Tell that to all the online sites which start with the meaning “hand,” as well as the NASB95 translators who tell us that’s the literal meaning. If it’s unhelpful to speak this way about “yad,” it’s unhelpful to speak this way about at least half the words of Scripture. When “yad” is translated “hand” so overwhelmingly, and all the debates about whether or not it is here a reference to “nakedness” or “genitals” start with the meaning “hand” and argue from it, I’m with them. Love,
Continuing to think about this, the real issue is ambiguity. If you read the sources discussing this text and the translation of “yad,” it’s clear no one knows whether or not this is a reference to the male organ. Could be, but could not be, and throw the dice. It’s a typical case of inspired ambiguity, so translators have to decide whether it’s their job to remove ambiguity from Scripture, or whether (and yes, when) it’s right to leave it intact. Footnotes can indicate the possibilities, which is to say the ambiguity.
Those who read Calvin’s commentaries know how often he indicates the options, chooses one explaining why he chooses it, then ends by saying he is fine with others choosing another option, and he has no desire to argue about it. But remember, this is in a commentary. This is not translation.
We have left ambiguity behind in choosing to use Bibles where scholars do their work aspirationally. Bibles today don’t honor God’s inspiration of Scripture, and particularly His inspiration of ambiguity—which is constant across the holy text.
If it’s true that we are what we eat, then we are the preaching we sit under as well as the texts of sacred Scripture we use. And if we look at conservative reformed men today, I think it’s easy to see they haven’t been eating and learning the lessons of Scripture’s Holy Spirit-inspired ambiguity. Love,
I have an anecdote to add. Several years ago, when my oldest sons had come of age to competently pee standing up, I began growing frustrated with the pee stains around the toilet, on the floor and on the wall around the toilet. They weren’t missing, per se (though I’m sure there was some of that). Much of it was just the splash back that tends to happen when your stream hits the toilet water and breaks the surface tension (as you can see, I’ve given the science of this a fair amount of thought).
In my frustration, I remembered one of my teachers in high school sharing a story about how his parents made it a house rule that the boys needed to pee sitting down — for this very reason. This is our home, after all. We shouldn’t be abusing our living space by peeing all over the place. No one wants to walk or sit in that.
So I decided that sounded like a pretty good rule, and for a short while implemented it. There was much protesting — interestingly, by the way, from my wife, whom I would have expected to appreciate the rule the most.
Shortly thereafter, I lifted this rule, having decided that it was misguided, and had I let it stand (pun intended), I believe it would likely have served to have something of an emasculating effect on my boys. Men pee standing up. It’s a signature part of what makes us men, and I was denying them of it. Boys need to be able to come in the house sweaty after mowing the lawn and pee without worrying about being dainty, and then get back to work. Peeing, by design, isn’t supposed be much of a process for a man. By design.
Now I just make sure they clean the bathrooms every now and then to form an appreciation of the value of cleaning up after yourself.
Anyway, had I known this verse existed, “pisseth against the wall” would have been very instructive to me at the time.
I tried to address this explicitly. I said we could transliterate “yad,” but that doesn’t seem to be what you are advocating. Nor are you claiming that “yad” only means hand. All the places where it is translated “power” aren’t footnoted, and nobody reading in English has any idea (unless we do the transliteration) that the word is the same as “hand.” It’s a shame, but that’s the loss that happens with translation. The ideal is everybody learning Hebrew, and transliteration does push us a couple of baby steps down that road. But without that, some things that are obvious in the original are lost in the translation. Puns on similar sounding words, use of the same root in different ways, and on and on. All of these are impossible to fully capture.
I kind of wish we could do like the song “Deep and Wide” and gradually replace one word at a time with transliterations. We’d end up with everybody knowing Hebrew.
Anyway, as I said, I didn’t think you were advocating that we transliterate “yad.” And so, if we don’t, we need to translate “yad” in a variety of ways in English, sad though that is with the losses it entails.
I understand and agree with your desire to leave ambiguous what God leaves ambiguous. But having read those links, the only question seems to be whether the word “hand” is a euphemism or a double-entendre. I confess I haven’t thought carefully about the differences in proper translation for euphemisms vs double-entendres. (I guess there is one other argument where it literally means hand, and that could be translated “perceived (or experienced) a hand,” but that would require adding a footnote on “perceived or experienced,” saying “literally ’seen’.” If we are going to have to footnote the literal meaning of one word either way, I don’t see how this one is superior.)
I remember in College reading a bunch of Greek and Latin poems translated into English in this literal manner that left them completely meaningless to me, when nobody reading them in the original would have been confused about the sexual meaning. I then needed a translation from English to English that actually communicated the meaning. I admit I am dense when it comes to poetry, but I’m still left wondering what the purpose is of a translation that hides the obvious meaning by sticking to the literal meaning.
English simply doesn’t have all the same euphemisms as these ancient languages. (You can read about the Attic Greek ones I needed, here. There is certainly overlap, and some are obvious, like "those who pisseth against a wall,” which is objectively calculable. But I don’t see how “you have seen a (or their) hand” (the literal translation) is “dead obvious.” It’s gibberish to me.
Maybe I’m just dense, but I think a footnote like you proposed would absolutely be necessary. Although, putting it in quotes like one of the translations from Ugaritic does might suffice: “you have seen their ‘hand’.” Or “you have experienced their ‘power’.” I would say that would be my current preference, actually, but I don’t recall any Bible translations using quotation marks in that way. Still, I’m convinced that “manhood” is a very good translation. It gets at “power” very well, and it’s also a euphemism that acts similarly to “yad,” apparently.
Is it? Or would that just be putting God’s Word on the highest shelf, where the medieval Catholic Church kept it, out of reach of ordinary people?
Translation is a big bundle of difficult trade offs. On the one side you do like the Muslims and throw a book written in an archaic foreign language at people and tell them it’s not translatable and they can figure it out or not. On the other side you’re just writing a commentary. In the middle someplace, you’re giving by people a faithful rendering of the original that they can understand without too much help. How faithful a rendering? Well, that probably depends on how much help you want to give them in understanding the text. How you translate for English-speaking college grads might not be the same as how you translate for a tribal group that’s never seen a book in their language before.
I think Pastor Tim’s general point is valid that the “literally” footnotes in the NASB are generally better than the alternatives they used in the text. But one has to draw a line somewhere.
If everybody knew Hebrew, then we wouldn’t have to translate, and they would get a better version than any translation can give. It is ideal in that sense. But it would be dangerous idealism to shoot for that.
I think the achievable ideal is keeping some in the church, preferably pastors, who know Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Not every pastor needs to know these, but some do. The alternative is leaving these languages to those in the academy. We’ve seen what that does.
As I thought I’d made clear, the reason I keep bringing up transliteration is that it is a many-century established and respected tool in translation, and what I want you and Aaron to do is recognize the implications of this fact for your arguments for dynamic equivalence. What we seem incapable of doing now is admitting the benefit of translators forcing readers to enter the world of the Hebrew and Greek inspiration rather than forcing translators to minimize that world. Consider “bethel,” “manna,” “sabbath,” “angel,” “apostle,” and many more.
No, reading the sources I linked to, that is not the only question. Some argue a “place,” some a “beckoning hand.” Then too, those sources state: “1. Any lexicon will indicate that the primary meaning of יָד is that of hand or forearm; indeed, that word is used at times to figuratively represent ideas of strength, guidance, etc.” Love,
PS: Maybe I should add that the need of the day is the reform, not the justification, of Bible translation methods that leave meaning components behind. If only young men who scare us by their zeal have the faith to work toward that, count me with them. Sorry to have to say this.
Well, I’m lost. If you don’t think the meaning is clear, then why would you suggest a footnote saying, "Here the Hebrew word ‘hand’ is a euphemism for the sexual organ…”?
Furthermore, regarding ambiguity, does using “hand” leave people thinking it could mean “beckoning hand,” “monument,” “place” or “phallus”? I think not. That’s the ambiguity in the text. But translating it “you have looked on their hand," leaves the verse meaningless, with no ideas of any ambiguity of what it could mean. There’s no good way to keep the ambiguity without making use of a footnote, as far as I can tell. And the only way it can mean literally “hand” is if “seen” is figurative for “experienced” instead. The only person arguing for it meaning a literal hand is a software engineer floating the idea on a Q&A site.
You are citing a bunch of people arguing about what it means as evidence that it means “hand” in this instance, but nobody thinks that. Even “beckoning hand” requires supplying a word, which is just another part of what you’re opposing in translation work.
Any lexicon will also say that “yad” has several other meanings besides “hand.” It sounds like you are arguing for a single word to be used every time in translation. That would certainly bring some of the benefits you mention of transliteration without transliterating. It wouldn’t be formal equivalence, but it would certainly be a reform of translation.
Right now only 75% of the occurrences of “yad” are translated “hand” in the NASB95. Many of the rest could easily be translated hand, especially if you were willing to supply a word or two to make the meaning clear. eg
“Then the angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority.”” (Genesis 16:9, NASB 95) would become “… submit yourself under her hands.”
“The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?” (Jeremiah 5:31, NASB 95) would become “… the priests rule on their own hand.”
“‘But if his means are insufficient for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then for his offering for that which he has sinned, he shall bring the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it or place incense on it, for it is a sin offering.” (Leviticus 5:11, NASB 95) would become “But if his hand doesn’t reach to two turtledoves…”
Things get harder with the next couple.
“When he came, behold, Eli was sitting on his seat by the road eagerly watching, because his heart was trembling for the ark of God. So the man came to tell it in the city, and all the city cried out.” (1 Samuel 4:13, NASB 95) would become “Eli was sitting on his seat in the hand of the road…”
“At the harvest you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four-fifths shall be your own for seed of the field and for your food and for those of your households and as food for your little ones.”” (Genesis 47:24, NASB 95) would become “… you shall give a fifth to Pharaoh, and four hands shall be your own”
This next one is basically nonsense, but I suppose you could footnote that “hand” sometimes means “monument." I have a feeling that Bibles translated this way would require a lot of footnotes. Way more than Altar has in his translations.
“Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul; and it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself, then turned and proceeded on down to Gilgal.”” (1 Samuel 15:12, NASB 95) would become “… behold, he set up a hand for himself…”
But things really begin to fall apart when you try to translate “yad” as “hand" when it is referring to axle-trees or tenons. Several of the meanings would certainly be ambiguous, but that would be creating ambiguity, not preserving it.
I’ll end my comments here by going back to what you said about Calvin:
Calvin regularly discusses not just the proper interpretation, but also the translation. As I’ve been preaching through Ephesians, here are some examples:
If the former exposition be adopted, it will be proper to translate, as I wrote before in few words; for the subject had received nothing more than a passing notice; but the latter being, as I have said, the prevailing opinion, I prefer translating, as I wrote a little before.
The word ἐλέγχειν, which is translated reprove, answers to the metaphor of darkness; for it literally signifies to drag forth to the light what was formerly unknown.
But when all things are reproved. As the participle, (φανερούμενον,) which is translated, that which doth make manifest, is in the middle voice, it admits either of a passive or active signification. It may be either rendered, that which is made manifest, or that which doth make manifest. If the passive signification, which is followed by the ancient translator, be preferred, the word light will denote, as formerly, that which gives light, and the meaning will be, that evil works, which had been concealed, will stand out to public view, when they have been made manifest by the word of God: If the participle be taken actively, there will still be two ways of expounding it: 1. Whatever manifests is light; 2. That which manifests anything or all things, is light; taking the singular as put for the plural number. There is no difficulty, as Erasmus dreaded, about the article; for the apostles are not in the habit of adhering very strictly to rule about placing every article, and even among elegant writers this mode of using it would be allowable. The context appears to me to shew clearly that this is Paul’s meaning.
There are three things to see here: 1. Calvin clearly made translation decisions on the basis of what he understood the proper interpretation to be. 2. Calvin was not averse to picking different translations from what the standard meaning was. 3. Calvin would only rarely object to other translations. He would generally just show how his interpretation could be modified to fit the alternate translation.
Speaking of Calvin, his translation is something like, “Thou lovedst their bed in the place which thou sawest.” Note that “bed” is literally “lying down” and “place” is literally “hand."
I’m not attached to using the word “manhood” here. I am attached to a translation that is sensical in English even if it is still ambiguous. “You have looked on their hand” is not.
I think the reformation in translation work that needs to happen is that people need to acknowledge, as Calvin does, that translation is not independent of interpretation, but that translations often must depend on how you interpret the text. That’s the big lie today about translations, that they can be and are made just on the basis of the words, without any interpretation happening first.
“The only person arguing for it meaning a literal hand is a software engineer floating the idea on a Q&A site.”
Inaccurate, as you will see by the translations below. But also, this site I linked to is an excellent stack exchange titled “Hermeneutics,” and it has top-drawer contributions. The specific brother whose contribution I linked to here did serious work on this text, and did it well.
Let me note that I’ve never argued that “yad” should always be translated “hand.”
My personal thinking is that, since everyone agrees the meaning “manhood” or “genitals” or “nakedness” is unprecedented in Hebrew, it would be better to stick with the literal meaning “hand.” “Manhood” is clearly overtranslation.
In this connection, interesting to note that over half the English translations make no reference to “genitals,” “nakedness,” “manhood,” etc. The King James Version renders it, “their bed where thou sawest it.” This seems to be undertranslation, but it is by far the most common English translation across the centuries.
Some translations do quite well, keeping what everyone agrees is “yad’s” fundamental meaning, adding the explanatory “open” and “beckoning”:
Wycliffe: thou lovedest the bed of them with (an) open hand
Vulgate: dilexisti stratum eorum manu aperta (open hand)
Douay-Rheims: thou hast loved their bed with open hand
Complete Jewish Bible: whose bed you loved when you saw their hand beckoning
Jewish Publication Society: whose bed thou lovedst, whose hand thou sawest.
Were I to preach or write on this text, I would be unlikely to quibble with the NASB95. I simply want to register here that it’s typical of the overtranslation which permeates the NASB line of Bibles as it does all modern versions.
For decades I’ve been writing against this and other abuses of the original text of Scripture. Rarely have my concerns been that any translation adheres too closely to the original text. Not even Alter, which you know we used for a year or two in our family devotions to go through the Pentateuch and several historical books.
Can literalism be a problem?
Sure, but it’s not the problem of our day. Award-winning translator and Princeton Prof. David Bellos makes this so clear in, “Is That a Fish in Your Ear.” My conviction is that we need to learn the words of Scripture rather than forevermore forcing the words to learn us. I think about starting to list all the places where “yad” is rendered “hand” and could be argued to be nonsensical, but I’ve made the points I think are important here too many times already. Love,
One final point: “nonsensical” is the very definition of “transliteration,” but somehow we all learned what tons of words like “amen” and “apostle” and “sabbath” mean. Love,
After thinking about this last night after making the post above, I’ve gone back and edited and added much. Just a warning that if you read the comment last night, you might want to read it again today.
I think the most helpful thing to come out of this part of the discussion is the categories of over and under-translation. I understand over-translation to mean making changes to the text in order to make it make better or easier sense, particularly by adding or removing words. And I would understand under-translation to be translating the literal words without communicating their meaning, like translating “por favor” as “by favor” instead of “please.”
If I have to pick between over or under-translation, I would pick under-translation all day long.
I would argue, based on my understanding of “yad” that most of the translations you have put above are over-translating (eg “beckoning” is added and “seen” is completely removed just to try to make the text make sense), and that the NAS actually doesn’t over-translate. I would also argue that all the translations that use “nakedness” “genitals” “nudity” and so forth are over-translating. If “yad” is a euphemism here, then it is a euphemism for a phallus. It’s not simply nudity or nakedness, nor is it as generic or explicit as “genitals.” “Manhood” gets it just right in my mind, being an English euphemism for the male sexual part just the way the scholars claim “yad” could be used in Hebrew.
I remember translating Greek and Latin in college and my teachers were always disappointed that I left things as literal and simple as I did, rather than cleaning them up and making use of more colloquial English. I never had any inclination to change things unnecessarily as soon as I got to clear English. I’m still of the same opinion. (Poetry is particularly hard to know what to do with, though, I will say.)
Anyway, that’s why I’m of the opinion that “any that pisseth against the wall” is actually a much better translation than “males.” It’s not under-translation, because it’s quite clear in English what it means as a phrase. Meanwhile, to use “males” is to hide the disgusted feeling of the speech, which is over-translation. If “any that pisseth against a wall” was meaningless in English, then I would want to try to come up with a phrase that would communicate the meaning better than just “male.” Something like “stinking males,” maybe. But it just so happens that “any that pisseth against a wall” works just as well in English as it does in Hebrew. So let’s just translate it! It’s a sad loss to remove it for the much less communicative “males."
I should also add that I’m sorry for the attitude I had toward Chris on Stack Exchange. His goal is worthy, but in my judgment he simply exchanges a problem with “hand” for a similar but worse problem with “seen."
One of the assigned readings for NGA’s Groundwork program is Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The recommended translation I used was Bartlett and Collins (2011). Their opening Note on the Translation was quite good, and pertains to this thread (I bolded what was particularly striking):
This translation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics attempts to be as literal as sound English usage permits. We hold that literal translations, while certainly having their limits and even frustrations, nonetheless permit those without a reading knowledge of the original language the best possible access to the text. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, unable to read a word of Greek, still became a supreme interpreter of Aristotle on the basis of William of Moerbeke’s remarkably faithful translations of Greek into Latin, just as Averroes (Ibn Rushd) became “the Commentator” on “the Philosopher” despite having had access to the works of Aristotle only in Arabic translation.
To be sure, we do not claim to have attained such fidelity to the original as did the great medieval translators. What is more, the distance between contemporary English and ancient Greek is often great, and any simple substitution of this English word for that Greek one would result in a largely unintelligible hash, one no longer in Greek but not yet in English either. What, then, do we mean by “literal translation”? We begin from the assumption or prejudice that Aristotle composed the Ethics with very great care —whether or not the text we have consists of or is derived from lecture notes —and hence that he chose every word with (as Maimonides would say) "great exactness and exceeding precision." We have attempted to convey that exactness and precision. In practice this means that we have rendered all key terms by what we hold to be the closest English equivalent, resorting to explanatory footnotes when the demands of idiom or intelligibility have made this impossible. Readers may therefore be confident that an appearance of nature, for example, is due to the presence of the same Greek word or family of words (phusis, phuein) in the original. It hardly needs to be said that the identification of “key terms” and their English counterparts depends finally on the translators’ interpretation of Aristotle, on an understanding of his intention. The outlines of that understanding are found in the interpretive essay; the choice of key terms and their equivalents, in the list of Greek terms and the glossary.
Readers will naturally disagree here and there with our choices. But because we have tried to stick to them as consistently as possible, students of the English text can at least observe the contexts in which a given term appears and so begin to determine for themselves its nuances or shades of meaning. …
I share this here not to as response to anything above, but because it pertains to the thread.
