Lev. 10:1

[Kaalvenist]

AV: And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

NIV: Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command.

The difference between the rendering of the last clause is striking. The question seems to regard whether it should be rendered "which He did not command," or "which He commanded them not to do."

As far as I can tell, all versions (with the exception of the NIV and related versions) favor the former rendering. My question is, are there any resources which can demonstrate this, preferably with reference to the Hebrew?

 

[fredtgreco]

The NIV rendering cannot be a literal and proper translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew is literally:

which (relative pronoun)
not (apodidtic negative)
he commanded (piel verb, not a noun)
them (direct object)

The object is "them" and "command" is a verb. This would appear to be another example of the NIV's dynamic equivalence (verbs for nouns, nouns for verbs, etc) being less accurate.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The NIV rendering cannot be a literal and proper translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew is literally:

which (relative pronoun)
not (apodidtic negative)
he commanded (piel verb, not a noun)
them (direct object)

The object is "them" and "command" is a verb. This would appear to be another example of the NIV's dynamic equivalence (verbs for nouns, nouns for verbs, etc) being less accurate.

Just typing out the two verses "side by side" made me appreciate formal equivalence, and reminded me why I stopped using the NIV (among other reasons).

But how does the Hebrew compare with these two constructions?

1. "Which He did not command them [to do]"

2. "Which He commanded them not [to do]"

In other words, does the Hebrew lend itself to the conclusion that Nadab and Abihu died because they did something which God had not commanded; or that they died because they did something which God had specifically commanded not to be done; or is it open to either interpretation/translation?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Either is a possibility...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't agree, Ben. The sentence isn't really as ambiguous as that.

Even if you suppose that interpolating a "to do" is OK, and that is the strained interpretation, it must then be justified. So, you'd have the "not" modifying a missing infinitive of the actual sentence. In addition, if you accept the latter, you now have a hitherto unknown command (explicit), one that forbade the offering they made. But Scripture does not indicate that the sons went against an explicit prohibition at all. "God ordered them not to do as they (contrarywise) did?" Where is the evidence, beside this interpretation?

You would also have to treat the negative as if it were in quotes: Which "NO" he commanded. Again, strained. The text only says: which thing (pronoun, ref. entire previous clause) Not he commanded, He commanded not, He (did) not command, the same thing any way you express it. The "not" belongs with the verbal idea as negation.

The subject-verb arrangement is: he commanded. This must govern our interpretation (unless demanded by other considerations). The "not" then negates the verbal idea: he did not command. The sons did something: (offered) that which was not commanded

"To do" is not needed anyway, because the earlier verb tells us exactly what the sons did. BUT, if the author was going to state that which was prohibited, he would necessarily have had to make his meaning explicit by use of an infinitive. AND, he would likely have put the "not" after the main verb of the clause (not before) followed by the connected infinitive.

I think Fred is completely correct. The NIV here is doing more interpretation than translation; their rendering lacks precision, and the meaning "performance of action not part of the divine dictate" has been lost, probably because the translators never gave the difference a second thought. "It just sounded better that way!" or "why would that matter? it must mean this..."

 

[SolaScriptura]

Bruce -

Look, I know the NIV made an interpretive decision that goes beyond the text. However, the bottom line is offering something other than what God dictates is in fact going contrary to his command.

However, when I said, "Either is a possibility" I was specifically responding to his follow on question about if either

1. "Which He did not command them

2. "Which He commanded them not

is to be preferred according to rules of syntax.

The simple fact, regardless of what inferences we think come from the two options, is that both are legitimate possibilities according to the rules of Hebrew syntax. Period. (Though I do believe option 1 is better modern English syntax!)

Whether or not we infer an infinitive "to do" is another question and I wasn't really addressing that aspect. Though I will agree with you and say that its addition is not necessary (or really helpful) in this context... but even if one does think it is rightly inferred, its insertion doesn't topple the RP!

[Edited on 6-3-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

OK Ben,
I accept you are responding to what you are referring to there. Namely, the actual Hebrew, without Sean's suggested infinitives. And, as a regulativist, I completely agree that to deviate from the dictate is to (essentially) disobey a command: specifically the command not to add to the word of this law. And as this passage indicates, pragmatism is no justification. The RPW doesn't stand or fall on this passage, but inserting the infinitive weakens an otherwise powerful argument from this passage. We shouldn't have to give up such a strong affirmative passage as this on the RPW on the basis of a weakened translation, I think you'd agree.

Saying that, now I don't believe you'd accept the Heb.: LO'="Do not" in quotes, as not being a strained interpretation, or belonging to an unexpressed infinitive as being equally probative to negating the verbal idea. Surely that's arguing from what's not present, rather than from what is, clearly much weaker suppositions, and not to be preferred. I think you'll agree with this assessment as well.

What you've quoted there from Sean is truncated from Sean's two suggestions. He includes the infinitive "to do" in both, as if either case were a possible implication of the sentence. And I'm arguing that in no case is interpolating the infinitive an acceptable translational gloss. In the first case, you have a gloss that parallels the text, and restates the text. It is acceptable as an interpretation of the text (but not a translation). REASON: because the interpolated "to do" in that case is not attached to the "not" but to the "which"; that gloss can read: "which thing [to do] he did not command them." See, I've just move his "to do" to the other end of the sentence, where it still has reference to the verbal idea in the previous clause.

But absolutely not in the second case. There, again, this "to do" is being attached to the "not". So, no, it isn't normal Hebrew syntax to so read. But as you leave it off, then yes, you can put the "not" at the end of the sentence. You just need to still attach it to the verb, and not put it in quotes, i.e., which he commanded them: "not" (or: which "not" he commanded them); uh-uh, that is practically unsupportable. I'd want to see some other such "substantive-uses" of the negative particle Lo'.

But again, I was dealing with Sean's glosses that include an interpolated infinitive "to do", and not as you were: simply with the text, minus the [supplied] infinitive. Are we in agreement?

[Edited on 6-3-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Never thought that I (a strict TR/AV, unaccompanied exclusive psalmodist) would be here asking questions on the relative merits of the NIV over against the AV...

But if I'm following you, Bruce (and Fred!), the NIV rendering itself does not supply a strict translation; and to attempt a "strict tranlsation" matching with its paraphrase would require an interpretive gloss ("to do"), which has no basis in the text; whereas the reading adopted by all other translations (Evangelical, Liberal, and Romish) is simply the natural reading of the text, without any extra interpretive readings supplied by the translators.

As I understand it, the choice of the NIV translators here was guided by their understanding that it was a violation of Exod. 30:9 -- which of course speaks to "strange incense," not "strange fire" -- meaning that it was interpretive rather than textual reasons which led them to translate it thus.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Are we in agreement?

Of course, bro. If you think I'm a supporter of the NIV then you've got me figured wrong.

(To be honest, I have gripes with every English translation. That is why I translate from the original and use whichever version happens to get it right.)

I know full well the difference between translation and interpretation. But I also know that sometimes for something to be adequately translated, there must be some interpretation.
I do believe that when the evidence is considered the argument falls strongly in favor of the formal equivalence position. That said, I still retain the intellectual honesty to admit that a woodenly literal translation can oftentimes miss the mark in conveying the meaning of a passage... particularly in the more emotive genres of Scripture.

But this passage is not one of those. I guess I ignored Sean's gloss because (ahem) of its relative interpretive unimportance for the passage. Since the only difference in the two options was the location of the "not" I thought he wanted to know if it was a possible handling of the Hebrew to put it before or after "command." Basically, I was granting that though modern KJV Bibles still put the "not" at the end of the verse despite its clumsiness in modern English, it is nonetheless a plausible use of the Hebrew.

But a note about inserting inferred words into the text: any first year Greek exegesis course will reveal that the English Bible (and version) inserts loads of inferred words. At this point I appreciate the NASB (and KJV)which puts those words in italics. Now tell me: do you believe that the insertion of inferred words into the English text invalidates any claims to be a translation?

[Edited on 6-4-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ben,
I never thought you were defending the NIV, or any other. I think we really just addressed Sean's question from different directions, so I tried to straighten that out in my last post.

And no, I would not say that inserting a necessary word into an English Bible, for the purpose of conveying the true meaning of the original text means such a rendering is "not translation."


{note: I have even found preferable renderings (more faithful to the text, in my opinion) in the NIV, in its more verbatim moments. It catches things just right sometimes, flashes of brilliance in a merely average mostly "free" translation. Whereas, the KJV's seldom seen "dynamic equivalence" (i.e. "God forbid!") is used sparingly, and usually makes a good translation better (provided one pays attention to the margins).}

 

[SolaScriptura]