Miscellaneous language tidbits

From the forthcoming The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures 2:

Parthian had been the official language under the Parthians, and the third-century Sasanian kings had their inscriptions written in both Middle Persian and Parthian, some also in Greek. Both Parthian and Middle Persian were written using local Iranian scripts based on Aramaic and were difficult both to read and to write.[1] The Manichean script is based on Syriac scripts, but is not identical with any of the three common ones (Jacobite, Nestorian, and Estrangelo), so today it is usually just called the Manichean script. This script was used to write Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian, as well as Bactrian (one Manichean fragment survives) and some other languages in Xinjiang.

[1]. Notably because of historical spellings (as English and French) and the use of arameograms (also called heterograms), i.e., Aramaic words to be read in Iranian (e.g., YDH̱ spelling dast “hand”). A later version of this script is used in a fragment of the Psalms of David, also found at Turfan, and a still later version is found in the Zoroastrian literature from the ninth century and later, commonly called Pahlavi.

<idle musing>
Interesting. I wasn't aware of the use of arameograms (and, yes, it's lower case!). It's sort of like Akkadian, with its Sumerograms, or Hittite, having Sumerograms and Akkadograms. Miscellaneous tidbit there: In some cases we don't even know the underlying Hittite word because it's never written, just the case endings appear, attached to the Sumerogram or Akkadogram. We know the declension it belongs to and the gender, but not the word itself!
</idle musing>

Oh no! It's a new kind of dinosaur!

Via Ryan, our son.

The problem of metaphors

That is not, however, the end of the matter, because the notion that the God of the Bible is masculine rather than feminine is false. Despite the overwhelmingly masculine language used for God in the Bible, to extract the notion that God is male is an example of the error of the via eminentiae: the idea that God is like something else, only more so. In this case: God is like a king, only much more powerful; God is like a father, but a better father than any human. It is necessary, albeit difficult, simultaneously to affirm the metaphors as metaphors and to admit that they fall so far short of divine reality that they threaten to lead us astray in crucial ways.—Christopher B. Hays in Divine Doppelgängers: YHWH’s Ancient Look-Alikes, 217–18 (emphasis original)

You will make a fool of yourself

The study of any language—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Taino—opens the mind, gives you a window onto another culture, and reminds you that there is a larger world out there and different ways of saying things, hearing things, seeing things. It always distresses me to hear someone say, “I’m no good at foreign languages,” or demand “English for me, dear.” In learning a foreign language, you have to humble yourself, admit your ignorance, be willing to look stupid. We learn a language by making mistakes. Or anyway I do.—Mary Norris, Greek to Me Adventures of the Comma Queen, 68

<idle musing>
I always told my students that I was going to make mistakes, just as they would. In some ways is was a game to see if they could catch my mistakes. More than once, they did. Learning in general, and languages especially, means you are going to make mistakes. Admit them, learn from them, and move on.
</idle musing>

Tread carefully!

Any poetic, philosophic, rhetorical pronouncement worth taking seriously will compact its executive means and meanings. It will resist, it will frustrate to the greatest possible degree, the dissociative, the deconstructive agencies of paraphrase and translation. A major text exposes pitilessly the necessary innocence and arbitrariness of the translator’s assumption that meaning is some sort of ‘packageable content’ and not an energy irreducible to any other medium. Language is, therefore, the adversary of translation. Thus there is more than cautionary allegory in the prohibition which numerous cultures have set against the translation of their sacred texts.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 195

A matter of perspective

The extinction of a language however remote, however immune to historical-material success or diffusion, is the death of a unique world—view, of a genre of remembrance, of present being and of futurity. A truly dead language is irreplaceable. It closes that which Kierkegaard bade us keep open if our humanity was to evolve: ‘the wounds of possibility’. Such closure may, for late twentieth-century mass-media and mass-market technocracy, be a triumph. It may facilitate the imperium of the fast-food chain and the news-satellite. For the lessening chances of the human spirit, it is destructive.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 150–51

A Study in Translations

I was reading in Matthew 8 this morning in my currently favored translation, the Common English Bible, when I noticed that all the references to the "sea" were changed to "lake."

23 When Jesus got into a boat, his disciples followed him. 24 A huge storm arose on the lake so that waves were sloshing over the boat. But Jesus was asleep. 25 They came and woke him, saying, “Lord, rescue us! We’re going to drown!”

26 He said to them, “Why are you afraid, you people of weak faith?” Then he got up and gave orders to the winds and the lake, and there was a great calm.

27 The people were amazed and said, “What kind of person is this? Even the winds and the lake obey him!” (emphasis added)

That's also true of the NIV (although they change the last "lake" to "waves") and NLT, but not the NRSV, ESV, or HCSB (those are all I checked). I've noticed it before, but it never really hit me the way it did this morning.

So what's the big deal, you ask. After all, Jesus still showed his power over the water— and the "Sea" of Galilee really isn't a sea, it's not saltwater, so it really is a lake.

Ah yes. The old dilemma of how to translate rears its ugly head. The NRSV, ESV, and HCSB chose to stick with the philologically correct "sea" while the CEB, NIV, and NLT chose to be geologically correct, but philologically a bit off. But if I were a betting man, which I am not, I would wager you that all six translations missed the theological point of the passage.

Huh?

Yep. Why is it so important that Jesus calms the θάλασσα (thalassa)? If you rummage back through the posts of this blog as far back as 2016, you will find excerpts from a snappy little book by my British friend Robin Parry. On March 30, 2016, referring to the walking on water, not the calming of the sea, this is what he said:

We all know the story of Jesus walking on water. And for most of us it is simply a great show of his power and authority but, truth be told, we don’t really see the point of it. However, Jesus did not actually walk on water. You did read that correctly. Jesus did not walk on the water . . . he walked on the sea. There’s a difference and it is important. (emphasis original)

Follow the link to read the rest. But the point is that the sea represents chaos and destruction. Everything God isn't. By Jesus calming the sea, he is showing that he is Yahweh, God, incarnate.

But, if you read the excerpt from Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition today, you will know that modern Christianity has a problem with the supernatural—well, you probably already knew that!—but that excerpt just exemplifies it better than most.

Once again, to quote that old saw, traduttore tradittore, the translator is a traitor. And as I said, I doubt the NRSV, ESV, HCSB stuck with "sea" because of the theological import of the passage. They are just as captive to the naturalistic mindset as the CEB and NIV.

So, perhaps I shouldn't have called this post "A Study in Translations" as much as "A Study in Preconceptions" or some such. Anyway, it's just an
<idle musing>

Learning styles?

I've been hearing about learning styles for what seems like forever—especially related to language acquisition. It sounds good in theory, but...

“by the time we get students at college,” said the Indiana University professor Polly Husmann, “they’ve already been told ‘You’re a visual learner.’” Or aural, or what have you.

The thing is, they’re not. Or at least, a lot of evidence suggests that people aren’t really one certain kind of learner or another. In a study published last month in the journal Anatomical Sciences Education, Husmann and her colleagues had hundreds of students take the vark questionnaire to determine what kind of learner they supposedly were. The survey then gave them some study strategies that seem like they would correlate with that learning style. Husmann found that not only did students not study in ways that seemed to reflect their learning style, those who did tailor their studying to suit their style didn’t do any better on their tests.—The Atlantic, April 11, 2018

<idle musing>
Yep.
</idle musing>

Aramaic irony

The Edict of Darius declares concerning any who may hinder the reconstruction: “that a beam (ʾāʿ) will be ripped out of his house and, once reerected, he will be hanged on it.” This curse acquires its full rhetorical significance only if one reads it in connection with the reference to building lumber in the preceding section ([Ezr.]6:4). Thus, it appears as an ironic antithesis to Ezr. 6:4: Just as Cyrus and Darius finance the reconstruction of the “house of God” (6:3) by also supplying, among other things, the wood for its construction, so must any who oppose this project provide the wood for his gallows from his own house, which will ultimately destroy it. Thus, wood here becomes a sign both for blessing and for the fates of the various groups depending on the extent to which they agree with God’s plan.—Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, XVI, forthcoming (this is the Aramaic volume).

Figurative language? Or literal? Is there a difference?

The traditional position, both in philosophy and in linguistics – and indeed the everyday view – is that (1) there is a stable and unambiguous notion of literality, and (2) that there is a sharp distinction to be made between literal language, on the one hand, and non-literal or figurative language on the other. According to this view, while literal language is precise and lucid, figurative language is imprecise, and is largely the domain of poets and novelists. In his 1994 book The Poetics of Mind, cognitive psychologist and cognitive linguist Raymond Gibbs examined this issue. Based on a close examination of the key features that are held to distinguish literal and figurative language, and based on a wide-ranging survey of different kinds of psycholinguistic experiments aimed at uncovering such a distinction, Gibbs found that there is no evidence for a principled distinction between literal and figurative language.—Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, p. 287

Smyth strikes again

Interesting tidbit I picked up today from Smyth:

966. The verb may agree with the nearest or most important of two or more subjects. The verb may be placed

a. Before both subjects: ““ἧκε μὲν ὁ Θερσαγόρα_ς καὶ ὁ Ἐξήκεστος εἰς Λέσβον καὶ ᾤκουν ἐκεῖ” Thersagoras and Execestus came to Lesbos and settled there” D. 23.143.

b. After the first subject: ““ὅ τε Πολέμαρχος ἧκε καὶ Ἀδείμαντος καὶ Νικήρατος καὶ ἄλλοι τινές” Polemarchus came and Adimantus and Niceratus and certain others” P. R. 327b, ““Φαλῖνος ᾤχετο καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ” Phalinus and his companions departed” X. A. 2.2.1.

c. After both subjects: ““τὸ βουλευτήριον καὶ ὁ δῆμος παρορᾶται” the senate and the people are disregarded” Aes. 3.250. (Cp. Shakesp. “my mistress and her sister stays.”）

Kiss it good-bye

The relative decrease in the number of present imperatives in the Koine in comparison with Ancient Greek may be explained by two factors. In the first place, the present imperative of transformative (especially instantaneous) verbs is used only and exclusively when the speaker is excited. Apparently in those days a present imperative was more readily used when the action could be expressed by verbs that themselves denote duration or perspective. A present imperative is used only when the situation from which the order results is clear or has been made clear to the hearer. The subjective point of view from which the ancient Greek made his choice between the present and aorist imperative seems no longer to be known to the Koine. People are no longer able to voice the finest nuances of thoughts and feelings. Instead, they adhere to objective reality, and consequently express themselves more exactly, at least in this respect.—The Greek Imperative, pages 86–87

Good stuff

I've been woefully behind in mentioning a few books that I've received recently. I won't have time to read them for at least another month. Between the cabins, getting the garden ready for winter, and editing/proofreading work, and sneaking a hike or two in, there isn't much time left for reading.

Anyway, a long, long, long time ago (July, I think), Adrianna from InterVarsity Press sent me a copy of Atonement and a copy of Incarnation by T.F. Torrance. I'm really looking forward to reading these...look for snippets to begin appearing later this fall.

Much more recently—in fact, just last week—Bobby K. from Hendrickson Publishers sent me a copy of Unholy Allegiances by David deSilva. This looks really good. Here's part of the blurb on the book:

This is a truly unique book that studies Revelation by (1) stating the context in which it was written (Roman Asia in the first century), (2) noting why John wrote what he did to the church, and (3) powerfully applying John’s message to the church today. It is concisely written and carries a genuine spiritual message.

And, earlier this week, Jeremy from Baker Academic sent me a copy of Bonhoeffer the Assassin?. This one piqued my interest when I saw it in the Baker catalog earlier this year. Here's the blurb from the book:

Most of us think we know the moving story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life--a pacifist pastor turns anti-Hitler conspirator due to horrors encountered during World War II--but does the evidence really support this prevailing view? This pioneering work carefully examines the biographical and textual evidence and finds no support for the theory that Bonhoeffer abandoned his ethic of discipleship and was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler. In fact, Bonhoeffer consistently affirmed a strong stance of peacemaking from 1932 to the end of his life, and his commitment to peace was integrated with his theology as a whole.

We'll see...I'd love to believe them, being a person of nonresistance myself and liking Bonhoeffer's theology.

Oh, and much earlier, Jeremy also sent me a copy of Cook and Holmstedt's Beginning Biblical Hebrew which has an integrated reader. Well, actually the reader is more a graphic novel than anything. They use their insights from linguistics and second language acquisition studies and attempt to bring them to bear in teaching Biblical Hebrew. Good stuff...

How knowing Hebrew can be a help...

In 2 Kgs 6:11, ֶשׁ is placed in the mouth of an Aramean king, even though ֶשׁ is not used in Aramaic. In Jonah, ֶשׁ is placed once in the mouth of the sailors (when they speak among themselves), once in Jonah’s mouth (when he addresses the sailors), and once in God’s mouth. The use of ֶשׁ in God’s mouth alongside an immediately preceding רשׁא suggests that ֶשׁ is used for rhetorical effect: to support one of the author’s theological points, that YHWH is the God of non-Israelites as well as Israelites. Holmstedt Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 118, footnote 28

Language learning

..learning a language is seen as language development [in complex systems theory] rather than as acquisition. In other words, language is a process of dynamic adaptation (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 157) rather than something that, once learned, is “possessed” for all time. From a complexity point of view, language can never be in an entirely stable state, so it cannot be “acquired” once and for all."—J. Naude in  Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, page 64

<idle musing>
Indeed. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's true even of English. Every day I'm learning a new nuance to a word or an entirely new word. If that is true of English, how much truer it is of a second/acquired language!
</idle musing>

Wow, what a hornet's nest

I certainly didn't expect to stir up a hornet's nest with my post on Wednesday, but I certainly seem to have. Peter Kirk posted a link to my post and some additional observations. Rob Holmstedt has been active in commenting both on my blog and Peter's, with the result that today, he posted his own response—without actually linking to Peter's blog.

So, Genesis One continues to be a war zone. Only this time, it is a war zone not over creatio ex nihilo or how long it took or didn't take, or how it happened, but a war zone over the best linguistic explanation. Me, I'm just putting on my fireproof underwear and posting this!

Basics of Biblical Aramaic

I recently received a copy of Basics of Biblical Aramaic by Miles van Pelt (thanks Jesse!). It is the most recent contribution to Zondervan's biblical languages series.

It would be easy to point out the places where I would have done things differently, but first let's see what van Pelt aims to do and if he succeeds:

This grammar was not written for Aramaic scholars or for students interested in comparative Semitic grammar. Rather, the purpose and design of this grammar is to provide the average student with a working knowledge of the Aramaic language appearing in the Old Testament. It was written for those students who desire to study, teach, and preach faithfully from those portions of the Bible that appear in Aramaic. (page x)

I kept reminding myself of this paragraph as I read through the grammar. It is not fair to evaluate a textbook on the basis of what I would have done; I'm far more interested in comparative Semitics and historical grammar than the average student :)

As far as layout, the book is 8.5 x 11 inches and the text is large enough that even my eyes could easily read it. The tables are well laid out and clear. The use of footnotes for interesting, but not essential, information is good, allowing the interested student to obtain more background.

The book assumes the knowledge of biblical Hebrew; there are repeated comparisons to how biblical Aramaic is/is not like Hebrew. Here is where I would have brought in some comparative Semitics and historical grammar to explain the ש/ת interchange, as well as other consonantal differences. He does mention the Canaanite shift, which is good. But, again, I reminded myself of his purpose paragraph. The average student would probably be more confused than helped.

He begins with the nominal system, including particles, conjunctions, and prepositions, and then proceeds to present the verbal system, beginning with the Peal and then giving the derived stems. There is a great deal of emphasis and explanation of weak verbs, which is very helpful when you consider that the majority of the verbs in biblical Aramaic are weak.

The grammar section ends with paradigm charts before launching into the reading section. The book includes all the Aramaic sections of the Hebrew Bible, complete with extensive annotations. The annotations include things like identifying a difficult to figure out root, metathesis, idiomatic phrases, etc. The strange thing about the reading section is that the order of pages is English, not Aramaic. You start reading on the left hand page, then proceed to the right, and turn the page as if it were English. I'm not sure what the logic of that is. I would think that the page order would be Aramaic, but that is a minor quibble.

The book concludes with a dictionary, based on HALOT, with one-two word glosses. Adequate for reading the passages, but for more extensive background, HALOT or BDB should be consulted.

What do I think of the book? As one who learned biblical Aramaic via the “here's a text, lexicon, and Rosenthal, now read it!” method, this book is a vast improvement. I suspect a highly motivated individual could teach themselves Aramaic using it—as long as they already know Hebrew. The explanations are clear enough and the notes in the reading will keep you from getting discouraged.

In answer to the opening question, did he succeed in doing what he set out to do? I would answer, "Yes, he did." As I mentioned, the layout is attractive and the explanations are good. As anyone who has ever taught a language will tell you, there is no perfect first year grammar for any language—except the one you write yourself! If I were to teach biblical Aramaic, I would probably adopt this book, but assign background readings in Rosenthal's A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Of course, if someone were to create an immersion course in Aramaic, that would be best!

Thought for the day

“Rule for writers: use the standard lexicons and if you differ from them you better have good evidence because you are disagreeing with some mighty good scholars who have for centuries pondered the evidence in the original languages.”— Scot McKnight

Coptic, anyone?

I collect grammars. I have mentioned that before. One of the many languages I have a grammar for is Coptic. I have looked at it many times since I got it 3-4 years ago. The thing that scares me about it is that it looks too much like Greek. The alphabet is the Greek alphabet plus some letters; there are lots of Greek loanwords in the vocabulary. But, it isn't Greek syntax or grammar; it is Egyptianish. Now, one set of languages I avoided in graduate school was Egytian, so I get a bit nervous about being serious about Coptic. Besides, I need another dead language like I need another hole in the head or zucchini squash :)

All that to say that Eisenbrauns is offering a new 10-day Back-to-School sale on Coptic. For the next 10 days, you can save 10-40% on some basic resources. Go here to get some goodies. That way they can sit on your shelf while you contemplate learning the language :)

Thought for the day

“Too often commentators resort to the “emphasis” explanation when confronted with atypical or strange structures or forms in passages of the Hebrew Bible.”— Bridging the Gap pages 152-153