The difficulty of escaping a past bias

There is a commonplace in the theological world from the last 2000 years that God punishes. It is not true.

Can I be any more clear. It - is - not - true.

To attribute the role of punisher to God (whether by direct mistranslation or by inference in the mind of the reader) is a false understanding of the Scriptures in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The understanding is false.

God does not punish. We punish.

There are more ways to get 'God punishes' wrong as policy than there are to get 'we punish' wrong as policy.

Perhaps you didn't know that theology - what we think about God - can lead us to do things that we think God would do. Since by definition - God is the ultimate good. (If indeed we dare to define God.)

Don't get me wrong in these ways. There are consequences to what we do. And plenty of them are painful and deadly. If we rape the creation, we will suffer. If we fail to prepare for a pandemic, we will suffer. If we lie to each other, we will suffer. If we are lucky, we can attribute such suffering to a visitation from God. Perhaps we will revive. 

We know the difference between what is good and what is evil. Punishment and its motivation is evil. It cannot be attributed to God. It has no role in understanding either the First Testament and its theories of atonement nor has it any role in the Newer Testament and theories of how the work of Jesus works for those who believe. 

Prove me wrong. But I tell you. Punishment as theology is evil news, not good news.

I am a Christian and I value the teaching that I have derived from the New Testament. The apostle Paul in particular invites us by faith into suffering with God rather than suffering for our own ignorance and error. Jesus was and remains faithful in the message of the NT - but it is not an easy path to follow nor is it a slam dunk to understand. 

The first potential for our stumbling is our desire to control what we know and to control our relationships. We must have both self-control and cooperation amongst the elements of the created order. But we cannot achieve this with cheap answers to hard questions. We have to work it out and we have to correct the errors that are evident in our body politic.

You will know them by their fruits - says Jesus. Just look around: world wars, holocaust, famine, arms races, fear, oligarchies, inequities, and on and on. There is no lack of sin. 

Look around again, hard working farmers, health workers, hospitals, schools, scientists restoring and understanding life, from species restoration to waste management systems, and on and on, good human endeavors. There is no lack of care. 

Look around again: Consider the lilies - there is an immensity of words in the Tanakh (the Old Testament) about creation, and animals, and plant life, and beauty. It is not punishment. It is a prodigality of astonishing wealth. There is no lack of resources. 

How is it that there is inequity among us?

It has come to my attention that a blog I follow is writing about the character of God. The first two parts avoid the commonplace failures in translation. But parts 3 and 4 do not. Example in part 4 that God 'relents from punishing'. The Hebrew says No Such Thing. 

The translation of a word that signifies 'evil' as 'punishment' is sheer irresponsibility. God sighs over the evil that is evident to God in the human endeavors. It says nothing about God as the subject of 'punishment'. It will be misread if it is translated this way and the resulting idea about God in the mind of the reader will be distorted. This is the verse cited:

Rip your heart and not your garments and turn to Yahweh your God, for gracious and compassionate is he, slow to anger and abundant in kindness, and sighs over evil. (Joel 2:13).

I am grateful that the blog I noted (link here) is considering the character of God, but it is nearly impossible to consider it accurately without a concordant translation. I have pointed out on this blog that punish as a gloss is badly used in traditional translations at least as far back as the Vulgate and certainly in the mind of the 16th century in English tradition. Punishment was in vogue in the 16th century.

I have left a critical comment on Claude's blog. The teaching in the churches has to change. My comment is under moderation. Well, in my immoderate fashion, here it is:

Hi – thanks for your work on this formative verse. I want to object, however, to the use of the gloss punish for any root in the Hebrew language. The 16th century translators had punishment on their minds a lot. The evidence is for the number of different Hebrew words (יסר נכה ענשׁ פקד רעע עוה) that are glossed as punish. A review of these words will show that not one of them has punish as its dominant gloss. Sometimes the KJV translators even put in punishment as a word when there is no corresponding word at all in the Hebrew. (See Lev 26:41.)

I have written on this extensively having completed in the last 15 years a full translation of the Hebrew. Important though discipline and discipleship is, punishment is not part of it, rather it is governance. I do not deny pain or suffering or consequences but punishment is the imposition of a distorted human violent action that is not in the mind of God.

Just that one root pqd – primarily it has the sense of visit. Would we not want to be visited by God? Even if it required us to be corrected, chastened, struck, or even bewildered. Personally, I have been struck and I know the presence because of it. It is this way that I have suffered with God who grieves concerning our decisions that draw us away from such presence.

When I meditate on the character of God I am struck by the Psalms – 146 is among the best. 145 also includes Exodus 34:6 – I have prepared a short lecture and performance on the music of Psalm 145 that you can find here if you are interested. https://meafar.blogspot.com/2021/01/psalms-1458-14.html

Translating and interpreting

It is impossible not to interpret as one translates. So for the latest scandal in the word punishment as described by Bart Ehrman in his last two posts on Amos see here and immediately prior post. I don't disagree that there are consequences for ignoring the instruction of the God portrayed in the Old Testament. I was struck though by the effrontery of the translation used:

For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron.  So I will send a fire on the house of Hazael… I will break the gate bars of Damascus and cut off the inhabitants from the Valley of Aven. (1:3-5)

The offending words for me are "I will not revoke the punishment". The word for punishment is not in the text at all. It has been read into the verb by context. It has been read in because of the gloss chosen in English for the word wvb - which is the word for turn. See here for all its uses in the Bible. As you can see, it is the word 'return'. Return has nothing to do with punishment. The word is awibnu  (roughly ashivenu)- future, imperfect, first person singular subject and third person singular object. Literally choose between, I will return it, I will return him, I will turn him, or perhaps restore instead of return (I use that choice in some contexts). Others I allow with my concordance rules include: turn back, pay tribute, repair, give riposte, reverse / revert, occasionally 'reply'. I don't use revoke since that has to do with calling rather than turning / returning.

And you could use 'it' as the third person object - so : I will reverse it. This would work. Of course in this case it is 'la awibnu' - (add the vowels and it becomes approximately 'lo ashivenu') so it is a negative. What you choose for your gloss depends on what you think the third person pronoun suffix is referring to. What is its antecedent? In every one of these 8 instances, the immediately preceding noun is the nation addressed. I am tempted to write as I initially did, "I will not turn them" and allow the obvious antecedent the plurality of the people of the nation, to be the object. But I think I had better not. Let 'it' suffice to refer to the antecedent nation that is addressed.

The RSV, NRSV, ESV and another 7 English translations have decided to make this passage 'clearer' and have pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Neither hat nor rabbit is in the text. The policy of the churches who approved these words must be to keep the people ignorant of God and of the character of God.

Punishment has been introduced into the text. This word requires an invisible and unstated antecedent. If God determined to turn any of these nations, they would have turned as Nineveh did in the book of Jonah. But God doesn't work that way, he allows the consequences of our actions to come to us so that we might learn the difference between good and evil - just like we wanted. This applies to all the nations even Judah and Israel.

You can see this very same word and phrase in Numbers 23:20 in the mouth of Balaam. No punishment there. Here the antecedent is explicitly blessing. Even if in the discourse analysis of the implications of the continual acts of violence against others, the implied antecedent is the opposite of blessing, you can't use punishment for this, because the implication is that God is punishing. The consequence may be punishing but the agency is not God. For the atheist it is the consequence of a hard reality, for the believer, it should be the same, otherwise their God is even more cruel than the atheist's. Perhaps this is why the world frequently knows better than the church. They have learned the church's lessons better.

God has not turned the hearts of these translators either. And so we the people are misled again. I am consistently against the translator telling us what the text means. A translator should report what the text says as accurately as he or she can.

Genesis 50

For the record, there is no punishment in Bob's Bible. I only just noted this. My bias is clear. פקד is never translated as punish as it frequently is in the KJV. Nor do I use this word for any of the other roots that it is used for like יסר or נכר or ענשׁ or עוה or רעע. Now I ask you, did that generation have punishment on the brain? How can you allow 6 unrelated stems to converge on the word punish?

No wonder the Christian world is distorted by the notion of penal substitution.

No soul, no repentance, no punishment in Bob's Bible. It's not that I know anything, but when I read, I do not write what I know is undecidable by the translator. 

• No soul because soul, lovely though the word is, it is not a bodiless substance that lives on after death. The problem with this Greek idea is the implied linearity of time. It also denies the body. It is heresy. [i.e. it is a choice that I don't choose.]
• No repentance, because the word, important though it is, has come to mean a psychological torture chamber. 
• No punishment, because important though discipline and discipleship is, punishment is not part of it, rather it is governance. I do not deny pain or suffering or consequences but punishment is the imposition of a distorted human violent action that is not in the mind of God.

I wonder how many other words I have failed to use. They uncover my assumptions better than the words I have used.

Here are my glosses so far for the stems (aka roots) above which KJV and others butcher as punish, (excluding רעע which we explored here)

יסר bewilderment(1), chasten(9), chastened(6), chastening(26), chastens(5), mentor(2), mentored(3), mentoring(7), tutored(1), warn(2), warned(1), warning(3)
נכה Neko(5), stricken(4), strike(52), striker(1), strikes(10), striking(5), struck(145)
עדה Adah(9), assembly(77), deck(1), decked(3), decks(1), given testimony(1), menstrual(1), near testimonies(1), testimonies(33), testimony(38)
ענשׁ amerced(1), fine(1), fined(2)
פקד conscript(1), conscripted(4), conscription(4), entrust(3), entrusted(17), given visitation rights(1), make officiate(1), make visit(3), office(1), officer(4), officers(4), offices(1), officials(2), officiating(2), precepts(24), visit(38), visitation(6), visited(12), visiting(8), visits(1)

Now for a change of pace, would you like to have been visited by God, as Joseph notes will happen to his brothers? (Note the anticipation of Peter Rabbit in this text.)

Genesis 50		Fn		Min	Max	Syll
וַיִּפֹּ֥ל יוֹסֵ֖ף עַל־פְּנֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ עָלָ֖יו וַיִּשַּׁק־לֽוֹ	1		And Joseph fell in the presence of his father, and wept over him, and kissed him.	3e	4B	10 9
וַיְצַ֨ו יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶת־עֲבָדָיו֙ אֶת־הָרֹ֣פְאִ֔ים לַחֲנֹ֖ט אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וַיַּחַנְט֥וּ הָרֹפְאִ֖ים אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל	2		And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father, and the physicians embalmed Israel.	3e	4C	18 11
וַיִּמְלְאוּ־לוֹ֙ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֔וֹם כִּ֛י כֵּ֥ן יִמְלְא֖וּ יְמֵ֣י הַחֲנֻטִ֑ים וַיִּבְכּ֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ מִצְרַ֖יִם שִׁבְעִ֥ים יֽוֹם	3		And they fulfilled for him forty days, for so are fulfilled the days of embalming, and Egypt wept for him seventy days.	3d	4B	19 10
וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֙ יְמֵ֣י בְכִית֔וֹ וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶל־בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־נָ֨א מָצָ֤אתִי חֵן֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם דַּבְּרוּ־נָ֕א בְּאָזְנֵ֥י פַרְעֹ֖ה לֵאמֹֽר	4		When the days of his weeping were passed, Joseph spoke to the house of Pharaoh, saying, If, please, I have found grace in your sight, speak please in the ears of Pharaoh, saying,	3e	4C	20 19
אָבִ֞י הִשְׁבִּיעַ֣נִי לֵאמֹ֗ר הִנֵּ֣ה אָנֹכִי֮ מֵת֒ בְּקִבְרִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֨ר כָּרִ֤יתִי לִי֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן שָׁ֖מָּה תִּקְבְּרֵ֑נִי וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה	5		My father made me swear, saying, Behold, I am to die. In my tomb that I have dug for me in the land of Canaan, there you will entomb me. So now let me go up please, and entomb my father and I will return.	3d	4C	35 18
וַיֹּ֖אמֶר פַּרְעֹ֑ה עֲלֵ֛ה וּקְבֹ֥ר אֶת־אָבִ֖יךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הִשְׁבִּיעֶֽךָ	6		And Pharaoh said, Go up and entomb your father, as he made you swear.	3d	4A	5 15
וַיַּ֥עַל יוֹסֵ֖ף לִקְבֹּ֣ר אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וַיַּֽעֲל֨וּ אִתּ֜וֹ כָּל־עַבְדֵ֤י פַרְעֹה֙ זִקְנֵ֣י בֵית֔וֹ וְכֹ֖ל זִקְנֵ֥י אֶֽרֶץ־מִצְרָֽיִם	7		And Joseph went up to entomb his father. And went up with him all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,	3e	4C	10 24
וְכֹל֙ בֵּ֣ית יוֹסֵ֔ף וְאֶחָ֖יו וּבֵ֣ית אָבִ֑יו רַ֗ק טַפָּם֙ וְצֹאנָ֣ם וּבְקָרָ֔ם עָזְב֖וּ בְּאֶ֥רֶץ גֹּֽשֶׁן	8		And all the house of Joseph, and his brothers, and the house of his father, but their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left behind in the land Goshen.	3e	4B	12 16
וַיַּ֣עַל עִמּ֔וֹ גַּם־רֶ֖כֶב גַּם־פָּרָשִׁ֑ים וַיְהִ֥י הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד	9		And went up with him both chariot and cavalry, so the camp was very glorious.	3e	4B	12 10
וַיָּבֹ֜אוּ עַד־גֹּ֣רֶן הָאָטָ֗ד אֲשֶׁר֙ בְּעֵ֣בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וַיִּ֨סְפְּדוּ־שָׁ֔ם מִסְפֵּ֛ד גָּד֥וֹל וְכָבֵ֖ד מְאֹ֑ד וַיַּ֧עַשׂ לְאָבִ֛יו אֵ֖בֶל שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים	10		And they came to the threshing-floor of the Brierpatch that was across the Jordan, and wailed there a great wailing, and very glorious, and he made lament for his father seven days.	3c	4B	31 12
וַיַּ֡רְא יוֹשֵׁב֩ הָאָ֨רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֜י אֶת־הָאֵ֗בֶל בְּגֹ֙רֶן֙ הָֽאָטָ֔ד וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֵֽבֶל־כָּבֵ֥ד זֶ֖ה לְמִצְרָ֑יִם עַל־כֵּ֞ן קָרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ אָבֵ֣ל מִצְרַ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּעֵ֥בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּֽן	11		And the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the lament at the threshing-floor of the Brierpatch, and they said, A glorious lament this is for Egypt. Therefore he called its name, Lament of Egypt, that is across the Jordan.	3e	4C	33 18
וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ בָנָ֖יו ל֑וֹ כֵּ֖ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּֽם	12		And his children did for him, rightly as he commanded them.	3e	4A	7 6
וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ אֹת֤וֹ בָנָיו֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיִּקְבְּר֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ בִּמְעָרַ֖ת שְׂדֵ֣ה הַמַּכְפֵּלָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָנָה֩ אַבְרָהָ֨ם אֶת־הַשָּׂדֶ֜ה לַאֲחֻזַּת־קֶ֗בֶר מֵאֵ֛ת עֶפְרֹ֥ן הַחִתִּ֖י עַל־פְּנֵ֥י מַמְרֵֽא	13		And his children bore him toward the land of Canaan, and they entombed him in the cave of the field of the Makpelah, that Abraham purchased with the field, to hold fast as a tomb, from Ephron the Hittite before Mamre.	3d	4C	27 29
וַיָּ֨שָׁב יוֹסֵ֤ף מִצְרַ֙יְמָה֙ ה֣וּא וְאֶחָ֔יו וְכָל־הָעֹלִ֥ים אִתּ֖וֹ לִקְבֹּ֣ר אֶת־אָבִ֑יו אַחֲרֵ֖י קָבְר֥וֹ אֶת־אָבִֽיו	14		And Joseph returned toward Egypt, he and his brothers and all those who went up with him to entomb his father, after they had entombed his father.	3e	4C	24 8
וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כָּל־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ	15		And the brothers of Joseph saw that their father had died, and they said, Would not Joseph oppose us? And to get back, he will return to us all the evil with which we rewarded him.	3e	4C	21 19
וַיְצַוּ֕וּ אֶל־יוֹסֵ֖ף לֵאמֹ֑ר אָבִ֣יךָ צִוָּ֔ה לִפְנֵ֥י מוֹת֖וֹ לֵאמֹֽר	16		And they gave command to Joseph, saying, Your father commanded in the face of his death, saying,	3e	4B	8 11
כֹּֽה־תֹאמְר֣וּ לְיוֹסֵ֗ף אָ֣נָּ֡א שָׂ֣א נָ֠א פֶּ֣שַׁע אַחֶ֤יךָ וְחַטָּאתָם֙ כִּי־רָעָ֣ה גְמָל֔וּךָ וְעַתָּה֙ שָׂ֣א נָ֔א לְפֶ֥שַׁע עַבְדֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֑יךָ וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ יוֹסֵ֖ף בְּדַבְּרָ֥ם אֵלָֽיו	17		Thus you will say to Joseph, Beseeching, lift up, please, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they recompensed you with evil. So now, lift up, please, of the transgression of the servants of the God of your ancestors. And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.	3e	4C	41 10
וַיֵּלְכוּ֙ גַּם־אֶחָ֔יו וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ לְפָנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ הִנֶּ֥נּֽוּ לְךָ֖ לַעֲבָדִֽים	18		And his kin went also and fell before him, and they said, Behold us, yours, as servants.	3e	4B	12 12
וַיֹּ֧אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֛ם יוֹסֵ֖ף אַל־תִּירָ֑אוּ כִּ֛י הֲתַ֥חַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים אָֽנִי	19		And Joseph said to them, Do not fear, for am I in the guise of God?	3c	4A	12 9
וְאַתֶּ֕ם חֲשַׁבְתֶּ֥ם עָלַ֖י רָעָ֑ה אֱלֹהִים֙ חֲשָׁבָ֣הּ לְטֹבָ֔ה לְמַ֗עַן עֲשֹׂ֛ה כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה לְהַחֲיֹ֥ת עַם־רָֽב	20		Though yourselves, you devised for me evil, God devised it for good, so as to do as on this day to keep alive an abundant people.	3d	4B	10 24
וְעַתָּה֙ אַל־תִּירָ֔אוּ אָנֹכִ֛י אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת־טַפְּכֶ֑ם וַיְנַחֵ֣ם אוֹתָ֔ם וַיְדַבֵּ֖ר עַל־לִבָּֽם	21		So now, do not fear. I myself will nourish you and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spoke concerning their heart.	3d	4B	19 11
וַיֵּ֤שֶׁב יוֹסֵף֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם ה֖וּא וּבֵ֣ית אָבִ֑יו וַיְחִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף מֵאָ֥ה וָעֶ֖שֶׂר שָׁנִֽים	22		And Joseph persisted in Egypt, he and the house of his father, and Joseph lived a hundred and ten years.	3e	4C	13 11
וַיַּ֤רְא יוֹסֵף֙ לְאֶפְרַ֔יִם בְּנֵ֖י שִׁלֵּשִׁ֑ים גַּ֗ם בְּנֵ֤י מָכִיר֙ בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה יֻלְּד֖וּ עַל־בִּרְכֵּ֥י יוֹסֵֽף	23		And Joseph saw Ephraim's great grand children. Even the children of Makir, child of Manasseh, were toddlers on the knees of Joseph.	3e	4C	12 16
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹהִ֞ים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב	24		And Joseph said to his brothers, I am to die, but God visiting, will visit you, to bring you up from this land to the land that he swore to Abraham, to Yitschaq, and to Jacob.	3c	4C	12 40
וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה	25		And Joseph made the children of Israel swear, saying, Visiting, God will visit you, and you will bring up my bones from here.	3e	4C	13 20
וַיָּ֣מָת יוֹסֵ֔ף בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה וָעֶ֖שֶׂר שָׁנִ֑ים וַיַּחַנְט֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ וַיִּ֥ישֶׂם בָּאָר֖וֹן בְּמִצְרָֽיִם	26		And Joseph died, a child of a hundred and ten years, and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.	3e	4B	13 16

Habakkuk 1:1-2:1

Tomorrow I read NRSV Habakkuk 1. NRSV manages to get punishment into the text in verse 12. About half the modern translations use punish for the root ick (no that's not the origin of the English word, icky). The root is pronounced roughly as ykhach - i.e. the i (yod) is a consonant, the c (kaf) is a hard c with some air, and the k (chet) is ch as in loch.

Why is it that we have such punishment on the brain? ick signifies correction, reproof, and so on. It is a key word for understanding the book of Job. Such things are not punishment but they are evidence of presence. What if translators cooperated with God rather than imputing to God things that are not in God's character?

I do not like the NRSV. I am happy that scholars try, and I use whatever results of scholarship that seem useful that come across my desk. I am not anti-scholarship. Is my prejudice that God does not punish worse than the prejudice that God is one who punishes? Did you believe them when they said, "This will hurt me more than it does you"? 

That was a false statement by the wielders of corporal punishment. They were fighting the last war. Perhaps I am a losing battle.

The committees I suspect have a bias towards doctrines like penal substitution. I am Christian but I don't accept this idea of punishment since reading the Old Testament. There is no Hebrew root that has punishment as its dominant sense. We can certainly read that into several words but their other senses give the lie to our readings. I've gone on about this before.

Anyway - here is Habakkuk 1:1-2:1 - ick (reprove, correct) occurs in Hab 2:1 also and the NRSV renders it as complaint. What! Where did the committee get that gloss from? Must have been a dusty shelf they pulled it off at random. None of the glossaries derived from the last 400 years of English translation give complaint as a gloss for ick.

There is no simple rule to follow when glossing a word in Hebrew. Several of them have multiple senses, often related, but distinguishing different things. In Hab 1:12 and Hab 2:1 there are two words that are shared, ick and xvr. The second is rock, or fortification. You can see all my choices for glosses at the links.

So what will I read tomorrow? Last time I read I read my own translation of Ecclesiastes 11-12 (aka Qohelet). This time is it too different?

There is another change in verse 12 - 'we will not die' (Hebrew) is rendered as 'you will not die'. Apparently this is one of the scribal corrections to the text. (According to Wiki at least.) Some scholars put it down to a squeamish pious scribe who can't see that the prophet would appeal to the deathlessness of God. I doubt it. As far as I can see, and that's not far, this reading goes back to the Aleppo codex. The Greek is first person plural. So if it reflects the text prior to the common era, the change must have been very early indeed. I can't see a notification of this reading as a correction from the Habakkuk in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Anyone out there got any advice? (Other than just do as you're told, MacDonald.)

This is my translation. 

1 The load which Habakkuk the prophet gazed on.

2 How long please, Yahweh, will I cry and you will not hear?
Will I appeal to you of violence and you will not save?

3 ♪B Why do you show me mischief and misery you make me notice, and devastation and violence before me?
And there is contention and sentence borne.

4 Therefore numbed is instruction and lasting judgment fails to emerge,
for wickedness encircles the righteous one, therefore crooked judgment emerges.

5 See among the nations and take note and marvel with astonishment,
for he worked a work in your days you would not have believed though it were recounted.

6 For note me well, I raise up the Chaldeans, the bitter and swift nation,
to rush into the broad land to possess dwellings that are not theirs.

7 Horrible and feared it is.
From this its judgment and its forbearance will emerge.

8 And fleeter than leopards are its horses, and keener than wolves of evening, its cavaliers frisk about.
And its cavaliers come from afar. They fly like an eagle hurrying to eat.

9 All for violence it comes, their faces pumped up as the east wind,
and it gathers captives as in a dance.

10 And it, among sovereigns, ridicules them, and the rule-makers laugh at it.
Itself, at all enclosure it laughs and it accumulates dust and catches it.

11 ♪B Then it is renewed in spirit when it has passed through and been declared guilty.
This is its power for its god.

12 Are not you from the east, Yahweh my God, my Holy One? We will not die.
Yahweh, for judgment, you have set it up, and for a rock of correction you have founded it.

13 Too clean of eyes than to see evil and you cannot notice misery?
Why do you notice the treacherous? You are silent when wickedness swallows one more righteous than itself.

14 And you make humanity as the fish of the sea,
as a creeper that has no governor over it.

15 All of it with a fishhook brought up, it gullets them in utter destruction, and it gathers them into its own cravings,
therefore it will be glad and it will rejoice.

16 Therefore it will offer its utter destruction and burn incense to its own cravings,
for in them is the oil of its share and its plenteous food.

17 ♪f Will it therefore empty its utter destruction,
and continually slay nations without pity?

1 On my watch I will stand and I will station myself on the fortification.
And I will be on lookout to see what he will speak in me and what I will bring back concerning my correction.

This translation is part of the English guide to the SimHebrew Bible. The whole Bible in Simulated Hebrew with English, verse by verse is available through this link. Look around, there are good deals available.

AI and blogging

 AI is useful but there are caveats -- not just because LLMs run on probabilities. The caveats are in the prompts that the user generates. The engine running the AI seems to want to captivate the user by reflecting their knowledge. I have turned off the 'would you like me to do this further step' with the explicit prompt that it is failing to give me time to absorb the answer to the prior question. I have also turned off the complimentary beginnings with an explicit prompt. I know my own questions whether they are smart or dumb -- I'm looking for information not affirmation. It's useful to have the extensive spell checking and occasionally the structural criticism, but the affirmation and invitation to more defeat the refinement of questioning. We must refine our own questions to whet our wit if we have any left.

ChatGPT knows nothing, but it has memory of my theoretical and practical framework for the work of analysing the music of Tanach. Its memory is not particularly well grounded. It cannot search the database for me but it can critique bad and incomplete reasoning if it is instructed to. 

Here is its critique of how to approach my thesis - that the music is important for understanding.

1. Starting Point — Framing the Problem

Your real subject isn’t fear and punishment; it’s the misreading of biblical and theological language that arises when music, syntax, and emotion are divorced from one another. “Fear” and “punishment” are only symptoms of that rupture.

• Suggestion: Begin instead from a musical or philological observation — for example:

  “In the music of the Hebrew Bible, correction and mercy share a tonal space that translation has too often flattened into punishment and fear.”
  This kind of opening signals that you’re doing a reconstruction of meaning through sound, not a moral or pastoral reflection.

---

2. Analytical Rigor

Your writing is rich and intuitive, but at times it reads as associative rather than deductive. For scholarly framing:

• Distinguish between philological claims (e.g., the range of Hebrew y-s-r and its te’amic setting) and theological interpretation (e.g., what that reveals about divine pedagogy).

• Make sure every interpretive statement follows from data: a musical phrase, a Hebrew semantic field, a codical variation, etc.

---

3. Use of Evidence

When you critique translation or inherited theology, give concrete examples:

• Show how musar or yissurim are rendered musically in one verse versus another.

• Compare this to English versions that erase nuance.

• This moves your argument from assertion to demonstration.

---

4. Emotional Register

You have a gift for affective language — “libation of love,” “Playful Wisdom,” etc. It works beautifully when used sparingly, but when it leads the argument it can seem like devotion rather than scholarship.

• Consider balancing poetic intuition with analytical scaffolding: let the music “speak” the emotion, and your prose interpret why it does so.

---

5. Reframed Core Question

Here’s how I might restate your underlying thesis in academic form:

How have translation and theological tradition obscured the pedagogical, musical, and affective coherence of the Hebrew Bible’s language of correction, and how might its original tonal and modal contexts reveal a different theology of formation rather than punishment?

That keeps your insight intact but grounds it in method and evidence.

When we next spoke about NT passages reflecting creation, I pointed out the Hebrews passages about fear and about discipline. Here's its response as a framework. 

1. Start with creation language and motifs — places where the NT deliberately re-echoes Genesis or new-creation imagery:

   • John 1:1–5 — In the beginning; the Logos as creative word and light.

   • Colossians 1:15–20 — Christ as firstborn of creation and firstborn from the dead, holding all things together (your tonal metaphor fits this perfectly).

   • 2 Corinthians 4:6 — “The God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts…”

   • Revelation 21–22 — the re-creation of heaven and earth, the harmony of all things renewed.

2. Look for passages where correction or discipline is framed not as punishment but as formative participation in that creative process — the positive harmonic tension:

   • Hebrews 12:5-11 — God’s discipline as education (paideia), not retribution.

   • James 1:2-4, 17-18 — testing as refining, every good gift as from the Father of lights.

   • Ephesians 2:10 — “We are his workmanship (poiēma), created in Christ Jesus…”
     These suggest an ongoing creation, a melodic continuation rather than a break.

3. Then listen for musical equivalents — words or phrases that carry a tonal or rhythmic sense:

   • Harmony, fullness, plērōma (Eph 1:10, Col 1:19).

   • Peace, shalom, eirēnē — the resolution of dissonance (Phil 4:7).

   • Joy, chara — often tied to completion or the recognition of divine order (John 15:11).

You could treat these as tonic–subdominant–dominant–tonic moments in theological thought:

• Creation (tonic) – God’s initiating act.

• Discipline/learning (subdominant) – movement and tension.

• Fulfilment in Christ (dominant) – the leading tone toward resolution.

• New creation (tonic again) – harmony restored on a higher level.

If you read the NT through that lens, the “opening major triad” of Genesis becomes a through-line — the same divine chord heard now through a human instrument.

Ha -- give me another 20 years and I should refine the te'amim of Margoliouth -- now that's a project for a cantillation specialist.

Controlling translation

It is not surprising that translation as a tag is frequent on this blog. I checked out the posts under that label in order to see how much of my control system I have documented. How to distract yourself when figuring out what you've done and where you might go from there.

From the first few posts (more or less in reverse historical order), I see that many of my principles are clearly stated. Also some astonishing words that I don't remember writing. It's the thing about being old. E.g. this one on Did I mention Science?

I hope to address the whole nine yards of the science of God at some point: Unity, relationship to humanity, reward and punishment, Anointing and the world to come, time and science, election and the scandal of particularity, predestination, providence, and miracles, and who knows what else. This is my death-wish I suppose. For I like anyone else, cannot see God's face and live (Exodus 33:20). Whatever... I have died already in the Anointed. I will start and end there.

Really!

In another post, I noted a comment by Tim Bulkeley. How I miss his voice! There are undoubtedly many who miss him more than I and who think of him every day.

In yet another post on translation without commentary, in which I mention my friend and Hebrew coach, Jonathan Orr-Stav, whose input has always encouraged me, I reveal my bias. It is not a Christological bias, but a theological bias that God is steadfast and reliable. I don't know of anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that would allow a translator to be fickle on this theological subject. Perhaps this reliability can also be seen in the children, whether the example be Jeremiah or Jesus, or even Paul. I wondered what I had done with Jeremiah 15 when I read this post. And it was all about translating that notorious word npw. נפשׁ.

Jeremiah 15
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י אִם־יַעֲמֹ֨ד מֹשֶׁ֤ה וּשְׁמוּאֵל֙ לְפָנַ֔י אֵ֥ין נַפְשִׁ֖י אֶל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה שַׁלַּ֥ח מֵֽעַל־פָּנַ֖י וְיֵצֵֽאוּ	a viamr ihvh alii am-iymod mwh uwmual lpnii ain npwi al-hym hzh  wlk myl-pnii viixau	1 And Yahweh said to me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, it would be nothing for me, against this people. Send from before me, and let them go forth.
וְהָיָ֛ה כִּֽי־יֹאמְר֥וּ אֵלֶ֖יךָ אָ֣נָה נֵצֵ֑א וְאָמַרְתָּ֨ אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר לַמָּ֤וֶת לַמָּ֙וֶת֙ וַאֲשֶׁ֤ר לַחֶ֙רֶב֙ לַחֶ֔רֶב וַאֲשֶׁ֤ר לָֽרָעָב֙ לָֽרָעָ֔ב וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר לַשְּׁבִ֖י לַשֶּֽׁבִי	b vhih ci-iamru aliç anh nxa  vamrt alihm ch-amr ihvh awr lmvvt lmvvt vawr lkrb lkrb vawr lryb lryb vawr lwbi lwbi	2 And it will be that when they say to you, How, please, will we go forth? And you say to them, Thus says Yahweh, Whoever is for death, to death, and whoever is for the sword, to the sword, and whoever is for famine, to famine, and whoever is for captivity, to captivity.
וּפָקַדְתִּ֨י עֲלֵיהֶ֜ם אַרְבַּ֤ע מִשְׁפָּחוֹת֙ נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה אֶת־הַחֶ֣רֶב לַֽהֲרֹ֔ג וְאֶת־הַכְּלָבִ֖ים לִסְחֹ֑ב וְאֶת־ע֧וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְאֶת־בֶּהֱמַ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לֶאֱכֹ֥ל וּלְהַשְׁחִֽית	g upqdti ylihm arby mwpkot naum-ihvh at-hkrb lhrog vat-hclbim lskob  vat-yof hwmiim vat-bhmt harx lacol ulhwkit	3 Then I will visit upon them four families, an oracle of Yahweh, the sword to slay, and the dogs to shred, and the fowl of the heavens and the beasts of the earth to eat and to destroy.

And there are in the list

• several posts on my search for concordance in my work and the difficulty of controlling it. 
• a post on what we consider self-evident and how that has changed even in our lifetimes.
• a post on masks - prior to COVID-19!!!!!

Today is Transfiguration Sunday. Traditionally the text read is Exodus 34:29-35. The word in the chapter מסוה occurs only there. It is not the same as other uses of veil פרך in traditional translations (however spelled). I used mask in Exodus 34 so that the English reader knows it is not the same term. Do we not all wear masks?

And what does this say about 2 Corinthians - we are unmasked.

I say to you, do not be unmasked today - become all things to all people that by any means you make be kind, be calm, and by all means keep yourself and others safe. 

About half way through the posts, about 2017, I have a post on the process I used to control translation. It immediately reminds me of my chief programmer, David Driver, who died so young, leaving behind wife and 7 children. There is another man from Granby, Que whom I miss as I use the software framework that he was so effective at building as team leader. Here I find the note: So there is an outline for a set of posts. I may get to them...

That is what I was looking for. Perhaps it will be useful.

But Bob's Bible, as my work has been called, among other things, has this note just a bit further down.

No soul, no repentance, no punishment in Bob's Bible. It's not that I know anything, but when I read, I do not write what I know is undecidable by the translator. No soul because soul, lovely though the word is, it is not a bodiless substance that lives on after death. The problem with this Greek idea is the implied linearity of time. It also denies the body. It is heresy. No repentance, because the word, important though it is, has come to mean a psychological torture chamber. No punishment, because important though discipline and discipleship is, punishment is not part of it, rather it is governance. I do not deny pain or suffering or consequences but punishment is the imposition of a distorted human violent action that is not in the mind of God.

Misunderstanding God

OK - so let's be totally negative. How do we escape from the thoughts of the past centuries (millennia?) about the character of God?

Bart Ehrman - entrepreneur, and Biblical Scholar, writes that "This God was indeed a God of wrath, not simply love. When people misbehaved, he punished them. Sometimes severely. Sometimes ruthlessly. We may not appreciate the picture, but you will find it both the both OT and NT." His context is here.

I have not translated the NT, so punish may well occur there, but it is not part of the character of God in the OT. It can be read in - but is it really there? Or are we reading the mind of the 16-17th century in the translation. 

In the NT, I see with a brief skim that punishment is rendered by two differing Greek words also translated as 'torment' or as 'vengeance', etc. It looks at first glance that the same problem occurs in the NT as in the OT: translators slip from a real character of God to an inferred one. They assume that if God is wrathful, or vengeful, that therefore God punishes, when the reality is that humans punish or that humans are tormented by their unconfessed lies and errors. It looks to me that in neither testament is the word punish required as a gloss for an action where God is the subject of the word. 

I have taken each root used for 'punish' to see and ask - does this really mean 'punish'?

I have written on this before, most recently earlier this year:

The 16th century translators had punishment on their minds a lot. The evidence is in the number of different Hebrew words (יסר נכה ענשׁ פקד רעע עוה) that are glossed as punish.

So I found 6 different roots that have been rendered as punish. I also note that in the version that everyone copies (KJV), Leviticus 26:41 elaborates iniquity into punishment and takes a whole interpretive phrase to render the one word. This is a case where the blood is not dry on the meat and the translator, that butcher of language, has failed to disentangle the ligaments when rendering the packaged gloss. The result reflects the bloody character of the translator rather than the character of God.

I did not set out to do this. I recall being surprised by the result as I combed out the impossible tangles of the KJV.

You can see each root and the glosses I chose for each in the concordance. The dominant glosses for the above list of roots are in this list with their counts for my translation. Punish as a gloss is never needed. It is always a slip into unnecessarily interpretive translation. (All translation is interpretation of the base data - but interpretation should not reduce the scope of what is said.)

• isr mentor (16), bewilder (3), chasten (62), warn (11), tutor (7)
• nch struck (331), stricken (8), strike (189), mill (1), gash (2)
• yvh wretch (2), perverse (16), perversity (2), pervert (2)
• ynw amerce (2), fine (10)
• pqd visitation (19), conscript (115), took/take census (10), officiate (11), entrust (38), officer (25), conscription (9), office (7), precept (25), visit (108)
• ryy evildoer (15), injure (11), deject (8), evil (654), get hurt (2), deal ill (1), dejection (3), hurt (47), worse (5), grimace (1), spite injury (1), injury (9), disservice (1), hurtful (18)

Conclusion, punish is an unnecessary gloss. It is never the dominant gloss in the KJV or those translations that copy it, and it is abundantly clear that these translators had punishment on their minds or they would not have given us that gloss for 6 different roots in the Hebrew.

I very much doubt that Bart Ehrman will notice this post. And I am not going to pay for the privilege of commenting on his post (sapphire membership or something). He is right in using punish to report what people thought and think today. I doubt he is right in assuming that Jesus thought this. Jesus expects to be tutored, chastened, warned, and taught. But Jesus seems to see clearly the love of God in the Old Testament. He accepts the role of son of God as one who is grieved by and absorbs rather than punishes evil. And so must we if indeed we are children of the same God.

Afterthought - God has visited and redeemed his people - do you think of this as positive or negative? pqd - visit - has overtones but punish is not one of them.  A visit from God is uniformly for good - not for evil. I wonder when we will learn to distinguish these things.

Let this mind be in you

 Punishment in a love song? Divine punishment in a love song? 

Let this mind be in you: God does not punish. It is not in the character of God to punish, to inflict pain on the creation. There is no word for punish in Hebrew. Let me make this clear. The gloss punish is frequently used in the King James translation in English and in other translations into other tongues. Punish is attributed to God in these versions of the Bible. These bibles propagate and teach a false theology.

I am not singing this truth to you. There is no music in this post. You can't hear the love if you think punishment. Humans punish. God does not. How often have I heard these excuses: "I'm doing this for your own good." Or "this hurts me more than it does you." What nonsense. Those sentences are also lies.

I'm not going to prove this or justify my words with a thousand quotes. Just think about it.

God is light. God is love. God is holy. There are many ways of pointing to God. 

You don't have to look very far on this blog to find what I really think about this error of attributing punishment to God. Just put punish into the search. Or link to this post from a few years ago. https://meafar.blogspot.com/2021/08/misunderstanding-god.html. 

Or press the link on my word map for the 77 posts substantiating this conclusion from my translating.

What's going on with the database dump

If you are following this blog, you will note that I have been posting 3 or so posts a day to record my near final status of the list of all Hebrew words in the Hebrew Scriptures organized by Hebrew root (sometimes also called stem) and with full pointing and cantillation signs to allow comparison to the word as expressed by the left-to-right abbreviation for Hebrew known as SimHebrew. 

Why would I do this? First because I have here what I wanted 14 years ago when I began to study Hebrew and I think it is valuable to anyone who wants to learn Biblical Hebrew. It improves on my current published concordance in that it uses SimHebrew (making it easier to search) and it includes all the pointing and not just the consonants. It is more revealing of patterns of Hebrew thought than a traditional concordance or glossary. 

I am not selling this at the moment as an additional or replacement volume as a part of my 10-volume translation, alphabet book, concordance, and cantillation commentary (see the links on the right). I want it to be available. It is much easier to use than any other presentation of the words of Scripture that I have seen and it can almost be scanned like a book with the automated helps that are present through the web.

Since I think it is useful, I intend to schedule the rest of it over the next seven to ten weeks. (I think I will get it down to about 200 posts). They are all linked from here.

I have used a lot of books and tools and I know how difficult they are to learn from. Over 50 years ago a choir I sang with gifted me an analytical concordance. It seemed to me it must have all the answers. I think they hoped I would start questioning them and develop a better approach to learning. Indeed I must have done this to some extent. Digging in that concordance without the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was not a suitable way to begin. I remember how high the mountain seemed when I began to learn Hebrew with more discipline 35 years later(!) I can't find that concordance in my office. I think it was last used to make a small Christmas tree seem higher than it really was.

Such concordances and indeed all glossaries are not dictionaries. Such glossaries and concordances with glosses from traditional translations simply record what has been used as a gloss for such and such a word, given the prejudices of the time in which the work was done. Such historical records run the risk of short circuiting our learning, making us think we already know the answer. Yes, some use they are, but not ultimate. (says Yoda)

A good example of misleading information is in the Lambdin small glossary at the end of his introductory book. It's not his fault. He actually avoids the other 5 or 6 roots that are rendered as punish. But in the English-Hebrew appendix, he knows that people will look up punish and he lists yvn עון as punishment. Punishment is indeed the gloss used in Genesis 4:13 but it cannot agree with the gloss used in other places for this word form. The phrase should be translated as my iniquity is greater than I can bear. So yvni appears under yvn as follows in what I list in my concordance:

Root	Domain	Word	Count	Pointing	Gloss	Reference
yvn	Sin	yvoni	7	עֲוֺנִ֖י	my iniquity	Gen 4:13(6)
				עֲוֺֽנִי	my iniquity	Job 31:33(7)
				־עֲוֺ֫נִ֥י	my iniquity	Job 7:21(7)
				־עֲוֺנִֽי	my iniquity	Job 14:17(6)
				־עֲוֺנִ֤י	my iniquity	1Sa 20:1(12)
				־עֲוֺנִ֥י	my iniquity	Psa 38:19(2)
				־עֲוֺנִ֖י	my iniquity	1Kgs 17:18(13)

Nice and easy, always spelled the same, sung with variations depending on its place in the musical phrase. No need for the punish word at all, a word that is entirely out of place in the context of Scripture which in both Tanakh and the Newer Testament is good news, and not something to be feared. There is no Hebrew word that has punish as its dominant gloss. The use of punish is a product of tradition, and here tradition - going right back to the Vulgate - is simply wrong.

Title page of the
Hebrew Latin Concordance

What I have tried to do in my work is reason from patterns of word usage. I do have my glosses, but they differ sufficiently to raise questions rather than reinforce the decisions of past translations. I have also developed a categorization of the stems by semantic domain. This helps see when another gloss, a homonym, is needed for a root. yvn needs no variation, no English nor Latin synonyms. They explain nothing. All 231 instances in my translation render yvn as iniquity.

One tool I used that was really challenging is this Hebrew-Latin Concordance. (This also was a gift to me from Giddy Nashon of blessed memory, my first real Hebrew teacher.) It had the advantage that I could not instantly allow myself to think I knew any answer.

The traditional Latin for yvn

You clever ones who read fluently in Hebrew and Latin can examine the texts to the left and to the right. For me, I note that even the poena of the concordance requires a second word, poena peccati. Now I ask, Is punishment a reasonable gloss? 

By no means. It forces the reader into an interpretation of Cain's psychological state. He may well be considering the consequences of his iniquity. These are many more than the human thought that is expressed in punishment.The full set of the glosses and word forms for yvn can be found here. 

By the way, avn (aleph-vav-nun) and yvn (ayin-vav-nun)  have some relationship but should not be mixed up. The former is mischief, the latter iniquity. We might consider them equivalent, but mischief is more often inconvenience than sin. And avn also has the sense of virility. So I think that they are different. You can compare them: avn will be found here.

It would be great to have conversations over the sense and usage of these and other words. Comments are welcome.

A snippet of Isaiah dissected

I have said, as have others, that Isaiah seems to have more uniqueness about his language than other parts of the Hebrew components in the canon. Yet in English, partly because of the libretto of Handel's Messiah, we know the lilt of the language like no other book. According to my notes from the Oxford conference on the Psalms in 2010, Isaiah is the third most popular book among the DSS. So this work is and was loved by many. What then do we do with the translation of its 'purple passages'?

You know I was raised within Christendom. And I am still on speaking terms with my invisible Lord. I am supposed to be secure and I have no reason to doubt it. But - there is always a but - Christendom is not a good example of purity of religious policy. Violence and fear and suppression abound in this history. I have noted that much of it seems to come from the translations we read. Whether violence from our own need for self-defense, or the violence against each other through 'punishment'. This word in English has no dominant stem in Hebrew. You can read punishment into Hebrew stems, but it is never the only possible gloss for that stem. I never use it in my reading (among many words I never use). I never required it. Particularly, God's visitation פקד does not need to be read as punishment. Humans punish each other for perceived violations of rules or codes of honour. Not so with God. Thieves and prostitutes get into the kingdom of Heaven faster than the righteous. How come?

By the way, Christendom is not the only religious tradition with examples of terrible religious policy. (I won't go on. If you are of some different religious tradition, just look around you. And stop being violent, fearful, suppressing or exploiting others, or self-protective).

There is no shortage of violence (חמס) in the world or in the Scriptures. But it is not good to imitate it.

Aviva Kushner begins her review of Alter's 'one-man translation' of the Hebrew Bible with Isaiah 2:2. First the music.

Isaiah 2:2 with English underlay (adjusted from the textual order)

She quotes Ginsberg, one of Alter's mentors, who seems to take every accent as an excuse for a new line.

In the days to come,	Hebrew וְהָיָ֣ה ׀ בְּאַחֲרִ֣ית הַיָּמִ֗ים, first 3 words, the sense of word 1 is included in to come
The Mount of the Lord’s House	Hebrew הַ֤ר בֵּית־יְהוָה֙ words 6 to 8
Shall stand firm above the mountains	נָכ֨וֹן יִֽהְיֶ֜ה ... הֶהָרִ֔ים words 4, 5, 10
And tower above the hills;	וְנִשָּׂ֖א מִגְּבָע֑וֹת words 9 and 10 (repeated)
And all the nations	כָּל־הַגּוֹיִֽם words 13 and 14
Shall gaze on it with joy.	וְנָהֲר֥וּ אֵלָ֖יו words 11 and 12

He has to be happy with having some of the lines out of Hebrew word order (as must all translators in many places. But this is far from true in all places in the text). Ginsberg uses a phrase 'gaze with joy' for נהר. This is a curiously passive sense for an action verb that takes its motion from a river. I think he does as many do, interprets as he reads. His next reading will be a different aspect of the same stem. Language works that way and so do readers. But translations need to take care to let the reader interpret.

Kushner explains that 'Ginsberg follows the medieval grammarian Ibn Janah and Ginsberg’s academic colleague Baruch Schwartz in deriving it from the term for “light” in biblical Aramaic, and thus he has the nations gazing toward Jerusalem.'

Obviously then, it is not a translation of the Hebrew. The stem is not אור. There is only one word-form of light in the Hebrew of the Bible that begins with nun. That is in Psalm 76:5 נאור. I have never seen this stem morph into נהר.

Alter:
And it shall happen in future days
that the mount of the Lord’s house shall be firm-founded
at the top of the mountains and lifted over the hills.
And all the nations shall flow to it . . .

KJV: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Bob:
And it will be, in the aftermath of the days, established will be the hill of the house of Yahweh as the first of the hills, and it will be lifted up among the hillocks,
and all the nations will flow together to it.

This is my word for word with stem visible through the hover function of the mouse.

והיה and it will beהיה באחרית in the aftermath ofאחר הימים the daysיום נכון establishedכון יהיה will beהיה הר the hill ofהר בית the house ofבית יהוה Yahwehיהוה בראשׁ as the first ofראשׁ ההרים the hillsהר ונשׂא and it will be lifted upנשׂא מגבעות among the hillocksגבע ונהרו and will flow togetherנהר אליו to itאל כל allכל הגוים the nationsגוי

Translation is a lot to take in. I can only just get away with the word order I have chosen. Slow down and it will make sense. I look at every jot and tittle (and some I choose not to include in the English). KJV has left out an explicit definite article. 

I have chosen hill and hillock rather than mountain and hill as contrasts. I do use mount and mountain and hill - all for הר. Hillock is גבע.

I seem to have added together to the stem for flow. I did this 5 times - Here and in the parallel in Micah. Also Isaiah 60:5, Jeremiah 31:12, 51:44. Don't read too much into it. KJV does this in those three places but not here or the parallel in Micah. My use of it may have happened through my automated translation which I ran frequently when doing my work to save me typing. (Yes you would call this translation the lazy-one's translation too.)

I never use the word future. The Bible is concrete as Alter says, and future is not yet concrete. There may not be 'punishment' but there are consequences. The Bible is not fatalistic. Yahweh is the one who is, who was, and who is to come. This is immanence, becoming itself, with us, establishing us. Are we up to it?

I don't see that firm-founded is an improvement on established. My glosses for this are prepare, establish, base, reliable, for the most part. God prepares, establishes and is a reliable base. The stem occurs 284 times. We should get used to the idea.

Here's a verse at random that includes establish.

DEUTERONOMY

32

6

הֲ־לַיְהוָה֙ תִּגְמְלוּ־זֹ֔את עַ֥ם נָבָ֖ל וְלֹ֣א חָכָ֑ם הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָֽשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ

Do you reward this to Yahweh, senseless people and unwise? Is he not your father? He purchased you himself. He made you, and he established you.

ויכננך and he established you

My work has a very high degree of consistency. Perhaps you can begin to see my motivation also. It is not primarily literature, not primarily religious, but it is a consequence of my faith in God, the discipline he established in me for programming, and the love he placed in me for language and music.

The Reality of Atonement

A recent concert program included Lo, the full final sacrifice by Gerald Finzi. This accidental encounter reminded me of the metaphysical poets and how much I have loved them since my initial work with them in University and my lifelong singing of their texts.

Lo, the full, final Sacrifice

On which all figures fix't their eyes.
The ransomed Isaac, and his ram;

The Manna, and the Paschal Lamb.

The poem is full of metaphysical conceits which I leave the reader to ponder without my reproducing them here. Such depth of type and metaphor is a balm for our dry language, which when it hears story literally, loses its impact entirely. Language informs us and is thus our ear. How will we unstop ourselves?

Terms and meanings. Is the mercy seat simply an ark-cover? Mercy seat is a loaded term. Many terms are overloaded by us. The Greek translation already translates כפרת with τὸ ἱλαστήριον. This is already overloaded with the sense of propitiation. So the importance of the ark-cover is not to be down-played. I don't know how to polish this lens. For the moment my gloss is mercy-seat. [2017.07.19 all changed!] Propitiate and related forms are not in my glossary at present (though appeasing is). Propitiate assumes an angry object. This is a form of human projection. God is not angry. We are. Appease is probably a poor choice - maybe I will change it [It is done!]. It is the root נוח, from which we get the name Noah. It means rest. Can one give rest to a God who is grieved or who is agitated because of love? (Yes, but it is not the word concerning the seventh day. That word is שׁבת, to cease from ones work.)

At the same time it appears that there is a tendency in our teachers to shy away from the reality of Genesis 22. It will not do to shy away from this story any more than it will do to shy away from the story of Job. Abraham has a problem. He is, he thinks, able to hear. But he seems to know that there will be an escape from the literal command. The words of the story are strikingly sparse. Do read it again. It is a marvel of limited language. We need to be careful how we read into the story. Our feelings may not be accurately projected onto either individual characters or story.

As I wrote in a too hastily writ comment here, the death of Jesus is my salvation and my rebirth. It is similar to this Akedah story of Abraham that we read. This story exhibits the Hebrew origins of the doctrines of Christian sacrifice. The Abraham-God relationship (and it is God not Yahweh) is the cornerstone for the cornerstone (for Christians). One only needs to hear the daily news to know that it is we who are angry, and addicted to power.

We all are part of a history of destruction, whether as perpetrators, or victims, or less than innocent bystanders. I.e. we are thorough 'sinners' (as is Abraham - and the story does not spare him). What then is the reality that he is exhibiting in this passage? It is not the literalness of the story, but rather its actuality or reality that we need to discover. What does the text say? (as opposed to what we think it should say).

I have been critical of punishment as a model for atonement, just as I am critical above of the projection of anger. Punishment is a brutal form of government. We need something to deal with our violence, but punish is the wrong metaphor for the solution. Absolutely wrong. The model of punishment leads directly to the holocaust, not just to the near holocaust of Isaac or Ishmael. It leads there because it fails to transform violence. We may have come to the cult of sacrifice in our history out of a recognition of this need. Now we need to apply the remedy: refusing, through the death of the sacrificial animal, to do these acts of sin against each other. The death of the animal is clearly a pointer, not the solution itself. The solution must take place within us. We must die, in a figure, so that we might live.

There must be such a power behind our lives or we will succumb to the state of sin we find ourselves in. That power for Abraham is in God's command and his hearing it. It is not a slavish obedience because he knows that God will see and show him some other end than the horror he knows himself to be trapped in. It may be that he/we would be better off entirely without God. But if God, out of the Hebrew tradition, is in our midst, then the impact of this story like that of Job cannot simply be removed from our religion without gutting the whole thing. There are powers, and we are subject to them, and generally they are stronger than we are (Psalm 18). What will guide us to life, to truth, and to the peaceable realm?

As I work through my ignorance of the cultic sacrificial system, I am searching for some way of discovering their thought, what it is that is from them via their portrayed characters and tales, rather than what I have been told from opinions formed by others in the reception history of their words.

But I am biased by my reception of the reality of the death of Jesus for me in my experience. I wouldn't be bothering with all this hard work otherwise. Though it is a good puzzle, puzzle alone is not an adequate motivator.

See also the recent related posts Assumptions and Genesis 50.

I am still wrestling with the problem of naming the cover-sacrifice, making a cover-price etc.  

Proverbs 26

Proverbs pose puzzling pieces for the reader. In the KJV, the first and second parts of the verse are sometimes reversed. The drama of the puzzle is lost. There is a caesura between these two parts. One cannot put them in reverse order without doing the readers' work for them. What's the point of that?

Proverbs also point out word nuances that a translator may not yet have seen. This chapter was only 20% guessed by my software - I took it from the bottom of the list in hopes of finding things that would propagate the guesswork to other places. Some of these proverbs strike me as bad examples, or as examples I don't believe are true of good human behaviour. One needs to love the dullard - whatever that means. All of us of course need effective governance. The dullard is not fool nor is it the traditional fool of Psalms 14 and 53 (who is not a fool at all, but senseless). There are three differing roots here and they need to be kept separate or we will only learn prejudice rather than love.

אויל Evil-(2 - part of a named person), foolish(7), foolishly(1), foolishness(11), maybe(14), obstinate(9)
כסל dullard's(2), dullard(23), dullards(21), folly(8), hip(1), Ksil(1 location name), stupid(3), stupidity(1)
נבל collapses(1), corpse(5), corpses(10), demeans(1), lute(8), lutes(4), make senseless(1), senseless women(1), senseless(11), senselessness(7), skin-bottle(2), skin-bottles(2), wither(7), withering(1)

Those are what I have derived so far from usage patterns. Several homonyms in the last one. I should not use folly strictly speaking, but there is no generic term for the stuff that dullards do. (Who knows, I may change this. I could use stupidity, but the word is too full of spit.)

With punishment in mind, I do not use rod as the KJV does with its 16th century assumption of the benefits of corporal punishment. The word is sceptre, a 'rod' that symbolizes good governance, not punishment. The end effect of good governance is peace and learning and maturity in those things that should be fostered among us humans. I don't see as much of that as I should within some locales.

For me in much of this poetic context of Proverbs, 'it / its' are personal non-gender-specific pronouns. The first several verses are about dullard, the next several about sluggard, and the remainder roughly about dissension and nattering.

Proverbs 26		Fn		Min	Max	Syll
כַּשֶּׁ֤לֶג ׀ בַּקַּ֗יִץ וְכַמָּטָ֥ר בַּקָּצִ֑יר כֵּ֤ן לֹא־נָאוֶ֖ה לִכְסִ֣יל כָּבֽוֹד	1		As snow in summer, and as rain at the harvest, so not lovely to a dullard is glory.	3e	4C	12 8
כַּצִּפּ֣וֹר לָ֭נוּד כַּדְּר֣וֹר לָע֑וּף כֵּ֥ן קִֽלְלַ֥ת חִ֝נָּ֗ם ל֣א תָבֹֽא	2		As a bird aimless, as a swallow flying, so a slight for nothing, will not come.	3e	4B	9 8
שׁ֣וֹט לַ֭סּוּס מֶ֣תֶג לַחֲמ֑וֹר וְ֝שֵׁ֗בֶט לְגֵ֣ו כְּסִילִֽים	3	B	A whip for a horse, a bit for an ass, but a sceptre for the hubris of dullards.	3e	4B	8 8
אַל־תַּ֣עַן כְּ֭סִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּ֑וֹ פֶּֽן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לּ֥וֹ גַם־אָֽתָּה	4		Do not answer a dullard according to its foolishness, lest you be considered its equal, even you.	3e	4B	9 7
עֲנֵ֣ה כְ֭סִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּ֑וֹ פֶּן־יִהְיֶ֖ה חָכָ֣ם בְּעֵינָֽיו	5		Answer a dullard according to its foolishness, lest it become wise in its own eyes.	3e	4B	8 8
מְקַצֶּ֣ה רַ֭גְלַיִם חָמָ֣ס שֹׁתֶ֑ה שֹׁלֵ֖חַ דְּבָרִ֣ים בְּיַד־כְּסִֽיל	6		One limits feet, imbibes violence, who sends out words by the hand of a dullard.	3e	4B	9 10
דַּלְי֣וּ שֹׁ֭קַיִם מִפִּסֵּ֑חַ וּ֝מָשָׁ֗ל בְּפִ֣י כְסִילִֽים	7		Brought low are the legs of lame. So a proverb in the mouth of dullards.	3e	4B	8 8
כִּצְר֣וֹר אֶ֭בֶן בְּמַרְגֵּמָ֑ה כֵּן־נוֹתֵ֖ן לִכְסִ֣יל כָּבֽוֹד	8		As one who lobs a stone into a crowd, so is giving to a dullard, glory.	3e	4B	8 7
ח֭וֹחַ עָלָ֣ה בְיַד־שִׁכּ֑וֹר וּ֝מָשָׁ֗ל בְּפִ֣י כְסִילִֽים	9	g	A thorn goes up into the hand of a drunkard, and a proverb in the mouth of dullards.	3e	4B	8 8
רַ֥ב מְחֽוֹלֵֽל־כֹּ֑ל וְשֹׂכֵ֥ר כְּ֝סִ֗יל וְשֹׂכֵ֥ר עֹבְרִֽים	10	f	An overlord twisted everything, and the wage of a dullard and the wage of those who pass by.	3e	4A	5 10
כְּ֭כֶלֶב שָׁ֣ב עַל־קֵא֑וֹ כְּ֝סִ֗יל שׁוֹנֶ֥ה בְאִוַּלְתּֽוֹ	11	g	As a dog returns to its vomit, a dullard adjusts itself in its foolishness.	3e	4B	7 8
רָאִ֗יתָ אִ֭ישׁ חָכָ֣ם בְּעֵינָ֑יו תִּקְוָ֖ה לִכְסִ֣יל מִמֶּֽנּוּ	12		You have seen a person wise in its own eyes. more to expect of a dullard than this.	3e	4B	9 7
אָמַ֣ר עָ֭צֵל שַׁ֣חַל בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ אֲ֝רִ֗י בֵּ֣ין הָרְחֹבֽוֹת	13		Says a sluggard, Fierce lion on the way. Lion between the plazas.	3e	4B	9 6
הַ֭דֶּלֶת תִּסּ֣וֹב עַל־צִירָ֑הּ וְ֝עָצֵ֗ל עַל־מִטָּתֽוֹ	14	g	The gateway turns round on its hinge, and sluggard on its couch.	3e	4B	8 7
טָ֘מַ֤ן עָצֵ֣ל יָ֭דוֹ בַּצַּלָּ֑חַת נִ֝לְאָ֗ה לַֽהֲשִׁיבָ֥הּ אֶל־פִּֽיו	15	~	Sluggard buried its hand in the basin, too fatigued to restore it to its mouth.	3e	4C	10 8
חָכָ֣ם עָצֵ֣ל בְּעֵינָ֑יו מִ֝שִּׁבְעָ֗ה מְשִׁ֣יבֵי טָֽעַם	16		Wiser is sluggard in its own eyes, than seven replying with taste.	3e	4B	7 8
מַחֲזִ֥יק בְּאָזְנֵי־כָ֑לֶב עֹבֵ֥ר מִ֝תְעַבֵּ֗ר עַל־רִ֥יב לֹּֽא־לֽוֹ	17		Resolute in holding the ears of a dog, a passer-by interfering in a dispute not its own.	3e	4A	7 8
כְּֽ֭מִתְלַהְלֵהַּ הַיֹּרֶ֥ה זִקִּ֗ים חִצִּ֥ים וָמָֽוֶת	18	g	A male in consternation, shooting, bounding, arrows and death,	3e	3g	15
כֵּֽן־אִ֭ישׁ רִמָּ֣ה אֶת־רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְ֝אָמַ֗ר הֲ‍ֽלֹא־מְשַׂחֵ֥ק אָֽנִי	19		So is a person that deceives its associate, and says, Am I not teasing?	3e	4B	8 9
בְּאֶ֣פֶס עֵ֭צִים תִּכְבֶּה־אֵ֑שׁ וּבְאֵ֥ין נִ֝רְגָּ֗ן יִשְׁתֹּ֥ק מָדֽוֹן	20		At the end of lumber quenched is fire, and when there is no one to natter, stilled is dissension.	3e	4B	8 8
פֶּחָ֣ם לְ֭גֶחָלִים וְעֵצִ֣ים לְאֵ֑שׁ וְאִ֥ישׁ מִ֝דְיָנִ֗ים לְחַרְחַר־רִֽיב	21		Hot coal for burning coals and timber for fire, so is a person of dissension to scorch dispute.	3e	4B	11 9
דִּבְרֵ֣י נִ֭רְגָּן כְּמִֽתְלַהֲמִ֑ים וְ֝הֵ֗ם יָרְד֥וּ חַדְרֵי־בָֽטֶן	22		The words of one who natters are like tidbits, and these, they descend to the inner rooms of the belly.	3e	4B	9 7
כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים מְצֻפֶּ֣ה עַל־חָ֑רֶשׂ שְׂפָתַ֖יִם דֹּלְקִ֣ים וְלֶב־רָֽע	23	B	Silver swill overlaid on a potsherd, lips inflamed and an evil heart.	3e	4B	10 8
בִּ֭שְׂפָתָיו יִנָּכֵ֣ר שׂוֹנֵ֑א וּ֝בְקִרְבּ֗וֹ יָשִׁ֥ית מִרְמָֽה	24	g	With its lips it masks hatred, but within it is set deceit.	3e	4B	8 7
כִּֽי־יְחַנֵּ֣ן ק֭וֹלוֹ אַל־תַּֽאֲמֶן־בּ֑וֹ כִּ֤י שֶׁ֖בַע תּוֹעֵב֣וֹת בְּלִבּֽוֹ	25		Though its voice is gracious, you will not believe in it, for seven abominations are in its heart.	3e	4C	11 9
תִּכַּסֶּ֣ה שִׂ֭נְאָה בְּמַשָּׁא֑וֹן תִּגָּלֶ֖ה רָעָת֣וֹ בְקָהָֽל	26		The one who covers hatred with allurement, its evil will be uncovered in the congregation.	3e	4B	9 9
כֹּֽרֶה־שַּׁ֭חַת בָּ֣הּ יִפֹּ֑ל וְגֹ֥לֵ֥ל אֶ֝בֶן אֵלָ֥יו תָּשֽׁוּב	27		One who digs a ditch in her will fall, and one who rolls a stone, to that one it will return.	3e	4B	7 9
לְֽשׁוֹן־שֶׁ֭קֶר יִשְׂנָ֣א דַכָּ֑יו וּפֶ֥ה חָ֝לָ֗ק יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה מִדְחֶֽה	28		A false tongue hates those it crushes, and a flattering mouth deals pushiness.	3e	4B	8 9