Thread: Ack! Another ESV translation oddity!

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?

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

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by wturri78

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

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?"

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!

Originally Posted by wturri78

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).

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by wturri78

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).

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

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?

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

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?"

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

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?"

That's exactly what I was going to say!

I'm getting dizzy.

Originally Posted by Ivan

I'm getting dizzy.

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

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Ivan

I'm getting dizzy.

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

Are you should that's not Gesenius'?

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Ivan

I'm getting dizzy.

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

Are you should that's not Gesenius'?

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

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Whitefield

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

Are you should that's not Gesenius'?

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

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

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Originally Posted by WaywardNowHome

Originally Posted by wturri78

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).

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

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.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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!

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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!

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.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

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?"

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

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

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?"

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

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.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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:

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."

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?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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.