Читать книгу Jeremiah 26-52 - Carolyn Sharp - Страница 24
ОглавлениеPoints concerning verbal aspectFor perfective forms in poetic oracles, often the best choice is to render the terms with the present perfect in English. In the oracles against the nations, for example, poetic moments of glee over the defeat of enemies are not to be taken as historical reports of one-time events in the past. These are oracular pronouncements of a dramatic “present” in which the prophet sees the inevitability of Yhwh’s victory over Egypt, Moab, Babylon, and so on. The use of the English present perfect serves both the prophetic nature of this oracular envisioning and the drama with which the prophet is proclaiming these enemies’ defeat—whether historically past or still to come, from the implied audience’s standpoint within the plot of the book. One example would be, “Damascus has grown weak” (49:24).
Syntax reference works have elucidated the pluperfect sense yielded by some wayyiqtol constructions in Biblical Hebrew.151 Many translators fail to utilize the pluperfect in their target language, even when an event in a more-distant past is being referenced as background for narration of events or conditions in the recent past or continuing into the present. To fail to use the pluperfect deftly, in any target language with the capacity to draw such temporal distinctions, is a serious translation error. Use of the pluperfect can be vital to clarify the underlying logic of a passage, especially if verbless clauses nearby contribute to the complexity of the temporal signification. For example, in 30:14–16, some commentators are baffled by Yhwh seeming to say (I’ll use here the misleading NRSV translation), “I have dealt you the blow of an enemy…. because your sins are so numerous, I have done these things to you. Therefore all who devour you shall be devoured….” It does seem surprising, this apparent switch from “I have punished you” (a condition extending into the present) to the divine promise of recompense upon Zion’s enemies; “therefore” (לכן) at the beginning of v. 16 causes consternation. But the pluperfect is crucial here. This oracle was written from the perspective of postexilic scribes: Yhwh had punished Zion, and in the extended imagery of promise beginning in 30:2, that punishment has been sufficient and is concluded; therefore now Yhwh will redeem Zion. Inadequate consideration of pluperfect sequencing has led commentators to postulate textual disruption or even different sources for such verses where no such postulation is needed.
Translation of הנהThe translation of the Hebrew particle הנה (hinneh) is challenging. It can add a subtle valence of “Be aware!” or “Look out!” A well-worn joke in scholarly circles has it that the best translation is something akin to “Oh, rats!” with “rats” standing in here for a common vulgarity used to connote everything from mild consternation to powerful dread. But הנה does not flag only negative or threatening situations. It occurs in promise oracles as well (e.g., 30:18). It can add emphasis to agency along the lines of, “See what I myself am doing!” or it can mean more generally, “Pay attention to the following!” Bill Arnold and John Choi explain that the
primary function … is as a “particle of interest,” which calls special attention to an element of the context, either a single word or an entire statement. As the particle calls attention to an object, it also indicates a shift in perspective within a narrative. In essence, the particle introduces movement away from the narratival perspective to present vividly the perspective of a particular speaker or figure within the narrative.152
Those who translate הנה face an interpretive decision in each case about which dimension of the following word or clause to intensify. I have arguments at the ready regarding the specific semantic work that I perceive the particle to be performing in each of its occurrences in Jer 26–52. But I am loath to make the decision for my readers in each case in a way that could confuse those without knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. In some instances, הנה cannot be translated without adding what could be seen as excess freight in English. Yet it is a significant semantic marker in Biblical Hebrew. In some instances, הנה contributes to a tone of breathlessness or intensity in dialogue. In other instances it may signal a change in what the narrator suggests is the implied audience’s expectation or prepare the audience for a shift in rhetorical focus. הנה occurs 67 times in Jer 26–52. Several chapters show an intense concentration of occurrences, which may mark a heightened quality of the rhetoric there. For example, הנה occurs eight times in Jer 32, six times in Jer 50, and five times in Jer 51. Many translations leave הנה out, but my decision is to render it, using a superscript mark this: in order to note the presence of the particle while neither giving it undue weight nor being overly determinative in my translation of each instance. This practice extends an implicit invitation to the reader to consider, in each case, what may be being emphasized, flagged as contrary to expectation, intensified, or otherwise specially noted by means of הנה. Readers who do not know Hebrew can be confident that any time they see “mark this” in superscript, the phrase is rendering הנה.
Masoretic Text as the focusThe present commentary is focused on interpretation of the Masoretic text of Jeremiah. I am committed to clear visual representation of JerMT in this translation; there would be no way to represent all variations between the Hebrew and Greek text traditions without a forest of different brackets and varied fonts. This commentary is not intended to provide analysis of JerLXX 26–52, nor is it meant to function as a comprehensive guide to all text-critical issues in JerMT 26–52.153 Discussion of text-critical matters will be focused on variations between JerMT and JerLXX that I deem to matter in a substantive way for our understanding of the MT.
Representation of text-critical variantsThe choice to privilege larger interpretive issues has required a pragmatic decision regarding translational practice where variations exist between JerMT and JerLXX. Words, clauses, and lines in JerMT that are not represented in JerLXX are marked in this translation by square brackets. Many of these are MT expansions; a few may have arisen through LXX scribal error or, rarely, intentional omission. In text-critical analysis, the scholar must treat each variation carefully on its own terms, while considering broader tendencies that may be discerned in the base texts, redactional layers, and particular scribal practices in the social contexts of JerMT and JerLXX. Some cases of variation are fairly simple, such as the MT expansionist tendency to add titles for God and for officials, but other cases of variation are complicated and may have emerged from a sequence of multiple factors that cannot be discussed at length in a commentary intended for the non-expert as well as the scholarly community. Pragmatically, then, the use of brackets here should be taken to show only that the bracketed material is present in the Hebrew and absent in the Greek.
The Hebrew word לאמר does not usually require translation, though one does see it in purposefully wooden translations, which yield poor English: “This word came from Yhwh, saying …” I have not represented לאמר in English where I deem it to have little or no semantic utility, nor have I put it in brackets where JerLXX lacks the corresponding term λέγων, since that variation in many cases constitutes an unremarkable translation choice. Similarly, I have declined to mark Hebrew waw conjunctions for which JerLXX lacks a corresponding καί. I have declined to put in brackets renderings of the particle ־נא that have no corresponding semantic unit such as οὖν in JerLXX, not least because it is inevitably awkward to represent the precative dimension in English by means of a separate term. Where that particle occurs in speech by one of lesser status to one of higher status, the outdated “I pray” would constitute a serious distortion of tone in contemporary English and could be misunderstood by non-scholarly readers; where the precative particle occurs in the speech of Yhwh or in oblique rhetorical address, the standard rendering “now” (as at 30:6, “Ask now, and see”) is an unfortunate choice that could be misunderstood by non-scholarly readers as well. For comprehensive marking and adjudication of every variant, readers should consult Finsterbusch and Jacoby, MT-Jeremia und LXX-Jeremia 25–52.
Translators have many choices about how to render ancient terms. Does the translator wish to privilege poetic elegance above semantic precision? Is paraphrastic clarity more desirable than a nuanced rendering that might be obscure to readers without scholarly background? Should the translator choose euphemism over a blunt rendering of a vulgar term? Even in translations aimed at the scholarly guild rather than liturgical use, choices abound. Regarding terms for types of impairment, I have chosen to privilege precision over poetic elegance. There is only one such example in Jer 26–52. I describe it here as instructive for feminist praxis more generally, and for the consideration of those who prepare exegetical and homiletical usages of Jer 31 and similar passages.154 The powerfully compact Hebrew phrase in the fourth clause of 31:8, בם עור ופסח, is often rendered as, “among them the blind and the lame.” I choose to translate the two adjectival substantives as, “those with visual impairment and those with mobility impairment.” I am well aware that my translation is not elegant, but in this case, elegance is not the most important dimension to consider. My decision allows each term to signify within a span of relevant types of impairment, something that is desirable with regard to the Hebrew semantically. It is also important to signal that the condition of impairment is not defining of the whole person. The more restrictive and potentially offensive way of translating those terms is no truer to the meaning of the original Hebrew. Analogous is the decision of contemporary translators to avoid rendering the circumstantial clause והוא צרוע in Lev 22:4 as “him being a leper,” which would be medically inaccurate since Hansen’s disease was not in view, unduly restrictive given that צרוע was used for a variety of skin conditions (“diseases” is unnecessarily prejudicial), and offensive in reducing the person, syntactically and conceptually, to the condition.
