I have a question about the footnotes in the Bible. Often we read something like "the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain." What does that mean? If the translators don't know what the Hebrew word meant for sure how can we clearly understand the passage in English? (One specific example is Job 21:24.) -- Abby Collins (Atlanta)
First, let us commend translators whenever they honestly admit uncertainty. Translation from one language into another is rarely an absolutely certain enterprise, since there may be several ways to accurately express an idea in the translation language. Yet 99% of all sentences in the Old Testament are fairly certain, as a comparison of alternate translations quickly makes clear. It is better to "be real" than to confidently pretend knowledge.
Yet, once again, there are relatively few words in the entire Bible (some 30,000 verses!) whose meanings elude us. Since you mention Job 21, let us use this as a window into the sometimes challenging world of Bible translation. The sense of Job 21:24 is clear enough: the person is well-nourished even though he may not be a god-fearing individual. (Healthiness of marrow is also mentioned in Proverbs 3:8.) The Hebrew word in question seems to appear only once in the O.T., adding to the confusion.
Here is how some of the translations read:
New American Standard: his sides are filled out with fat and the marrow of his bones is moist.
Latin: viscera eius plena sunt adipe et medullis ossa illius inrigantur.
King James Version: his breasts {or milk pails} are full of milk and his bones are moistened with marrow.
New International Version: his body well nourished his bones rich with marrow. Revised Standard Version: his body full of fat and the marrow of his bones moist.
All translations yield the same general sense; the confusion centers only around one word--the Hebrew atin, meaning "milk pail" or "bucket." We are dealing with figurative language (nearly the entire book of Job is poetry, as the NIV indentations and stanzas indicate). One can see that the NIV follows the RSV avoiding too specific a translation of atin. The NAS similarly uses a broad word sides. The Latin viscera conveys the same sense as the NAS, while the KJV humorously over-interprets leading to a biological implausibility.
But whichever the correct translation, no doctrine of scripture depends on it, nor is the gist of the passage substantially affected. This is typical of verses where the translators have expressed doubt as to the perfect rendering of obscure Hebrew words. And while I personally read every footnote, there is nothing wrong with a Bible reader skipping them entirely. Little will be missed.
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2003. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
