Jeremy Thompson Catholic PhD in Biblical Languages, Programmer, Runner

For quite some time I have known about the translation difficulties involved in the very first part of the very first verse of the Hebrew Bible; however, until I recently revisited the Hebrew I had forgotten just how complicated things are. Here are three potential translations:

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, …(NRSV)

When God began to create heaven and earth… (JPS, R. Alter)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (NASB; ESV)

These three translations reflect at least different nuances for the first two, and there is a significant difference between the first two and the last one. I will group the first two together for the sake of brevity. The major difference between the first two translations and the third translation is that in the first two the verse is taken as a dependent clause, whereas in the last one it is taken as an independent clause.

One might wonder what difference this makes, but it makes a great deal of difference. The difference is whether Genesis 1.1 purports to go back to the beginning of all things (Independent clause version) or whether it only goes back to a time when God is forming the world out of an earth that is already existing “formless and void” (dependent clause version). This is not just significant for those who take Genesis 1.1 literally, which I do not. It is also significant for interpreters who want to understand ancient Israelite beliefs about Creation.

It would not be possible to solve this translation difficulty here because it seems that there is no consensus at this time. The NRSV actually gives a note for all three translation possibilities in the electronic version that I have. This example does, however, point out the importance of comparing translations when one is studying the Hebrew Bible, unless perhaps the reader has a good command of Hebrew. Comparing translations can clue one in to where there are difficulties in the Hebrew text and promote moderation when one is speaking about these texts.

In case you missed it, I recently added a video lecture to the site featuring Robert Alter. He has written a considerable number of popular level books on reading the Bible as literature and is considered by many to be the premier scholar in this area. He is probably best know for his books the Art of Biblical Narrative and the Art of Biblical Poetry; however, his translations and commentaries have been growing in popularity.

I wanted to comment briefly on his translations because people sometimes ask me about which translations are best to read. I always recommend to people comparing translations if they are studying, but choosing one translation if they are simply reading.  Alter’s translations would be good choices for both of these occasions and I will point out one feature to explain why.

When translating Hebrew into English much of the poetic art is lost.  For instance, things like alliteration, words beginning with the same sound, and assonance, roughly the repetition of vowel sounds in words that are near to one another, often drop out.  In his translations, Alter attempts to render words in English in such a way that readers are clued in to the fact that these types of things are happening in the Hebrew.  As an example, in Genesis 1.2 the words often translated something like “formless and void” contain assonance; therefore, Alter translates them as “welter and waste” (which is really alliteration, but it still serves to clue the reader in to the fact that something is going on in a literary sense).  This in itself makes his translations well worth having.

If all of this sounds interesting, be sure to check out the video that I link to above.  Or, if you are simply interested in reading more check out these titles:

In recent discussions and in looking at online forums, blogs, social networking sites, etc., I have encountered a lot of people talking about parallels between the Old Testament and other Ancient Near Eastern Literature. Some of these discussions are very helpful, for instance the blog post by G. Brooke Lester entitled Why Do They Have to Be All Wrong. However, in many areas, it seems that people have very little idea what they are actually talking about. This likely has to do with religious (or a-religious) sentiment.

In general, I have found that for certain groups of religious believers talking about parallels with the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible makes them feel uncomfortable.  It makes them feel as though their sacred writings are made-up and in some way not true.  On the other hand, those antagonistic to religious believers love bringing up parallels with other ancient literature for this very reason; however, their knowledge of the actual parallels seems limited at best.  They are only acquainted with the similarities and not with the differences, which gives one the feeling that they have never actually read the parallels but are reciting something from a secondary source.

I do not want to attempt to solve this dilemma here, namely the theological implications of Old Testament parallels. But, I do think that one thing is necessary in either case.  People actually need to read the parallels.  For one group, parallels can help one to understand the message of the Old Testament and help them to understand the nature of the parallels.  For instance, saying that the Epic of Gilgamesh provides parallels to the story of Noah does not mean that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the story of Noah.  And, for another group, reading the parallels will help them to dialogue with religious believers in an intellectually respectable manner.  For introductory materials for Old Testament parallels one might check out:

I include these links because the books provide a considerable number of primary sources in translation.

In this post and in a few future posts, I will be giving some advice for those who may wish to learn Biblical Hebrew through self study. One of the most important decisions you will need to make is which grammar to use when studying Biblical Hebrew. For me, there is no question currently about which grammar beginners should use. I recommend that students start with John Dobson’s Learn Biblical Hebrew.

There is one primary reason behind this recommendation.  The text includes a very helpful audio recording.  Pronunciation is one of the most difficult aspects of a second or foreign language to learn (This has been experimentally shown in a study by Pulvermuller).  In addition, research has shown that listening can be highly beneficial in the learning of pronunciation. Thus, there is no question in my mind that someone learning Hebrew through self study must have a text that includes audio recordings.  There are a number of other texts that include audio recordings for Biblical Hebrew; however, after reviewing these grammars Dobson’s seem to be set up the best as they can also aid in vocabulary learning.

A student should probably listen to the recordings accompanying Dobson with a greater degree of frequency than is actually suggested in the text.  I would propose at least 40 minutes of listening per week due to research by Stephen Krashen and others suggesting that this amount of extended reading per week can lead to overall language gains.  This is more than the text actually has the student listening.

One may wish to move into another more thorough text after beginning with Dobson, which is likely a good idea.  However, I think that starting with Dobson will give an independent learner the best chance of success provided by any other current introductory grammar.  In addition, before getting into the grammar I also suggest that students consider learning a bit of Modern Hebrew while they are studying the AlephBet.  This allows the learner to pick up a bit of grammar and vocabulary before they even begin “reading” the language.

In the previous post, I discussed how the manuscripts of Jeremiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls can aid us in taking a more moderate approach to the reliability of the Old Testament documents. And, in this post, I will discuss the fact that even information from the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is often used to “prove” the reliability of Old Testament documents, might also lead to a more moderate approach. It is often cited that the Great Isaiah Scroll (which you can get a very good look at on the Dorot Foundation site) is 95% the same as the Masoretic Text (MT) with this statistic being astounding since over 1,000 years separate the MT from the Great Isaiah Scroll. In addition, it is often pointed out that differences are primarily in spelling and in individual words. It is the second part of this assertion that I wish to deal with here, namely that differences in individual words can be extremely important and if individual words are not known for certain this should lead to moderation.

The Great Isaiah Scroll in fact presents us with (at least) one such occasion in which knowledge of an individual word could be significant.  On the blog of Evangelical Textual Criticism, Michael Bird discusses a textual issue in Isaiah 53.11 revolving around whether or not the word “light” should appear in translations of the text.  I recommend the blog post to anyone who wants to read about this issue in more detail, but here I will try to give the “bottom line.”  The bottom line is that the MT does not contain the word “light” and neither do several other ancient witnesses.  However, the Great Isaiah Scroll and Septuagint do contain the word.  This presents one with a dilemma.  The MT presents a more difficult reading, which should be preferred due to the fact that it is hard to imagine how the word “light” would have dropped out.  On the other hand, the LXX and Qumran manuscripts are older.  Therefore, it is difficult to make a judgment about which reading should be preferred.

Which reading is best is not really of concern here.  What is of concern, which Bird points out fairly clearly, is that the use of the word “light” would be highly significant as a possible reference to the concept resurrection (again see the blog post for more detail).  The more ambiguous “he will see” without the word “light” cannot as easily be taken as such a reference.  Thus, we have a situation where one word makes a great deal of difference.  Is “light” the earlier reading?  Or, is it a later insertion (perhaps theologically motivated)?  A particular translation (Bird cites three different translation with three different readings) that a person may read for this verse would almost certainly affect their understanding.

Again, it is not the point of this post or the previous one to claim that the Old Testament manuscripts that we have are completely unreliable.  It is simply to point out that the Dead Sea Scrolls present a more complex picture of the transmission of the Old Testament than many people describe.  And, to say that the Great Isaiah Scroll differs only in individual words does not promote the idea that manuscripts are completely well preserved.  In fact, individual words can be very significant and with exact words unknown one should take a more moderate approach to the reliability of Old Testament documents.

For a free audio course on the Dead Sea Scrolls get this one free with a trial of Audible:

I typically do not pay a great deal of attention to Christian apologetic literature because I realize that it routinely oversimplifies matters. However, I had recently finished an audio course on the Dead Sea Scrolls when I came across a video on the reliability of Old Testament documents. According to the video, the Great Isaiah Scroll that was found among the texts at Qumran demonstrates the reliability of Old Testament documents. In other words, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Masoretic Text (the text used for modern English translations of the Bible) is reliable in the sense that it is extremely close to the original words that were written by Isaiah or any other Biblical author for that matter.

It was at this point that I thought this could be a useful teaching opportunity. The fact of the matter is that the Dead Sea Scrolls are far more complex and far more worthy of study than videos like the one I described above make them out to be.  If one is simply taught that the Great Isaiah Scroll is 95% the same as the Masoretic Text (MT), this stifles learning and promotes ignorance.  Why should a person study documents that are 95% the same as others if they are told differences are primarily in spelling and in individual words? Therefore, in this post and the next two I will attempt to give a broader view of how the Dead Sea Scrolls are invaluable for modern audiences, lay people and scholars alike.  The idea that the MT has been been proved entirely reliable can only be maintained if one both ignores immensely significant information that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide about the Book of Jeremiah and if the Great Isaiah Scroll is viewed uncritically.  In this post, I will discuss Jeremiah and in the following an important issue within the Great Isaiah Scroll.

With regard to Book of Jeremiah, one of the riddles that has puzzled scholars for years is the Septuagint (LXX) text of the book.  The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from around the 3rd centure BCE.  The issue with regard to Jeremiah is that the LXX text of the book is one-eight shorter than the MT.  The LXX version is missing words, phrases and verses as well as fairly large chunks of material (e.g. 33.14-26, 39.4-13, 51.4b-49, and 52.27b-30).  From a text critical perspective, the shorter text is usually better and for a number of years certain scholars preferred the LXX text to the MT.

So, what have the Dead Sea Scrolls taught us about the text of the Book of Jeremiah?  They have taught us that we really do not know which text of the Book of Jeremiah is best.  According to Thompson in his commentary on Jeremiah, the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided two different texts of Jeremiah, one like the LXX and one like the MT.  He concludes, “It may be that both traditions had relatively long histories of scribal transmissions. Where they diverge it is not always possible to decide which reading is to be preferred.”  In addition, he proposes that there may have been a “middle ground” (my terminology) version of Jeremiah from which the LXX subtracted and the MT added.

In light of this discussion, the information that many people know about the Dead Sea Scrolls, namely that Isaiah proves the reliability of the Old Testament documents, does not hold throughout.  Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls present one with a more complex picture of the transmission of the Old Testament documents.  If nothing else, they help us to take a more moderate approach to their reliability.  And, with this in mind, hopefully, more will view these texts as far more worthy of study.  For more information about the Great Isaiah Scroll continue to check back for my next blog post.

For a free audio course on the Dead Sea Scrolls get this one free with a trial of Audible:

The Old Testament Audio Blog will be back online soon after a hard drive crash. Please continue to check back.