Friday 12 June 2009

A "canonical" translation of Isaiah 1:2?

How do you translate the qatal verbs in Isaiah 1:2?
שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ כִּי יהוה דִּבֵּר בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִ
I would follow all the standard translations and go for the past tense (has spoken). An offline interlocuter, however, has suggested that we translate them in the present (Yhwh speaks, I raise up, they sin against me). Here's his reasoning:
If you read just the opening verses of Isaiah your preference for a past tense makes sense. But I am working with a reading of the entire scroll of Isaiah that sees the pattern of divine good - rebellion - punishment, and each stage in it, as occurring at many times and not just at this one time. Two points are relevant. One, a translation of a given passage in any biblical book depends on one's understanding of that whole book and the place of that passage in it; it is not solely a matter of the forms and syntax of the passage itself. Two, the Hebrew text - verbs, nouns, etc. - can often support a range of meaning but a translator into English has to choose only one part of that range. Both "YHWH has spoken" and "speaks" and "I reared" and "I rear" are possible depending on one's focus on just these verses or on the larger scroll.
From what I can see, this would be an attempt at "canonical translation," a translation that attempts the communicate the substance of the entire scroll by means of its parts.

I do agree that there is an effort at typologizing in Isaiah's scroll. I recently read Brevard Childs' commentary on Isaiah, which made the same point. He also made another point, however, which would lead me to want to retain the past tense translation, even though I agree with the pattern my dialogue partner discerns. Here's my logic:

The pattern in Isaiah is of a certain kind, i.e. it is typological, which means that that one object (e.g. Assyria) is placed within a larger scheme and associated with another object (e.g. Babylon), so that the two distinct entities become types of a larger, single reality (e.g. human hubris). The literary technique of juxtaposition and intertextual linkaging operates on the principle that entities diverse in space and time (Assyria and Babylon) are really just pictures, types, of a single reality. They are juxtaposed on the basis of their ontological unity, they point beyond themselves to something more general. In this case, my friend's desire to translate Isaiah one in the present simple tense is correct, as this tense points to a general, repeated action. Perhaps we could say that his translation gets to the substance of the message of Isaiah as a whole.

However, what is equally as important as the substance of Isaiah's message is the means by which the book communicates it. It doesn't do this by flattening out the concrete entities, by swallowing them up into a schematized drama. Rather, Assyria and Babylon are retained in the historical, geographical particularity. It is only through the literary technique of juxtaposition that the reader is invited to discover the unity that undergirds them. In other words, the unity of the message must be sought through the particularity of the parts and not despite them. On this view, the historical particularity of Isaiah 1:2 ought to be maintained by means of past tense translation, even if the translator wishes his reader to grasp the singular message of the whole. There is a path the attentive, theologically minded reader has to tread, and it is through finite particularity to the universal. This would seem to be the way the book of Isaiah itself wishes to communicate its message.

I invite all and sundry to critique me!

7 comments:

Douglas Mangum said...

Phil, your dialogue partner said essentially that form is irrelevant, only function matters by saying "it is not solely a matter of the forms and syntax of the passage itself. Two, the Hebrew text - verbs, nouns, etc. - can often support a range of meaning . . ." By this reasoning, studying grammar is a waste of time because those little details don't matter in the big picture. I disagree and so would most who study Hebrew linguistics.

I think that retaining the past tense here in English makes the most sense from a form critical perspective, not only a grammatical one. Isa 2 begins with an accusation oracle (here's what you've done wrong and you will be punished for it). Appealing to the fluidity of Hebrew verb forms (IMO) just reveals a failure to distinguish verbal nuances such as a qatal being different from a weqatal.

Douglas Mangum said...

Typo above - should say Isa 1:2 (the subject of the post) not Isa 2.

Phil Sumpter said...

Thanks for your thoughts, Doug. I'm inclined to agree with you. My interlocutor has decided to respond to us both via e-mail so I'll paste it here. I'll need to take more time to think his response through:

He says: "I am arguing from the basis of Hebrew grammar - see both Niccacci's article and the discussions of the verbal system is a work such as Waltke and O'Connor (esp. pp. 479-95). The Qatal in aspect is perfective and narrative-punctual; the act denoted by the form is complete and, in a sense, one: YHWH speaks/spoke. The speech act is complete, not ongoing or seen in stages. Tense is determined by the context, both immediate and larger (Isa 1:2-3 up to the whole Isaiah scroll). The tense can be past, present or even future - Waltke and O'Connor give some examples of the latter (see Exod 10:3). In Isa 1:2 I'm maintaining that the qatal refers to YHWH's punctive speech act that can be spoken in the past, present or future. My emphasis is on the fact of YHWH's speech act (the aspect), not whether it happened at only one point in time (the tense). For me both translations, speaks/spoke, are valid on the basis of just Isa 1:2-3; looking at the larger context of Isaiah only confirms that for me. I am in no way trying to defend the present tense in English as the only or the best translation.
Even though in some contexts qatal can be translated with the future tense, I don't think that's defensible in Isa 1:2 because of the English. "YHWH speaks" can refer to future instances but "YHWH will speak" in English refers almost solely to the future and does not imply past or present speech.
Isaiah 1 gives a good introduction to the variety of the use of Hebrew verbal forms - qatal, yiqtol, weqatal, weyiqtol and participles - and all their play with aspect and tense. Trying to limit them to just one tense in translation misses much of the richness of the chapter. Let me play out an example of the opening verses. V. 3 uses qatal in what is often termed the gnomic present: the animals know and Israel doesn't know. The point isn't the tense but that they know or don't know - period. V. 4 starts with 4 participles or adjectives (there's often debate on what grammatical terms to use), then 3 qatals: this is both what they've done and who they are and will continue to be. The latter leads into the 2 yiqtols of v. 5 that emphasize the continuing rebellion and punishment. 5b-6b are nouns and noun phrases - no verbs. The point is what they are, not when. 6c has 3 qatals to drive home the point of the continuation. V. 7 has no qatals or yiqtols and uses noun phrases including participles emphasizing the present conditions. I hope this isn't overdoing it in detail. Niccacci's call to pay attention to the precise use of verbs in Hebrew poetry is essential; I want to pay as much, if not more, attention to aspect than to tense.
The issue of dating Isaiah and any part of it takes us well beyond this limited discussion of verbs and translation. For me the scroll of Isaiah was put (written; compiled; thrown together ?) sometime between 500 and 250 BCE. Those dates are set in stone for me. Beyond that I don't think we can date Isaiah or any part of it with more precision. For me Isaiah 1 presents a set of images of the people and the land that are in then narrated in chapters 36-37 or, to reverse the reading, Isaiah 1 presents the narrative in poetic form. I'm of the general opinion that attempting to date documents or parts of documents and attempting to describe some compositional/redactional process based solely on the evidence of the written work is pure conjecture and of little value in reading the documents. Edgar Conrad, in his "Reading the Latter Prophets," develops the point at greater length and applies it to the entire prophetic corpus. To get a hint of where I'm coming from see the latest JBL 128 #2 where Aichele, Walsh and myself have a joint article "An Elephant in the Room.""

Douglas Mangum said...

Phil,

I appreciate the clarification offered by this response, though I'm still inclined to translate with the English past. Also, I found the following from the beginning of the comment unclear:

"The Qatal in aspect is perfective and narrative-punctual; the act denoted by the form is complete and, in a sense, one: YHWH speaks/spoke. The speech act is complete, not ongoing or seen in stages."

If the speech act is complete, then why does he present "speaks/spoke" as if it's the same thing? I suppose it could make sense in the context of prophetic speech - "I am now speaking the words from God" - where the prophet is God's mouthpiece so to speak.

Part of the difficulty comes from the difference between tense and aspect, and I can see from the response that he understands the issues.

Phil Sumpter said...

Thanks again, Douglas. My first response is, again, exactly the same as yours. When I find time I will hopefully respond in more detail!

Kevin P. Edgecomb said...

Your interlocutor may repoint it as a Qal perfect, but דבר in Qal would require a direct object marker and object denoting exactly what was said; these are lacking in the Isaiah passage.

There is an immediacy to the perfective form in both Hebrew and English that doesn't need tampering: "[He] has said" "I have raised" "I have brought" [or "I have made great" "I have exalted" -- the doble entendre seems connoted] "they have rebelled". That is, "I just did all this for them, and now look what they've done!" There's no real need to alter tenses. That would only make it more confusing, really.

Phil Sumpter said...

Oddly enough, Blenkinsopp translates it as "speaks," though he doesn't explain why.