UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE: translations
אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי
“arami oved avi”, Deut. 26: 5
There have been five different
translations or understandings of these three terse, if highly poetic 1
words and I suggest a sixth based
on Hebrew grammar and the definition of אֹבֵד.
First Reading
The Septuagint’s (3rd
century BCE) Greek translation:
“My father abandoned Syria, and went down into Egypt ... “ (http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Deuteronomy/index.htm)
It treats my father, the 3rd
word in this string as subject; אֹבֵד as a full transitive verb, with אֲרַמִּי meaning the land of Syria.
Second Reading
Onkelos
(c. 35–120
CE) explicitly translates it as “ The Aramean Laban tried
to destroy my father”. He explicitly names that “Aramean” as Laban,
and follows the original’s word order making Aramean Laban the subject, אֹבֵד a full transitive verb and “my father” אָבִי as the object.
Saadiah Gaon (d. 942) in his
commentary2 and Rashi (1040
-1105) understand the text similarly, and, as the Art Scroll Chumash, p. 1069, points out, he is
following the Midrashic interpretation of Sifre.
It is
also the
Mesoretic accents ‘reading’ as the “the pashta, zakef,
katon sequence
on arami
oved avi was
formulated in accordance with the Laban interpretation.” 2
This is also how the Passover Haggadah (earliest extent copy from
10th century CE) understands the text. (See above Art Scroll Chumash, p. 1069.)
The meaning of this reading is
that Laban—when he pursued the fleeing Jacob and family (Genesis 31: 19- 29) --
was planning to kill Jacob and return the wives and their children to the
ancestral, clan home in Haran.
Third Reading
Jerome, the early Christian Church
father, and creator of the Latin Vulgate (done between 382 to 405 CE) translates the text:
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... “
Both readings are consistent with
the subject-verb-object order and understanding of Onkelos /Rashi/Haggadah that
Arami (here as Latin Syrus) refers
to Laban.
The A. reading is the standard
reading 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) -- as
the above, second reading of Onkelos and co.
It is also the standard
translation of the Latin into English. (See http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=5&c=26.)
But the B. reading as
“persecuted”, I believe, is the correct translation 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 and
Jerome’s 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.)
More importantly, 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 (see below) the
imperfect tense is never used though the
verb 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).
_____________________________________________________________________
Jerome’s use of persequor
The verb persequor
appears a total of four times in this setting: in Jerome’s 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 persecuti
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)
So, of the four times the verb
‘persequor’ is used, it is used twice to mean ‘pursue’ in the context of
Laban’s chase, and 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 the abuse of Jacob 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.
As such,
while its subject-verb-object reading is similar to Onkelos/Rashi/Hagaddah
in its equation of אֲרַמִּי (Aramean) with Laban and אָבִי with Jacob, its focus is substantially
different. It is, in fact, the only
understanding of the text that focuses on their 20 years long, ongoing, dysfunctional
relationship.
Finally, it should be noted that in the Septuagint, Onkelos and co. and
Jerome readings, אֹבֵד is treated as a full transitive
verb and as if it were past tense.
Fourth Reading
On
grammatical grounds, the rabbis on the generation after Rashi: Rabbis Samuel
ben Meir (Rashbam, born c. 1080), the great Ibn Ezra (born c. 1089) and David
Kimhi (born 1160) came up with a 4th reading2.
They argue that the verb אֹבֵד does not take
an object elsewhere in the Bible; it is intransitive.
Therefore אֲרַמִּי must refer to אָבִי , and they read אֹבֵד as a full Qal and present tense verb or adjective/participle.
“My
Aramean father wanders“ (full Qal present
tense verb)
OR "My father [was] a wandering Aramean"
(participle/adjective)
This reading is now
used by Academic translations of the Bible3.
Fifth Reading
The
King James Bible (completed
in 1611 CE) has been the authoritative and revered English translation for some
400 years.
Its reading for Deut.
26:5 is: “A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down
into Egypt ...”
It parallels Ibn Ezra
and co. in seeing the words Syrian (Aramean) and ‘my father’ as referring to
one and the same person, and treats אֹבֵד as a main, intransitive verb in the
present tense.
What
“ready to perish” means, however, eludes me. It seems more a ‘mechanical translation’ than
one trying to clarify the text.
אֹבֵד – other problems
1,. TENSE and
CONJUGATION
The simple Qal form of אֹבֵד means
“to be destroyed”, “to be lost” and is passive in intent. It is also present tense.
If the passage meant
Laban the Aramean “tried to destroy Jacob” then a different form of the verb
would have been needed. The same 3
letters –דבא – could be vocalized as the Piel past tense 3rd
person singular “ibad” -- which is active, can take an object, and means “to
destroy” (see Strong H6 at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6&t=KJV
Torah scrolls do not
show vowels, so it is possible that these translations and interpretations read
the vowel free text דבא as PAST
TENSE and in the Piel
Conjugation as the 3 consonants are the same. It
would be pronounced ibad in
the alternate vocalization.
It
is only with the Leningrad Codex (dated 1009 CE) and its vowel markings
(and maybe the Aleppo Codex when it had this passage in tact) that the
reading אֹבֵד (present tense) is recorded. (See facsimile at http://www.seforimonline.org/seforimdb/pdf/232.pdf).
And it may well be that Onkelos, the Midrash, the Haggadah’s author and Rashi had such a
variant oral
tradition.
2. TRANSLATION of ibn
Ezra and co.
To translate אֹבֵד as “wanderer, wandering” is not what the word or root means
anywhere else in Scripture or Rabbinic Literature thereafter!!!
It
always and solely means “be destroyed”, “perish” or “be lost”. It never means to be a “traveller” which is what ibn Ezra and co.’s
“wanderer/wandering” interpretation presumes.
According to the website,
Scholar’s Gateway4, the form אֹבֵד appears just 8 times in the entire
Tanach. Of the 7 other instances, only once, in Psalms 119:176 (below)
is a reading of “wandered” even remotely possible though the standard אֹבֵד meaning of “ to be lost” -- as in to perish or be
destroyed -- is fully appropriate here too.
Strong’s concordance of Scriptures H6 and H7
only gives “be destroyed, perished, be lost’ as the meaning of the root אבד and even in Rabbinic writings
thereafter the root אבד only means “be destroyed, perished, be lost’
according to Prof. Marcus Jastrow ‘s Dictionary of Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi,
Midrashic Literature and Targumim, (Pardes Publishing House, N.Y., 1950),
vol. 1, pages 2-3.
Put simply, ‘wanderer’ – as in ‘traveller’ -- is NOT the meaning of אבד anywhere.
Psalms 119
|
קעו תָּעִיתִי--
כְּשֶׂה אֹבֵד, בַּקֵּשׁ עַבְדֶּךָ:
כִּי מִצְוֹתֶיךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי. |
176 I have
gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Thy servant;
for I have not forgotten Thy commandments. |
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26b9.htm
3. אֲרַמִּי problem
A second and related problem is the word אֲרַמִּי, Aramean.
The word is used as a place name in Genesis
ch. 24:10 (Aram-naharaim) and Genesis ch.
28, ch. 25:20 and 31:18 with “Padan-aram”, but only 4 times does it refer to people: in
the Deuteronomy instance under question, Genesis 25:20, Genesis 31:24 and 2 Kings 5:20 where it is an adjective and
indicating nationality.
The explicit, personal references in
Genesis are once to Bethuel the Aramean and twice to his son, Laban the Aramean;
i.e, the family’s clan leaders who lived in the city of Haran in the country
then known as Aramea.
Abraham, Isaac , Jacob and their descendents are
referred to in the Bible as Hebrews, “evrim” – immigrants from above the Euphrates -- in all other instances: see Genesis 14:13 re: Abraham (וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑י
וְהוּא֩ שֹׁכֵ֨ן);
Genesis 39:14
(re: Joseph) Genesis 41:12 (re: Joseph);
Exodus 1:15-16 and 19 (re: Hebrew midwives);
Exodus 2:11 (Moses saves a Jewish slave)
and Exodus 21:2 (rules if you buy
a Jewish slave).
It is one thing to refer to Bethuel, Laban’s
father and clan head, and Laban as “Arameans” as they lived there all their
lives, but to call Jacob an “Aramean” -- as suggested by Ibn Ezra and
company -- would have been considered derogatory and insulting to
him and his descendents, though reflective of Jacob’s 20 years living with
Laban in the Aramean city of Haran.
So, does the Bible text, does God through
his choice of wording in this verse which is part of the declaration every
Jewish farmer in the Holy Land is to proclaim each harvest year -- forever -- before
a priest and God’s alter at His Mishkan and later Temple ( Deut. 26: 3-4) intend
to eternally criticize Jacob for his long stay in Aramean lands?
Maybe that is why the earliest sources,
the Septuagint, Onkelos/ Rashi/the Haggadah, and the Vulgate dissociated
“my father” from “Aramean” and saw Laban in the text.
So how should Deut. 26:5-7 be interpreted and translated?
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0526.htm
A sixth (new) translation
If the pronunciation “אֹבֵד” as an intransitive participle it
probably means a “failed/impoverished/worthless/lowly (= destroyed) Aramean [was] my father.“
This sixth reading.
The translation would be:
" My father [was/started] as an impoverished/lowly Aramean ..."
It would refer to jacob when he arrived at Laban's homehome: alone and
without gifts or wealth (see Genesis Ch. 29:13-14). Jacob highlights his lowly state at his
arrival in Haran later on; in own words in the prayer to God while awaiting
Esau’a probably attack
Jacob
says: " ... for with my
staff only I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two companies.” (Genesis:30:11)
And Jewish tradition ascribes his
arrival at Haran penniless as the result of an
attack by Esau’s son, Eliphaz,
who was ordered by
Esau to kill Jacob but instead stole all his gifts and left him with nothing. This
event, as elaborated by Rashi’s
commentary to Genesis ch. 29:11, based on the Midrash, has Jacob himself say,
to convince Eliphaz to spare his life: ”Take what I have, for a poor
man is counted as dead.” (see also Wikjipedia,”Eliphaz”).
So, if we accept that the verb is to be pronounced אֹבֵד as
a present participial, then, yes,
Jacob is the intended “Aramean” based on grammar. The intent of the text would be to give a double
contrast of Jacob’s humble state
when he came to Haran and what ensued thereafter.
Firstly, he arrived alone and without gifts and wealth – totally
impoverished -- and staying with Laban as a ‘uninvited guest’”.
Yet as promised by God to him (and his father and grandfather Abraham before
him), his progeny would become a numerous
and might nation (the declaration, verse 5) and would become landowners of a good and rich land – the Promised Land
-- which is the focus of the passage (the declaration, verse 9).
Put simply, if the pronunciation was intended to be אֹבֵד, I believe the intent of אֲרַמִּי
אֹבֵד אָבִי was to introduce the double contrast highlighted in the declaration, with
Jacob described at the outset as “a impoverished/ lowly (= “destroyed”) Aramean”.
But if “ibad”
However, as hinted above, I am highly
doubtful that אֹבֵד is the intended
pronunciation and the
association of אֲרַמִּי (“Arami”) with Jacob. It
seems to me unimaginable that the Bible, that God, would want this derogatory
association of “Arami” made and proclaimed publically every year by each and
every Jewish farmer.
Again, Torah scrolls have no vowel markings and ‘ibad’ may
well have been the reading of the three consonants: אבדfor millennia.
Aural Understanding of the Haggadah
As a
further note, when I was younger and listened to the Haggadah more than I looked
at or paid
attention to the written words and spelling, I assumed that the word אֹבֵד was its
homophone בֵדע - meaning to toil/labour/ work hard.
With the focus of the Haggadah on
the Exodus from being persecuted slaves in Egypt, it seemed logical.
The Haggadah includes verse 6 above: וַיָּרֵעוּ
אֹתָנוּ הַמִּצְרִים, וַיְעַנּוּנוּ; וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלֵינוּ, עֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה. and the
earlier, Deut. 6, 21:
|
כא וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ, עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה
בְּמִצְרָיִם; וַיֹּצִיאֵנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם, בְּיָד חֲזָקָה.
|
21 then thou
shalt say unto thy son: 'We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the LORD
brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
|
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0506.htm
Consequently,
I suggest that many people -- for generations: those who could not afford to
have a separate Haggadah in front of them, and even those who had one but were
not Hebrew scholars and linguists, probably made the same simple and logical misreading/mishearing/misunderstanding.
They would hear and understand אֲרַמִּי
אֹבֵד אָבִי as:
“My father toiled like a slave for an Aramean.”
____________________
1. These words are highly poetic: all 3 words alliterate, there
is end-rhyme in the first and last
words, and internal rhyme’in the last two with the
repeated consonant ב.
2. http://www.hakirah.org/vol13first.pdf
3. See Martin
Lockshin’s article, “Tradition and autonomy: the history and future of
Interpretation, think: the Lola Stein
Institute Journal, #151, Spring 2014, pp. 18-19).
No comments:
Post a Comment