Mistranslating Exodus 1:19

 

The Book of Exodus starts with the rise if a new pharaoh who begins to persecute the Jews after they had lived in peace for at least 70 years while Joseph was vizier of Egypt and for some 30 years thereafter.

As part of pharaoh’s plan: to undermine the growing Jewish population and encourage assimilation through marriage, the two Jewish midwives, Shiphrah and Puah (verse 15), were ordered to kill all male newborns during delivery -- so it would look as if the males were stillborn or otherwise died of complications.

 

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר, בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן אֶת-הָעִבְרִיּוֹת, וּרְאִיתֶן, עַל-הָאָבְנָיִם:  אִם-בֵּן הוּא וַהֲמִתֶּן אֹתוֹ, וְאִם-בַּת הִוא וָחָיָה.

16 and he said: 'When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birthstool: if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.'

                                                                                          http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0201.htm

 

When, Shiphrah and Puah did not follow the pharaoh’s orders, they were called before pharoah to explain the successful birth of Jewish males.  The pharaoh would certainly have been very upset and might well have been ready to order their deaths.  After all, they had failed to carry out a royal command.

 

So the midwives’ argument in their own defense and its exact wording is important, as the irate pharaoh forgave them. They were allowed to live.

 

What was their successful defense?

 

The Hebrew is clear and it is a very clever ruse.  

 

יט  וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת:  כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ.

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh: 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.

                                                  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0201.htm

 

The Hebrew text's use of the word   חָיוֹת  is the key to the midwives’ defense.חָיוֹת 

 

The Jewish Mechon-Mamre above, following the King James translation, uses “lively” as does the Hertz Chumash but the Art Scroll Chumash translates  חָיוֹת as "experts".

 

The Septuagint’s (3^rd century BCE) Greek translation politely leaves out this section and merely states :

19 And the midwives said to Pharao, The Hebrew women are not as the women of Egypt, for they are delivered before the midwives go in to them. So they bore children.

                                                            http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm

 

Onkelos  (c. 35–120 CE) uses the term חכימן for “cunning/knowledgeable’ and Targum Jonathan uses “sturdy /’courageous” or “vivacious” (http://targum.info/onk/ExOnk1_5.htm; http://targum.info/pj/pjex1-6.htm).

 

The Latin Vulgate (done between 382 to 405 CE) translates the text:

19.  Quæ responderunt: Non sunt Hebreæ sicut ægyptiæ mulieres: ipsæ enim obstetricandi habent scientiam, et priusquam veniamus ad eas, pariunt.

  “ They responded: The Hebrews are not like the Egyptian women; for they have knowledge of obstetrics and give birth before we come to them.”         [my translation]

 

Of the 42 English Christian translations cited at Bible Gateway, the term “lively” from The King James Version (completed 1611)  is used most often, or ”vigorous”, but “strong” (NLV; NIRV); “so healthy” (NOG; GW); “knowledge of the craft of midwifing”  (WYC) ; “skillful in the office       of a midwife” (DRA); and “hearty and energetic ”(VOICE)  are also used. (http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%201:19 )

 

 

Unfortunately, the simple or Pshat reading of  חָיוֹת –one any child familiar with basic Modern or Biblical Hebrew (from Genesis 2:24-25 onward)  knows – is that  חָיוֹת  means “animals” or “beasts”.

 

Put simply, the midwives’ defense was that the Hebrew women were ‘wild beasts’ unlike the normal, human Egyptians.

 

And wording the parallel as a metaphor rather than a simile makes the claim -- “they are animals” -- even more emphatic.

 

The midwives’ word choices - כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה  - are unflinching, derogatory in tone and,  I suggest, were chosen to play into pharaoh’s prejudices.

 

How could he blame them if the Hebrew women -- like wild animals -- did not need normal assistance and thereby prevented the midwives from complying with pharaoh’s orders: to secretly kill the male newborns?

 

The crude, defamatory and shocking reference to חָיוֹת helped save the midwives.

 

P.S.  Yes, Rashi  (1040-1105) , after preferring a reading of “expert midwives” following Onkelos, and seeing חָיוֹת as a word-play on the Aramaic for midwife as used by Onkelos, acknowledges that the Rabbis did read the text as “animals of the field.” However, Rashi gives numerous examples where parallels to animals are laudatory and a positive: as in Jacob’s blessings to his sons, Genesis 49, where they are compared to various animals such as a lion or deer.   

In the context of the meeting with pharaoh, it is highly unlikely that the midwives would have put such a ‘spin’ on the word חָיוֹת. After all, their lives were on the line as they faced pharaoh’s anger and certain death.

 

                                                            -   -   -   -   -

 

Again, relying on the translations puts the reader at the mercy of pious or other ‘interpolations’ which, at times, are designed to protect the reader and his or her sensibilities.

Wherever possible, it is important to read the original.

“arami oved avi”: the common misreading of the Vulgate, Deut. 26: 5

UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE – translations

There have been at least five different translations or understandings of the three terse, poetic words אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי “arami oved avi”,  including that of the Vulgate.   

(The various translations will be discussed in a future blog and a new translation of the Hebrew offered as well.)

Jerome, the early Christian Church father and creator of the Latin Vulgate (done between 382 to 405 CE) translates the Hebrew text as :

   "Syrus persequebatur patrem meum qui descendit in Aegyptum..." 

This can mean

A.” A Syrian pursued my father who [then] descended to Egypt...”  

                                                OR  

        B. “A Syrian used to persecute my father who [then] descended to Egypt... “

 

 The  A. reading is based on the normal use of the verb persequor and could fit the seven days that Laban pursued Jacob before catching up to him (Genesis 31:23).

It is, in fact,  the standard reading used in English translations of the Vulgate. (See http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=5&c=26.)

But, I suggest, the new, B. reading of “persecuted” is the correct one and Jerome’s actual intent -- based on internal evidence from the Vulgate.

The verb persequor not only means to follow or pursue, but also to persecute in Ecclesiastical Latin as used in the Vulgate.  (See A Latin Dictionary founded on Andrew’s Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary,  Lewis and Short, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1969 impression of 1879 first edition), p. 1354, definition d.) 

As well, a persecution reading is more reflective of the verb tense chosen by Jerome.

The verb ending “atur” is past imperfect, indicating an event that was repetitive, or habitual.

Laban pursed Jacob only once, and in that passage in Genesis 31 (see below) the imperfect tense is never used though the verb persequor appears twice.

The only context for Jacob to be ‘repeatedly’ or ‘habitually’ hounded by Laban is during the 20 years he worked for him and was repeatedly cheated (summarized in Genesis 31: 5-9).

 

Pursue vs. Persecute

The verb persecutor appears a total of four times in this setting: Vulgate Genesis 31 and here in Deuteronomy 26.  Only ONCE is the verb put in the past imperfect – i.e., ‘repeated/habitual’ form – namely, in verse 5 above.  

All the others are in the simple Present or simple Past Perfect. 

·       Gen. 31:19 rubric:  “Persequitur eum Laban”  =  Laban pursues him.  (Historical Present)

·       Gen. 31:23     “Qui, assumptis fratribus sui, persecutus est eum ...” = who with his gathered kinsmen pursued him. (Past Perfect)

·       Deut. 26:5  - see above

·       Deut. 26:6 “Adflixeruntque nos Aegyptii et persecute sunt inponentes onera gravissima” = and the Egyptians afflicted us, and persecuted us, laying on us most grievous burdens.      (Past Perfect).

                   (See http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=5&c=26)

 

Yes, it is used twice to mean ‘pursue’ in the context of Laban’s chase in Genesis 31,    but in the context of Deut. 26 it seems to mean ‘persecute’ both times: the enslavement in Egypt -- which everyone acknowledges is the correct reading of        Deut. 26:6, and, I suggest, the abuse over 20 years beforehand in Aramea by Laban     in verse 5.

Put simply, from a grammatical perspective, the fact that only verse 5 uses the imperfect tense cannot be accidental or ignored. 

Readin B., in my view, and based on the Vulgate's verb choice, is the only possible meaning for Deut. 26: 5.

As such, it is also the only reading of the half-dozen interpretations to focus on Jacob’s 20 years with Laban and their ongoing, dysfunctional relationship.

UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE - Hebrew grammar

 

Psalm 34 and Vav Hahefuch

This poem by King David -- which is read every Shabbat and Holiday during the morning prayers -- is some 24 verses long if organized by its alphabetical acrostic (see any Art Scroll siddur) and contains just over 50 verbs.

Throughout, King David uses normal verb tenses and forms – except for the two verbs at the end of the first verse which are in vav hahefuch.

א    לְדָוִד--    בְּשַׁנּוֹתוֹ אֶת-טַעְמוֹ, לִפְנֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ;                            וַיְגָרְשֵׁהוּ, וַיֵּלַךְ.

.

 

 When David fled King Saul and hid among the enemy Philistines, his true identity was discovered and he would have faced certain death except he convinced the ruler, Avimelech, and his court that he was insane; a fate the king saw as worse than death.  And so Avimelech spared his life and let him go free.

To commemorate this event, David wrote Psalm 34 and in only one spot -- twice – back to back -- used vav hahefuch.  

This cannot be accidental, especially as vav hahefuch is almost never used in the Book of Psalms. As a collection of man-made poems praising God, the Divine vav hahefuch would not be used, but it does show up at times, and when it does, it deserves attention.

 

The first verse encapsulates the event and ends with David’s expulsion from the royal court and his safe departure from the land of the Philistines.

 

It translates as " A Psalm of David, when he pretended to be insane before Avimelech who drove him away and he departed.”

 

 

By specifically using vav hahefuch, David acknowledges that it was not his own wit that outsmarted the Philistine king and his court, but rather that the ruse worked due to special Divine intervention.

 

In David’s mind, his expulsion by Avimelech – alive –was from God (וַיְגָרְשֵׁהו), and the second, seemingly superfluous “and he departed” (וַיֵּלַךְ) alludes to his ‘safe passage’ through the land of vengeful Philistine people.

 

Put simply, King David saw this as a double miracle .  Through using vav hahefuch twice and only for these verbs of deliverance, he attests to his belief in the invisible hand of God and Divine intercession in the affairs of mankind.