# Ack! Another ESV translation oddity!



## wturri78 (May 28, 2009)

I've been reading through Judges, and I just found that in 6:14 the Angel of the LORD says to Gideon, "Go in this might of yours and save Israel from the hand of Midian; do not I sent you?"

_Do not I send you?_ If this is supposed to be a translation in modern English, why the bizarre and obsolete word ordering? It's like a handful of King James-isms sprinkled randomly throughout the translation where they really don't fit. 

I can find others, I just haven't really recorded them. For some reason this one just particularly irked me 

Does anyone know why there are odd word orderings like this? Was Yoda on the translation committee? Is there actually something in the original languages that necessitates this ordering, and that is "more literal" for being retained in English?


----------



## Pergamum (May 28, 2009)

_Ain't I sending you_ I guess is more akin to modern english. It's still better than fetching compasses...


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> _Ain't I sending you_ I guess is more akin to modern english. It's still better than fetching compasses...


----------



## toddpedlar (May 28, 2009)

The Authorized Version also has that ordering, as do other more literal translations. My guess is that in making this translation choice they are taking the interpretation that what the LORD is saying there is have not *I* sent you? with the emphasis on who is doing the sending.


----------



## Whitefield (May 28, 2009)

The verb is a qal perfect and wouldn't the NASB translation be better: "Have I not sent you?"


----------



## Edward (May 28, 2009)

wturri78 said:


> do not I sent you?"
> 
> _Do not I send you?_ If this is supposed to be a translation in modern English, why the bizarre and obsolete word ordering?



The only thing I find strange is the typo. Is it 'sent' or 'send'? The word order looks fine. 

I don't share much of the reformed world's infatuation with the ESV, but I don't see a problem with this.


----------



## wturri78 (May 28, 2009)

Whoops! They both should be "send."

It's probably a stylistic preference, but "do not I send you" just sounds...stodgy and archaic?...vs "do I not send you." Maybe they both sound archaic, I don't know. Modern English would read "Don't I send you?" where the contraction would probably stand in for "_Do not_ I send you." So maybe I just shot my own argument in the foot. 

But it still sounds weird to me! Maybe it sounds forced. Almost like somebody was trying to make the translation sound older, or more authoritative, or something. 

Still, I find some of these oddities (to me anyway) sprinkled throughout. Like in 1 Samuel, God calls to Samuel in the night and he replies "Here am I." Sure, grammatically maybe it's fine, but nobody actually talks like that nor have they for many years. I'm not advocating translating it as "Wazzup?" but "Here I am" seems more natural.


----------



## Berean (May 28, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> The verb is a qal perfect and wouldn't the NASB translation be better: "Have I not sent you?"



Agreed. And they call the NASB "wooden".

14 The LORD looked at him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?"


----------



## historyb (May 28, 2009)

> I'm not advocating translating it as "Wazzup?" but "Here I am" seems more natural.



That would interesting to read, I bet somebody did it already. Wazzup!


----------



## WaywardNowHome (May 29, 2009)

wturri78 said:


> Still, I find some of these oddities (to me anyway) sprinkled throughout. Like in 1 Samuel, God calls to Samuel in the night and he replies "Here am I." Sure, grammatically maybe it's fine, but nobody actually talks like that nor have they for many years. I'm not advocating translating it as "Wazzup?" but "Here I am" seems more natural.



I was always told that "Here am I" conveys a very different meaning than "Here I am". I believe Isaiah also says the same thing in Isaiah 6 after he sees a vision of our Lord.

The emphasis with "Here I am" is the location of the person (_here_), whereas the emphasis with "Here am I" is the person himself (_I_).


----------



## Wannabee (May 29, 2009)

WaywardNowHome said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> > Still, I find some of these oddities (to me anyway) sprinkled throughout. Like in 1 Samuel, God calls to Samuel in the night and he replies "Here am I." Sure, grammatically maybe it's fine, but nobody actually talks like that nor have they for many years. I'm not advocating translating it as "Wazzup?" but "Here I am" seems more natural.
> ...



Yea, it sounds nice. But there's no difference in the Hebrew. I tried that on my Hebrew prof once... no go.


----------



## OPC'n (May 29, 2009)

Just wondering if the construction of this sentence would Grammatically place the emphasis on a more imperative statement instead of a more interrogative statement and that's why it's set up in this fashion?


----------



## reformedminister (May 29, 2009)




----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Just wondering if the construction of this sentence would Grammatically place the emphasis on a more imperative statement instead of a more interrogative statement and that's why it's set up in this fashion?



the verb's tense is qal perfect = completed action

grammatically the phase looks like this

[interrogative particle] + [negative particle] + [qal perfect 1st person with 2nd person suffix]

[interrogative particle] = question follows
[negative particle] = "not"
[qal perfect 1 person with 2nd person suffix] = "I have sent you"

thus "Have I not sent you?"


----------



## wturri78 (May 29, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if the construction of this sentence would Grammatically place the emphasis on a more imperative statement instead of a more interrogative statement and that's why it's set up in this fashion?
> ...



That's _exactly_ what I was going to say!


----------



## Ivan (May 29, 2009)

I'm getting dizzy.


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

Ivan said:


> I'm getting dizzy.



Take two Gesenius's and call me in the morning.


----------



## Ivan (May 29, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm getting dizzy.
> ...



Are you should that's not Gesenius'?


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



or Geseniuses? Now I'm feeling dizzy, too.


----------



## Ivan (May 29, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



Sorry...see what happens when I have five days off! My bad!


----------



## DMcFadden (May 29, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> > wturri78 said:
> ...



The problem is that my go-to guy for introduction to all things Reformed, R.C. Sproul, mispeaks himself in his famous sermon on Isaiah 6.

The meaning he adduces (to whit: availability, not location) is certainly biblical and arguably Isaiah's point. Implying that it is rooted in differences in the Hebrew syntax, however, is "preacher talk." When Isaiah says "Here I am" he is clearly NOT giving the Lord a tip since the divine GPS is on the fritz. It is a statement of availability for service. There just isn't any underlying differentiation (that I know of in my limited Hebrew) between "Here am I" and "Here I am."

In Isaiah 6: he _*sees*_ the Lord (Holy, Holy, Holy), he therefore _*sees*_ himself in relation to the Holy One ("woe is me"), and he _*sees*_ the service God has for him ("Here am I. Send me").

See how simple that was? And you don't even have to speak in tongues (like Lance!) to say it. 

Lance, if you keep saying "qal, qal, qal," I'm gonna think that you are practicing your bird imitations.


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Lance, if you keep saying "qal, qal, qal," I'm gonna think that you are practicing your bird imitations.



But you have to admit it was a perfect qal!


----------



## LawrenceU (May 29, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Lance, if you keep saying "qal, qal, qal," I'm gonna think that you are practicing your bird imitations.
> ...


 

Great. Now I have to explain to the folks in the office, including the ADEM inspectors, why I just busted out laughing. I'm pretty sure that I will have to go home and get my Gesenius. I'm also pretty sure they will need some Guinnesses as well.


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...



I'm happy to be the genesis of Gesenius and Guinness.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (May 29, 2009)

It's time for a new translation already. This one is SO obsolete. How about the 'today's english standard new american revised version in modern english' version.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 29, 2009)

No way!!! I've been listening to the PC crowd and have come to the settled conviction that "English" in any statement is a racist attack upon marginalized persons of an international persuasion. 

I'm holding out for a Pig-latin or Esperanto translation.


----------



## OPC'n (May 29, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if the construction of this sentence would Grammatically place the emphasis on a more imperative statement instead of a more interrogative statement and that's why it's set up in this fashion?
> ...



So, is that what I said only said differently or are you saying something different from what I said? What are you saying exactly?


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > TranZ4MR said:
> ...



It is not an imperative, it is more like saying "why are you still standing here?"


----------



## OPC'n (May 29, 2009)

Wouldn't an imperative statement lead them to ask the person who wasn't moving "why are you still standing here?" If I give an order to someone to do something and they are not moving to do it, then I'm going to ask them why they are still standing in front of me.


----------



## Whitefield (May 29, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Wouldn't an imperative statement lead them to ask the person who wasn't moving "why are you still standing here?" If I give an order to someone to do something and they are not moving to do it, then I'm going to ask them why they are still standing in front of me.



It isn't in the imperative in Hebrew. I take it more to mean ... "what are you worried about, haven't I, the LORD, sent you?" Asking why someone is still there, or why they are fearful, isn't an imperative.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 29, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> No way!!! I've been listening to the PC crowd and have come to the settled conviction that "English" in any statement is a racist attack upon marginalized persons of an international persuasion.
> 
> I'm holding out for a Pig-latin or Esperanto translation.



Ah yes, Esperanto. The once thought future Lingua Franca of the Coming Utopia!! Here you go, Dennis:


----------



## DMcFadden (May 30, 2009)

Sorry you and Grymir have turned me into a Bible snob. If it isn't real leather, high end goatskin, or done by Cambridge or Allans it isn't a real "Bible."


----------



## LawrenceU (May 30, 2009)

I'm glad that I have been used to deliver you from the lowly masses  It really is nicer up here, isn't it? I wonder if Allan will be binding the Esperanto version anytime soon?


----------



## Knoxienne (May 30, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> No way!!! I've been listening to the PC crowd and have come to the settled conviction that "English" in any statement is a racist attack upon marginalized persons of an international persuasion.
> 
> I'm holding out for a Pig-latin or Esperanto translation.


----------

