXX τί διαθῶ τὴν θυγατέρα σου, “How can I circumcise your daughter?” derives ʾămulâ from mûl, “to circumcise,” and libbātēk from bat, “daughter,” but this makes no sense in the context. Many associate the root ʾml with Arab. mll, “to be shaken with fever,” in which case libbāt functions as a feminine variant of lēb, yielding “How lovesick is your heart!”²⁰⁰ However, if libbâ is understood as a cognate to Aram. lbh and Akk. libbātu, both of which mean “fury, anger,” the present idiom finds exact equivalents in Aram. mly/ʾ lbt- and Akk. libbāti malû, “to be filled with anger.”²⁰¹ The reason for Yahweh’s anger is summarized in the rest of v. 30 and the beginning of v. 31. Jerusalem has behaved like a shameless harlot (ʾiššâ zônâ šallāṭet).
See https://www.bookdepository.com/Book-Ezekiel-Chapters-1-24-Daniel-I-Block/9780802825353
https://www.academia.edu/31751100/Notes_on_Ezekiel_16_30_-_The_Rage_of_Yahweh_or_the_Passion_of_Jerusalem
This is interesting
https://youtu.be/THpxbZ9TOW0
Thanks, that is interesting.
Post a Comment