Translating nephesh as neck in Ps 69:1

[Douglas Somerset]

What is the evidence for translating nephesh as neck in Ps 69:1? It seems to be a relatively recent idea that nephesh can mean neck/throat. The older writers (Gesenius, BDB, I think) don't seem to be aware of the possibility.

 

[Polanus1561]

HALOT: 2. neck Ps 105:18 : רַגְלַיִם), עַד־נֶ׳ Jon 2:6, with עַל Ps 69:2 124:4f.

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Douglas,
The semantic range of the parallel term in Ugaritic and Akkadian can have the meaning of throat/neck, which is why the idea is more recent (HALOT cites a 1925 article). The observation was first made in these other languages, and then people started to notice places in the OT where these meanings fitted. The thought is that there is an identification of the throat as the place through which one breathes with the breath that represents the life or self; since one also consumes food through this same organ, the meaning of "appetite" is also possible.

A good example of the various potential interpretations is Isaiah 5:14.

The KJV follows the most common translation ("soul/self") and renders it:
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure

The ESV goes with "appetite"
Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure

The CSB has
Therefore Sheol enlarges its throat and opens wide its enormous jaws

All of these make sense and are possible translations; however, the CSB perhaps fits the parallelism better ("throat/jaws")?

There are also places like Psalm 69:1 (and Jonah 2:5), where the writer seems to be in watery trouble "up to his nephesh"
KJV Jon 2:5 "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul" seems hard to make sense out of, while "The waters engulfed me up to the neck" (CSB) makes good sense.

Psalm 69:1 seems similar. "The waters are come in unto my soul" is difficult, while "the water has risen to my neck" is much clearer.

Of course that doesn't mean that nephesh should be translated this way everywhere, or that there aren't places where good translators may come to different conclusions. But it is a good example of how our knowledge of cognate languages sometimes alerts us to potential meanings of which the translators of the KJV were unaware.

 

[Douglas Somerset]

Many thanks once again. Very thought-provoking. In each of the instances, the underlying idea is similar, whether the word is translated soul or neck/throat, but there are some differences. In Ps 124:4, the water "passing over our neck" doesn't seem to mean very much. In Isaiah 5:14, the idea of hell enlarging her throat makes the image more concrete, which is helpful. In Psalm 69:1 and Psalm 105:18 the choice is between the physical and the poetic. I have no difficulty with the poetic, and I am sure that I speak for many, but "neck" is also forceful. In Jonah 2:5, where there was literal water involved, "neck" doesn't seem entirely appropriate because Jonah was in the very depths of the sea. The translation "neck" creates a clash between the metaphor and the reality.

There are two further queries in my mind.

(1) Is "neck" really part of the semantic range of corresponding root in Ugaritic? This paper https://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/125642/edition/109632/content p. 329 would suggest that it is rather "throat" than "neck" which is in the semantic range, but I have no means of checking the references. "Throat" can be either internal or external, and while the internal connects with the appetite and the breath, the external is more remote from those ideas.

(2) If "neck" is part of the semantic range of nephesh, it would seem to be on the edge of the range, and therefore a less likely choice if the more usual meanings make sense. The word comes at least twice elsewhere, in the usual sense, in Ps 69 (verse 10 and 18), and there is also the somewhat related verse in Ps 22:20 ("deliver my soul from the sword", KJV). David was quite capable of bold figures involving the soul, and even supposing that "neck" is a possible translation, it is by no means clear that it deserves the preference in Ps 69:1.

 

[iainduguid]

These are good questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can, though I'm not campaigning for particular translations. As you suggest, the effect of the different translations is primarily either a more concrete image or a more abstract representation. To say "I'm up to my neck in it this time" is not far distant from "my life is in danger"; both convey the same basic idea. Indeed, even in English the two can effectively function as synonyms: when I say "I'm risking my neck", we all know that it means "I'm risking my life". Translation is hard, and while we may prefer one translation's rendering to another in a particular context, it would be hard to argue that any of these are profoundly mistaken.

1) You may well be right to think in terms of denotation "throat" is closer in its semantic range to nephesh/napishtu than "neck", since in English "throat" can mean both internal and external aspects ("I have a sore throat/the robber punched him in the throat") whereas "neck" generally refers to the more external aspects ("I have a sore neck" means something quite different to "I have a sore throat"). There is evidence that the Akkadian word can refer to the external part of the anatomy, as well as the internal ("gullet"): the Concise Akkadian Dictionary cites a text where the word is used of "grasping one's throat (in oath taking)", which surely has to be external. However, in English when we say "I'm up to my _____ in trouble" we would always use the word "neck" not "throat". In terms of connotation, therefore, that English idiom will tend to constrain translators to render it "neck" rather than "throat" (if these are the options).

2) It's not so much a case of "central/edge" of semantic range; rather, it is more like literal/figurative. So leb literally means "heart" (the physical organ), but by extension can mean "the place where you think and reason". The latter (figurative) meaning is probably far more common than the former, but there are places where the literal meaning is in view (and many others where we are clearly not intended to think of the physical heart). nephesh is a bit more complex than leb, but the principle is similar. The "literal" meaning seems to be "neck/throat/gullet/windpipe etc [conceived as a totality, both internal and external]". It is the place you breathe through, so it becomes associated with breath/life/spirit/soul/personhood, which then becomes the most common meaning. It is also the place you eat with and so becomes associated with "appetite" (Prov. 23:2; Isa. 56:11). It is also the place that when that goes underwater, you drown, which explains its association with watery danger. I don't think the objection that Jonah was already in the depths of the sea rules out the "literal" usage here, since it is a highly poetic passage, but of course others may differ.

The value of being aware of the full semantic range of a word is that it gives you more options to translate with in any particular context. The beginning student tends to translate every usage of a Hebrew word with the same gloss they learned for the quiz. Skillful translators know the wider range of options that are available in any given instance. More "literal" is not always the best option.

 

[Douglas Somerset]

Thanks again. The idea that the literal meaning of nephesh is "throat" is certainly very attractive and simple, and anatomically appealing as well, because that part of the body has so much to do with life and appetite (food, breath, words). Iain says that the connection is a bit more complex than it is with leb (heart: literal and figurative) and perhaps he could enlarge on this because at the moment the claim seems to go beyond the evidence. I see the following difficulties:

1. Whereas there are several undoubted instances in the OT where leb means the physical heart, the Hebrew examples of nephesh meaning neck/throat are not quite conclusive. In each case other acknowledged meanings of the word nephesh are possible in the context.

2. While leb/lebab seems to be the only Hebrew word for the literal heart, there are other Hebrew words words for throat/neck, e.g. Is. 8:8 and Ps 69:3. Indeed in Ps 69, one runs into the problem that if nephesh really suggests the idea of throat to the Hebrew mind then verses 1 and 3 almost contradict each other -- the throat inundated with water and dry at the same time.

3. The idea that the literal meaning of nephesh is "throat" seems to come predominantly out of related roots in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The direct transfer of the semantic range of a word from one language to another is not a strong argument (witness savage/sauvage in English/Franch, and I am sure there are much better examples).

At the moment, the claim seems to be more at the level of a conjecture than something that has actually been established.

 

[iainduguid]

Thanks again. The idea that the literal meaning of nephesh is "throat" is certainly very attractive and simple, and anatomically appealing as well, because that part of the body has so much to do with life and appetite (food, breath, words). Iain says that the connection is a bit more complex than it is with leb (heart: literal and figurative) and perhaps he could enlarge on this because at the moment the claim seems to go beyond the evidence. I see the following difficulties:

1. Whereas there are several undoubted instances in the OT where leb means the physical heart, the Hebrew examples of nephesh meaning neck/throat are not quite conclusive. In each case other acknowledged meanings of the word nephesh are possible in the context.

2. While leb/lebab seems to be the only Hebrew word for the literal heart, there are other Hebrew words words for throat/neck, e.g. Is. 8:8 and Ps 69:3. Indeed in Ps 69, one runs into the problem that if nephesh really suggests the idea of throat to the Hebrew mind then verses 1 and 3 almost contradict each other -- the throat inundated with water and dry at the same time.

3. The idea that the literal meaning of nephesh is "throat" seems to come predominantly out of related roots in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The direct transfer of the semantic range of a word from one language to another is not a strong argument (witness savage/sauvage in English/Franch, and I am sure there are much better examples).

At the moment, the claim seems to be more at the level of a conjecture than something that has actually been established.

Hi Douglas,
i don't feel the need to try to change your mind. There's no doctrine at stake here. The evidence is not "conclusive", to be sure; it rarely is when we are discussing less common meanings of words. There are certainly several Hebrew words for throat/neck and only one for heart, but there are also several words for throat/neck/gullet/aesophagus in English, each with their own distinct nuance. The same is true in Hebrew for other body parts as well: for example, we have at least two words we translate into English as "hand" or "foot". There is no "law" of vocabulary that only one word may be used for each body part. And of course it is true that there are "false friends" between related languages, but of course they are significant because closely related languages often do have related usages.

The scale "conjecture" to "actually established" is a fairly long axis. Most words fall somewhere on that scale; by definition, less common usages will be less easy to establish. I can say that among experts in the field (people who are far more adept in these things than I am), this is regarded as a very plausible potential meaning; that is why it appears in all of the recent Hebrew lexicons. That doesn't necessarily make it the right translation in any particular context, of course: hence the variety in translations. It's even perfectly plausible that such a meaning existed in Hebrew, but doesn't fit any of the Biblical usages. I don't agree, but that's okay. It is not an uncommon experience in scholarship to find that really thoughtful people reach different conclusions about complex questions.

 

[Douglas Somerset]

I think that the subject is quite important because of the importance of the word nephesh. The question for me is whether to continue to think of nephesh in the rather nebulous, indistinct way that I have up till now, or to start using this concrete representation as throat/neck. Underlying this is the question of what was in the Hebrew mind in the days of Moses and David. If "throat/neck" was the root meaning in Akkadian then presumably it was in Hebrew as well, but even this wouldn't quite prove that it was still current in their minds in the days of Moses and later. The fact that the nineteenth-century Hebrew lexicographers never made the connection does raise doubts. Something for me to mull over.

For the pure mathematician, there isn't really a scale from "conjecture" to "actually established" -- they are just two separate categories. Conjectures may have more or less supporting evidence, but until they are proved you can't make use of them in other work. I know that this black-and-white approach doesn't fit most other subjects, but I do feel that scholars sometimes tend to be over-confident, ignoring or forgetting that many of their assertions come with a non-trivial probability weighting.

Anyway, thanks once again for all the most helpful information!