Mark Strauss wrote a paper some years ago that critiques the ESV. He likes the ESV, but feels that it could be improved in many ways. See https://margmowczko.com/a-critique-of-the-esv-by-mark-l-strauss/
One verse that Strauss critiques in the ESV is Proverbs 30:26. It reads: "the rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs"
Strauss mentions the "tortured word order" of the ESV for this passage and its use of the word "people" for rock badgers. Compare Prov. 30:25 which refers to ants as people too. A presidential candidate some years ago likewise insisted that corporations are people. Well, sort of . . .
NWT 2013: "The rock badgers are not mighty creatures, Yet they make their house in the crags."
In the footnote, NWT says the verse is literally "a people not strong." However, in the main text, NWT does not use "people."
But this is one of Strauss' points: "literal" translations are not necessarily good translations.
NET Bible: "rock badgers are creatures with little power, but they make their homes in the crags"
The word עַם denotes "people" in Exod. 19:5; Joshua 17:14, etc. Compare Jeremiah 5:31. BDB reports that עַם is used figuratively in Proverbs 30:25-26; compare Joel 2:2.
So the problem is not whether "people" is an accurate translation, but whether translating a word/phrase "literally" is preferable to more dynamic renderings.
Recently, I was reminded of the saying, "A translator is a traitor" (Traduttore, traditore).
As a side point, it was also interesting to learn that the KJV rendering" conies" (instead of "rock badgers" or hyraxes) is "a mistake." It's not correct.
32 comments:
Coney, aka Rock Badgers, aka Hyrax also known as Dassies.
For Prov. 30:25 compare "The soul of the white ant", Eugene Marais.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038071703002001
Keystone
https://www.momtastic.com/webecoist/2009/05/20/amazing-microsocieties-ants-vs-termites/
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022375
IMO, a more ecologically aware society chooses it's words carefully and for good reason. It not about poetry but more about social reality.
https://www.radiantlunatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TheSoulOfTheWhiteAnt.pdf
1) Is "conies" (KJV) the best translation for Proverbs 30:26? Is it even accurate?
2) I'm not sure if ancient Israel could be described as ecologically aware. Nevertheless, I see no inherent conflict between poetic literature/writing and writing inspired by social reality. But Prov. 30:25-26 is poetic.
3) The major point Strauss' paper makes is about translation. The verse in Proverbs is just one of many that he criticizes in the ESV.
4) On most definitions of "person," neither ants nor rock badgers are persons. If we're not careful, and this is not being applied to you, we can get carried away with biophilia. "Everything is wakan" and all that.
5) Thanks for the other material
From OED:-
It is possible, however, that the desire to avoid certain vulgar associations with the word in the cunny form, may have contributed to the preference for a different pronunciation in reading the Scriptures.
עַ֤ם is commonly translates people but is it ever translated as person?
עַם is being used as a plural/collective, so it's likely not going to be translated "person." I did notice that some render the word, "folk."
People is often plural for person. It's get complicated because of the singular/plural aspect that "people" has. Again, corporations are people in a sense (fictionally and legally), but they differ from human or spirit people.
Some observations by Leonid Kogan:
I shall begin my presentation with a case admittedly more important for the history of the Biblical lexicography than for its present-day stage. The animal name šapa ̄ n̄ occurs four times in the Bible, twice in the food prohibitions of Lev 11:5 and Deut 14:7 (where it is described as ruminant but having no divided hoofs) as well as in two poetic passages (Ps 104:18 and Prov 30:26) where the rocky habitat of the animal is described. For a present-day Hebraist, familiar with modern zoological descriptions of the Middle Eastern mammals, these scanty data are probably enough to identify šapa ̄ n̄ with the rock hyrax (Procavia syriaca), a translation gradually establishing itself in the standard reference tools from he beginning of the 20th century, even if still incapable to oust completely the rather misleading “coneys” (NJB) and “badgers”¹⁴. Let us not forget, however, that the first appearance of this identification on the pages of a Hebrew dictionary is due to a splendid etymological discovery by
the French orientalist F. Fresnel, to whom we owe the first European description of a Modern South Arabian language labeled Jibbali by today’s Semitists. In his remarks on the Jibbali vocabulary, published as early as in 1838¹⁵, Fresnel reveals his keen interest towards the output of the newly discovered language for Biblical scholarship. Comparison between šapa ̄ n̄ and Jibbali thofoun (Fresnel’s transcription), which his informant rendered by the familiar Arabic lexeme wabr-, is one of his key examples¹⁶. The importance of Fresnel’s discovery was immediately recognized by E. Rödiger and W. Gesenius¹⁷ and, eventually, found its way into BDB 1050¹⁸ and other standard dictionaries.
See Biblical Lexicology, p. 89ff.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_3816.htm this is more about nation and our term in question is more about community. I think that people's may be misleading. Yes, it can be applied to people but it is not just about people.
The point I made in the OP was that Strauss found "people" to be wrong for Prov. 30:26, which is how ESV handles it: he suggests "creatures" or "species" instead. Another suggested translation has been "tribe," but I agree with BDB that the usage in Prov. 30:25-26 (at any rate) is metaphorical.
I'm not going to quote Michael V. Fox, but he favors reading Prov. 30:25-26 in the light of Ps. 104. He points out that the proverb elevates and stresses divine wisdom.
Bill Mounce offers comment here:
https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/are-ants-people-proverbs-30-26
Did Hebrew or Greek have an independent term for termites. As in Africa these were called white ants?
First you have to know which insect is being referred too in each case to understand the metaphor. The characteristics are different.
Termites , ants, do have rulers.
https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2017/09/10/structural-balance-in-the-social-networks-of-rock-hyraxes/
It's not just about metaphore, it's about observations.
Not sure about Hebrew, but "termite" apparently has a Latin derivation and possibly an Indo-European origin too.
Understanding metaphors are complex, as I detail in my doctoral thesis. The ancient Israelites would have understood the metaphor much better than we do today: it developed within their Sitz-im-Leben. It's just like the animals mentioned in Leviticus that we don't understand, but they did.
In the strictest sense, termites do not have rulers/kings. These are social/political arrangements worked out by rational beings within the human sphere. And none of these creatures comes close to mirroring divine rulership as we see with the Sovereign Lord and King of eternity.
When I say it's metaphorical, I'm talking about how Proverbs is using "people" or "folk" to describe the hyrax or ant. As we now understand, metaphors come from observation.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-ant-societies-point-to-radical-possibilities-for-humans
An ant or termite queen does not rule but all others in the colony serve her non the less. No queen = no colony & once established is not replaceable.
My point is that the translation "people" is not a good fit but neither is "species". "Tribe" is serviceable but imo "community" is better.
But an ant colony is really a kingdom/government. It's not a monarchy in the literal sense, but only figuratively. Remember that these creatures are being moved by instinct--not willful obedience to a sovereign. Neither do they have laws that resemble a human kingdom, nor does the queen ant sit upon a throne.
I need to study the Hebrew word more before deciding how best to translate it. I'm wondering if the Israelites were thinking "tribe" or community when they began using this word. I don't know, but it reminds me of how the Greek had their polis, which is usually translated "city-state" in classical writings. However, one classicist proferred "community" as a rendering.
No one gives orders in an ant colony, yet each ant decides what to do next.
For instance, an ant may have several job descriptions. When the colony discovers a new source of food, an ant doing housekeeping duty may suddenly become a forager. Or if the colony's territory size expands or contracts, patroller ants change the shape of their reconnaissance pattern to conform to the new realities. Since no one is in charge of an ant colony - including the misnamed "queen," which is simply a breeder - how does each ant decide what to do?
This kind of undirected behavior is not unique to ants, Gordon said. How do birds flying in a flock know when to make a collective right turn? All anchovies and other schooling fish seem to turn in unison, yet no one fish is the leader.
See https://news.stanford.edu/pr/93/931115Arc3062.html
https://www.terro.com/articles/queen-ants
It should be noted that despite the royal title, the queen ant has no real authority over a colony. She does not direct other ants or make decisions for the colony. Instead, she – just like every other ant in the colony – is motivated by instinct and a general sense of how she can provide for colony needs. The only royal pampering she gets is that other ants will bring her food and keep her clean.
termite XVIII. — late L. termes, termit- woodworm, alt. of tarmes woodworm (perh. by assim. to terere rub).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology T. F. HOAD
So it seems that it is late Latin & the possible indo european connection is weak.
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/march-april-2009/how-flock-birds-can-fly-and-move-together
Interestingly, I have just started to read this book:-
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691026169/life-in-moving-fluids
Air is also classified as a fluid here.
Chapters 11 & 12 have some foundational work that relates to birds and fish.
One thing I have to wonder about is proverbs 6:6 and what we need to be busy doing? Just being busy, or being busy doing what they do functionally (https://youtu.be/FtAhUe7I9PA) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287313947_Effects_of_Ants_and_Termites_on_Soil_and_Geomorphological_Processes
It's interesting that air is classified as a fluid.
As I think you see above, termes is late Latin, but tarmes is not. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DT%3Aentry+group%3D5%3Aentry%3Dtarmes
I'm by no means saying you don't know this.
On the Indo-European connection, I just mentioned it as a possibility, but it's nothing more than that. Maybe even a weak one as you say.
Septuagint Proverbs 30:26- καὶ οἱ χοιρογρύλλιοι ἔθνος οὐκ ἰσχυρόν οἳ ἐποιήσαντο ἐν πέτραις τοὺς ἑαυτῶν οἴκους
http://scoutisrael.com/tag/wild-rabbits/
It seems that the Romans did not make a sharp distinction between woodworms and termites when using tarmes. See https://www.mobot.org/mobot/latindict/keyDetail.aspx?keyWord=termit
Hyraxes: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-word-of-the-day-shafan-1.5278761
https://www.jukbarosh.com/en/termites-control-guide/
Note, Israely (desert) termites.
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Procavia_capensis/#predation
See section on predation:-
Including "They have been known to escape predation by playing dead," - cowardly?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44368361
Thanks, Duncan. You had me at metaphor :)
Post a Comment