Translation Notes — Conversational Old Testament

OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION NOTES

The Conversational Version

Virgil Warren, PhD

The Conversational Version of the Old Testament combines two goals: (1) to express biblical material the way people speak conversationally in twenty-first-century American English; (2) to apply to the text the principles a professor of composition would use to evaluate expository writing in that style. The goals supplement and limit each other. The alterations from the wording in the original text intend not to add to, subtract from, or change the semantic content—the referents themselves. Word pictures for the same referent can differ across languages without interfering with semantic equivalency; hence, translation endeavors lose “accuracy” in smaller points like imagery/word picture, emphasis, and attitude to make it sound natural to today’s reader.

The Conversational Version endeavors to make its contribution at the second level, the custom-of-usage level. The first level reproduces the source language’s terms and syntax as closely as reasonable—“literal” translation. But languages differ considerably in ways noted below, and each language changes in its own usage customs over time. CV aims particularly to update English custom of usage while being faithful to authorial intent without going so far as to “tell it in our own words,” as in loose paraphrase. This “dynamic equivalence” differs from paraphrase by trying to work item-for-item from literal wording to resulting expression. It avoids recasting the text whole cloth. So translation styles range from exact word-for-word on a continuum to general retelling. These “Translator’s Notes” help specify the “mechanics” CV adopts.

Besides the literal-periphrastic continuum, there is the translation-interpretation variable. The ideal calls for rendering the text in a way that leaves interpretation up to the reader, at least in “important” cases. Should clarifications appear in the text or in marginal comments? One alternative puts the literal in the text and footnotes the translator’s take on its meaning. The other alternative puts the clarified wording in the text with marginal notation that gives the “literal” wording. An example, Deuteronomy 23:18 in CV, “Don’t take the hire of a female or male prostitute* to the LORD’s house for an offering to fulfill a vow.” For “male prostitute,” the original reads “dog.” The adopted wording understands “dog” as a derogatory term for a male prostitute, based perhaps on the image of a “horny” old dog. A typical reader might not make that connection; so CV “clarifies” in the translation itself to avoid distraction over uncertainty. Covering the mouth was a gesture with various nuances that a modern reader would have to surmise; so we have sometimes substituted other wording or expanded the wording with an explanatory phrase: Job 21:5; Proverbs 30:22; Ezekiel 24:17; Micah 3:7. See also Ezekiel 16:63). Legal proceedings took place in the city gate, but modern readers would not necessarily suppose that. So, CV has substituted the expression “in court”: Deuteronomy 21:19; Ruth 4:11; Amos 5:10, 12. The quandary shows that translation involves interpretation. Consistency between the two alternatives is difficult to achieve because individual cases are not equally unclear or important.

Summary of Symbols in CV/OT

            words     original authors’ words translated; or

                           translator’s added words in italicized, quoted material

            word^m     replaces the word man

            word^b      replaces the word brother as an affectionate term

            words     dialog and quotations by the original authors; or

                           translator’s added words for clarification in non-dialog material; or

                           the alternate name or spelling of it that is used elsewhere for the unitalicized name

            words     translator’s addition for highlighting lists and for proper stress in reading

            [words]   translator’s occasional explanatory notation within the text

[^x]^repeat or [ ]    CV omits a few standard English verses as repetitive or not necessary: 

            (words)   original author’s comment parenthesized in this version

            [words]  original authors’ comments inside quoted material

            ⁺                    complete list

*             major point, note explanatory notation

^fem           feminine grammatical gender

^mas           masculine grammatical gender

^sg             singular in the original

^pl             plural in the original

LXX       Septuagint reading (ancient Greek translation of the OT)

MT         the standardized Hebrew text

/              used between variants of original names, standard type being the form of the name in this instance and italics for the form of the name found elsewhere;

               used also for words added for clarification

^f               imperfect (= future) tense; used where the imperfect tense has an imperatival force

Misc. abbreviations: BDB (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs), CV (The Conversational Version), MT (Masoretic text), LXX (pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament), ptc (participle), TEV (Today’s English Version, 1976)

Notable Features of Contemporary English

Active-Voice Verbs

Active voice means the grammatical subject is acting in the verb: “God created the earth and sky.” Passive voice means the subject is acted on by the verb: “the earth and sky were created by God.” Languages develop passive voice for cases (a) where the agent of action is not known, (b) where the writer does not want to identify the agent, (c) where the agent’s identity does not matter, (d) where putting the object of action in the subject slot connects more easily with the preceding context. Contemporary English prefers active voice as more straightforward, so CV transforms passive-voice constructions into active ones wherever possible: “Half of the kingdom will be given to you” can become “I’ll give you half the kingdom” (Esther 5:3, 6; see also Isaiah 2:11, etc.). Transformation can happen only if the context specifies the agent (or means) elsewhere—or is at least part of general knowledge (Isaiah 33:24).

Action Verbs

Action verbs carry more punch than linking verbs or nouns equivalents. That calls for rewording some linking-verb sentences with active verbs, as in 2 Samuel 22:19 (“was my support” becomes “supported me”); 1 Kings 4:5 (“Nathan was overseer” becomes “Nathan oversaw”); Proverbs 15:8 (“A wicked man’s sacrifice is detestable to the LORD” becomes “The LORD detests a wicked man’s sacrifice”); Jeremiah 6:10 (“The word of the LORD has become a reproach to them” becomes “Any message from the LORD offends them”). Action verbs can replace nouns, as in the opening statement in Joshua, “After the death of Moses” becomes “after Moses died.”

The recurring expression at the end of accounts of judges is “he died and was buried in . . .” CV has recast the formula as, “When he died, they buried him . . . .” The change gets rid of a passive voice, replaces paratactic with hypotactic construction, and uses they advisedly to increase readability (Judges 10:2, 5; 12:7, 10, 11, 15). See also Deuteronomy 18:12; Judges 11:6, 9; Ruth 4:14, etc. “After the death of Moses” becomes “After Moses died” (Joshua 1:1).

The principle applies to expletive constructions with it and there. An expletive is a meaningless word that indicates the subject comes later in the sentence. “There was a mistake^subject in the sentence” can become “The sentence had a mistake in it.” “It is necessary for you to leave^subject” can become “You need to leave” (In the original form of the sentence, the infinitive is the conceptual subject.) Transforming expletive sentences into action-verb formats does not always improve them: “There was a severe famine in the land” (Genesis 12:10); “It’s so good and pleasant for brothers to live together in peace” (Psalm 133:1). Expletive constructions are common in everyday talk, but CV minimizes their use because this is, after all, a written presentation; so written rhetorical preference overrides conversational tendencies. Linking verbs sometimes get “covered up” inside of contractions with the subject: “John’s my brother.”

Advised Usages

They and you can have the value of indefinite pronouns (used “advisedly”):

            they in Joshua 24:33: “Eleazar . . . died, and they buried him at Gibeah.” cp. 1 Samuel 16:2; Jeremiah 36:30.

            you in Genesis 41:21: “Yet when they’d eaten them, you couldn’t tell it. They were as scrawny as before.” cp. 1 Kings 8:6; Job 28:12; Proverbs 1:15; 20:17; Jeremiah 24:2, 3, 8; 19:11; 46:23; Ezekiel 40:40; Hosea 1:10, etc.

Avoiding Cognate Accusatives

Cognate accusatives can sound trite to the English ear. The construction combines a verb with a cognate direct object. CV sometimes rewords them. In Hebrew “die the death” adds emphasis, something like “surely die” (Numbers 23:10); “pray this prayer” changes to “offer this prayer” (2 Samuel 7:27); “the commandments that he commanded” becomes “commandments to Jacob’s descendants”). “If a prophet or dreamer of dreams arises and gives you a sign or wonder . . . ⁵Execute that prophet or dreamer of dreams” (Deuteronomy 13:1, 5). See also 2 Kings 17:34; 18:6; Nehemiah 1:6; Psalm 65:18, etc.

Contractions   

            The Conversational Version uses contractions whenever natural, one of its most noticeable features. Contractions happen with pronouns plus auxiliary verbs, auxiliary verbs plus negatives, let us (let’s), and some noun subjects plus third-person auxiliaries (is, has). The first group includes I’d, I’m, I’ll, etc. The second group has won’t, can’t, and the like. Finally, there are some examples like “The LORD’s my Shepherd” (cp. Isaiah 25:9; Joel 2:2). We have dispensed with contractions in the Decalogue (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5) to create a more deliberate feel. The core of Israel’s constitution calls for more formal expression: “Do not commit murder” vs. “Don’t murder.”

NOTE: In the Ten Commandments, we have replaced the Hebrew imperfect (uncompleted action) used as a command form (“You will not . . .”) with the imperative mood in English (“Do not . . .”). Secondly, CV has dispensed with “thou shalt” as a second-person archaic pronoun-plus-imperfect in these commandments.

Using contractions combines with several other features of CV to make create the “feel” of the text when reading it aloud.

Inclusive Language

            Translators render what the text says rather than what they or their audience would like it to say. We have tried to be faithful to the sense of scripture while agreeing that we gain nothing from holding onto older customs of English usage that distract and distance the content from its modern audience. In the other direction, we have avoided some forms of inclusive language that seem cumbersome and confusing: the “he or she” format or alternating he and she within a segment. Unspecified reference comes across with something straightforward: man/men shifts to a person/people, a plural form, changing the reference to first or second person, or an indefinite pronoun. Other possibilities are advised you (Job 8:18; 9:3; Psalm 49:8; Ecclesiastes 1:10), advised they (Genesis 17:1), an abstraction expressed by a gerund (Leviticus 11:24, 26, 27, 39; 22:4, 5), by switching the construction to passive voice, which eliminates necessary reference to agent of action (Isaiah 28:4), or by using mortals in place of men when the contrast is with the divine: Genesis 6:3; Judges 9:9; Job 4:17; 5:7; 14:1; 2 Chronicles 14:11; Job 2:4. Another practice that is becoming increasing useful is using a plural pronoun to reference a singular antecedent. Trying to accommodate current proclivities in this matter poses one of the more challenging aspects of biblical translation into contemporary English usage. That is because of the all-pervasive practice historically of using the same term for the human species and the male of the human species in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, standard English, etc.

            More importantly, we have followed scripture’s precedent in its uniform reference to Judaeo-Christian deity and angelic beings in masculine terms, despite sex as something irrelevant to the spiritual realm (John 4:24 [“God is spirit”] plus Luke 24:39 [“A spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones as you can see I have.”]). God does not have sex and is not a combination of sexes; God is transcendent to sexuality, being transcendent to physicality. The surmise is that, given the confines of human understanding and human language based on it, masculine terminology maintains, not only the personhood (vs. it), but the primacy and power of God and other spiritual and physical beings. The God of the Bible has ultimate responsibility for the rest of reality, hence authority over it and ultimate power to direct it. Working backward through that series, plays on his personal omnipotence that issues in stability and security, and guarantees hope for his people. The human parallel in his image—the interpersonal capacity, we take it—likewise issues in an observation that greater physical strength conveys greater psychological security in those affected by another person’s actions. It is more difficult for women to project strength, hence, power, and security (cp. Genesis 17:1; 2 Peter 2:11).

            Traditionally, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, and many other languages have used man in contrast to woman (hence, male), God (hence, humankind, mankind), animal (hence, humankind; Numbers 3:13), child (hence, adult as later in 1 Corinthians 13:11), thing, or idea. As said above, it has been used both for the “species” and the male of the species. This version has avoided man/men for mixed or unspecified reference when able to do so without creating awkward expression. In Proverbs, however, CV has retained son in the vocative because the book pictures a father teaching his son. Similarly in Ecclesiastes, man is retained in situations where the king is speaking about his own experience since presumably King Solomon is speaking.

            The word man appears where it contrasts with woman. In the other circumstances, we have usually rendered man (אדם) as a person, people, an indefinite pronoun, a plural, a mortal, or some other inclusive term; deleted it altogether (Micah 6:8) or appealed to passive voice. In such cases, man in the original text itself did not mean “man in contrast to woman”; it meant humankind vs. other orders of being or kinds. So, the adjustments do not involve altering intended content.

Interjections      

Written English minimizes the use of interjections. The Old Testament has a number of them, and CV keeps a few: ha (Ezekiel 25:2; 26:2; 36:2); ah (Jeremiah 34:5; Ezekiel 4:14). The original Hebrew and Aramaic terms are as follows:

            הוֹי is the most common interjection, appearing especially in Isaiah. It comes across in English translations as alas, ah, ha, woe: 1 Kings 13:30^ah; Isaiah 1:24^x; 5:8^woe, 11^w, 18^w, 20^w, 21^w; 5:22^w; 10:1^w, 5^w; 17:12^ah; 18:1^ah; 28:1^w; 29:1^w, 15^w; 30:1^w; 31:1^w; 33:1^w; 45:9^w, 10^w; Jeremiah 22:13^w, 18^2x; 23:1^w; 30:7^x; 34:5^ha; 47:6^x; 48:1^w, 50:27^w; Amos 6:1^w; Micah 2:1^w; Nehemiah 3:1^w; Habakkuk 2:6^w, 9^w, 12^w, 15^w, 19^w; Zephaniah 2:5^w; 3:1^w; Zechariah 2:6^x, 7^x; 11:17^{w *}. CV avoids the expression as archaic, substituting some other wording to catch the sentiment (Amos 5:16, 18).

אההּ is not translated (Joshua 7:7; Judges 6:22; 11:35; 2 Kings 3:10; 6:5, 15; Jeremiah 1:6; 4:10; 14:13; 32:17; Ezekiel 4:14; 9:8; 11:13; 20:49*).

            הֶאָח is in Job 39:25^aha; Psalm 35:21^{2 aha}; 40:15^{2 aha}; 70:3^{2 ah} Isaiah 44:16^ah; Ezekiel 25:3^ha; 26:2^ha; 36:2*.

      אָח is in Ezekiel 6:11^x; 21:15*.

      הֵא is in Genesis 47:23^x; Ezekiel 16:43^w; Daniel 2:43^x*.

      הָא is in Daniel 3:25^x*.

CV has not taken the liberty of using cursing. Exodus 5:21 is kept at “Yahveh condemn you.” At this time, so far removed from the original, what constituted cursing may be uncertain. Cursing usually involves distinct pitch patterns, which are not available in a written text that does not have punctuation to indicate features of the oral presentation. It would not be surprising if the import of Pharaoh’s word carried the force of “God damn you.”

Litotes Avoided

            Litotes is a figure of speech that makes an affirmation by denying its opposite. It has been replaced, for example, in Deuteronomy 5:11: “He will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain” becomes “He will punish whoever does that.” Similarly, Joshua 3:10; 1 Samuel 20:5; Proverbs 6:29; 17:5; etc.; but kept in Deuteronomy 33:6 and Proverbs 16:5; 19:4.

Negating the Verb

            Current English idiom prefers negating the verb rather than the direct object: “you give him nothing” becomes “you don’t help him” (Deuteronomy 15:9; cp. 1 Samuel 12:15; 18:24; 2 Chronicles 18:15; Ezra 4:3; Daniel 6:5, etc.).

Nouns Typical of Their Class

            In place of a definite article for nouns typical of their class, contemporary English prefers an indefinite article: “Miriam . . . took a/the tambourine” (Exodus 15:20); ^“But a/the nation that puts its neck under his yoke, I’ll let remain on its land” (Jeremiah 11:8).

            In some cases, plural nouns can stand for the class: “[The gleanings] will be for foreigners, orphans, or widows” (Deuteronomy 24:19); “Worms will eat them” (Deuteronomy 28:39); “Go look at ants” (Proverbs 6:6).

Other cases of translating nouns typical of their class include Exodus 13:49; Numbers 35:6, 12-13; Deuteronomy 19:4; Ruth 3:14 (a woman); 1 Samuel 16:16; 17:36; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chronicles 7:13, 15: 25:18; 26:13; Nehemiah 6:13; 11:13; Esther 6:6; 7:17; Psalm 10:18; 34:19; 49:4; 92:10; Proverbs 14:1; 23:24; Ecclesiastes 1:14. 16; Isaiah 11:6-8; 24:2; Isaiah 28:24; 32:5; 40:10; 41:19; 44:7; 51:8; Jeremiah 27:11, 28; Ezekiel 18:13, 18, 19; 22:20, 22; Hosea 9:10; Hosea 13:3; 14:5-6; Zechariah 14:14, 18; Malachi 3:5.

NOTE: CV has translated Malachi 2:17 as “Where’s a just God?” as if to say there is no such thing. The Hebrew article does appear on “justice” (“x God of [the] justice”), which would normally make the construct noun definite as well: “the just God” (a noun in construct cannot carry the article). The rendering supposes this statement involves a case of a noun typical of its class.

            No article can cover the “kind of thing,” similar to a class: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Numbers

            Arabic cardinal numbers appear more often than style manuals advise; they are easier to spot in a text. They occur to indicate reigns, distances, dimensions, especially in contexts where groups of numbers come up: Genesis 46:26, 27; 47:9; Exodus 25:53; Judges 7:5; 8:10; 11:26; 20:44; 1 Kings 9:23; 10:12, 20; Daniel 13:11-12. In several places, sentences even start with Arabic numbers: Judges 7:6; 20:34, 44; Numbers 25:9; 2 Kings 2:7; and so on.

            Only twice do ordinal numbers come in Arabic form: the Genesis flood began in the 600^th year of Noah’s life (Genesis 7:11); Solomon began to build the Temple in the 480^th year after the Israelites came out of Egypt (1 Kings 6:1).

Positive Statement

            Written expression prefers positive over negative statements. Some passages CV transforms from passive to active statements: 1 Kings 2:4 (“Will not fail to have a man on Israel’s throne” becomes “will always have a man on Israel’s throne”); Isaiah 48:16 (“not secretly” becomes “openly”); cp. Genesis 8:22; Ruth 4:15; Ezra 4:22; Job 27:5; Psalm 44:18; Proverbs 2:19; 22:6; Jeremiah 32:30; 35:19; Ezekiel 16:22, 43.

Post-Positive Intensive Pronouns  

            Modern English puts intensive pronouns at the end of clauses rather than immediately after their antecedents. 1 Samuel 19:22 says, ^“Then Saul went to Ramah himself”; similarly, Genesis 31:39; 2 Samuel 12:28; 2 Chronicles 26:20; Nehemiah 4:10; Job 19:27; 21:20; Psalm 57:6; Proverbs 22:16; Isaiah 41:17; Jeremiah 21:5; 46:2; Lamentations 1:4; Ezekiel 14:4, 7; 18:11; 34:11, 25; Daniel 6:16.

Post-Positive Prepositions

            Ending sentences with prepositions has become standard in conversation and informal writing. The usage connects the object of the preposition more closely to its antecedent: “the man [that] I gave the book to.” The format also avoids the dreaded whom, as when it combines with a syntax that drops the objective pronoun in personal relative clauses: “the man whom I gave the book to.” See Joshua 22:17; Ecclesiastes 3:10; 4:8; Isaiah 19:16; 40:25; 46:14, etc.

Pro-Verbs

English, oral English especially, (a) replaces a repeated verb with a stand-alone do/did/done (“Don’t make the same mistake I did”); (b) uses the verb’s auxiliary (“She was taking the same course I was taking”), or (c) uses only the sign of the infinitive (“unless the doctor tells you to quit”). See Genesis 19:22; 20:7; 24:6; 43:5; Deuteronomy 19:20; Joshua 5:5; 6:17??; Judges 6:4; 8:23; Ruth 3:13; 1 Samuel 1:1; 13:22; 18:30; 2 Samuel 12:28; Job 42:7; Psalm 106:34; Proverbs 15:7; Ecclesiastes 9:2; Jeremiah 37:9 (“they won’t”); Ezekiel 18:24, 29; Hosea 8:7; etc. Hebrew does not have auxiliary verbs; so it lacks pro-verb constructions.

Restrained Expression

English writers tend away from superlatives, especially elative superlatives like very, really, completely. They do it to avoid the suspicion that they are artificially heightening the importance of what they are saying. CV has dispensed with several of them (Zechariah 8:2, etc.). Included in this matter is a Hebrew idiom for intensified action: infinitive absolute plus cognate finite verb: Genesis 22:14 (ptc).

Split Infinitives

Split infinitives are losing their place among proscribed English constructions: “to boldly go where no one has gone . . .” In classical languages and their derivatives, infinities are one word created by a suffix. In English, to stands separate from the root (if to is expressed) and has no more reason to function as a bound construction than a progressive verb does: to go/to quickly go; they were going/they were not going. See Deuteronomy 17:18 (“to greatly increase silver and gold”); 7:24; 6:24; Ruth 1:16; 2 Samuel 14:32; Nehemiah 11:13; Proverbs 19:2; Ecclesiastes 5:5; Isaiah 29:15; 51:13; etc.

Miscellaneous Grammatical Points

            CV has one case of double subject (“My brother, he . . . .”) in Psalm 24:10: “The LORD of Hosts, he is the glorious King” (for emphasis), otherwise called a pendens construction.

            Who regularly stands in slots where traditional grammar calls for whom: “Who will I be afraid of? Who will I dread?” (Psalm 27:1). “Who would he want to honor more than me?” (Esther 6:6); Genesis 19:12; 32:17; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 10:24; 28:11; 30:13; 2 Samuel 3:12; 2 Kings 2:22; 18:20; Ecclesiastes 4:8²; Lamentations 2:20; Isaiah 6:8; 10:3; 53:1; 57:4³, 11.

            Idiom can override grammar: “If I go into the city, there’s famine and disease” (Jeremiah 14:18).

Anachronisms

            CV has resisted the temptation to express information in ways that are anachronistic; that is, the wording has not carried dynamic equivalency to the point of using expressions that do not fit with Old Testament times—even though the modern equivalents would identify closer with today’s readership. “Casting lots” is retained in place of “flipping a coin” (Proverbs 18:18) or “throwing dice” (Psalm 22:18); “a nagging wife is like constant dripping” instead of a “dripping faucet” (Proverbs 19:13); speaking of employer-employee in places that talk about master-slave. In cases where the form of the document seems involved, CV calls it a “scroll” rather than a “book,” which in the modern usage conjures up a set of bound leaves, a codex.

Conversational Characteristics

All languages experience “linguistic drift.” In addition, at any one time more than one “level” of usage also exists from formal and technical to everyday and slang. We have endeavored to strike a middle level that avoids formal, academic expression while staying away from regionalisms, slang; flippant, shocking, catchy, cutesy verbiage; unrequired pejorative words and terms and expressions with negative connotations: Exodus 5:21 could sound like swearing, “The LORD condemn you!” Because of its source and subject matter, scripture calls for respectful expression that everybody can understand. Besides, non-native speakers might not recognize English slang, regionalisms, jive, and the like.

We have followed American custom in spelling, vocabulary, syntax, and punctuation where they differ from British conventions (-ize/-ise, -er/-re when not comparative degree or agency, or/-our, and so on). Collective nouns have accompanying singular verbs: “The committee holds session daily” rather than “hold”). The practices highlighted below add to observations presented earlier in “Current English Features.”

Contrary-to-Fact Sentences

            English has virtually lost the subjunctive mood. It occurs almost exclusively in the protasis of a contrary-to-fact sentence: “If I were John, . . .” People usually do not employ the subjunctive even there: “If I was John . . .” A hearer knows from experience that the statement is contrary-to-fact without hearing a special construction for it. What is not necessary tends to fall out of usage, so we have broken the formal rule in some places: Deuteronomy 28:27²; Joshua 22:32; 1 Samuel 20:20; 2 Samuel 19:6; 2 Kings 5:3; Job 16:4; Psalm 35:14²; Isaiah 49:26; Jeremiah 9:1; 22:24; Job 6:2; 50:12;

“Dative of Possession” Avoided

“For the Jews there was light and gladness and joy and honor” becomes ^“The Jews had light, happiness, joy, and honor” (Esther 8:16; cp. Daniel 9:7, 9).

Distribution Replacing Case

            Since English has lost case-form everywhere except in pronouns, speakers have become unskilled in “proper” case usage with pronouns personal, relative, intensive, and reflexive. In place of case-form, English uses distribution in a sentence; it determines a word’s role by its location (where it appears in a sentence) rather than by its form. When it comes to pronouns, the growing practice is to put the subjective form ahead of the verb and the objective form after it even if it is a linking verb: “It’s not me. God will give you a sensible answer.” (Genesis 41:16; cp. Genesis 39:9; Exodus 4:11; 1 Kings 22:33; 2 Kings 9:37; Job 6:2; 16:4; 34:33; Isaiah 45:3, 21; 49:26).

            See “Individual Words” in the final section of these Notes for current usage changes with individual words like a, as, can, even, for, if, just, lest, like, man, of, one, only, than, they, whom, you.    

Everyday Vocabulary

Newer translations have set aside the old English second-person pronouns (thou/thee/thine, ye) and second- and third-person singular verb suffixes (-[e]st/[e]th), obsolete vocabulary, and spellings that appeared in Bible versions before the 1940s. That upgrading has helped take away an antiquated, foreign feel to the Bible. Scripture addresses every person everywhere at every time, so its language should suit the culture at any time and place (readership verisimilitude).   

People’s reading vocabulary is bigger than their speaking one; it is the latter that we have aimed for, though we are presenting in written form. Even then, typical conversations, as at the bus stop, show a preference for a narrower range of vocabulary, expressions, and sentence structures than what the same speakers would use in a public presentation.

            Everyday vocabulary includes minimizing the use of “religious” jargon to talk in a way typical people identify with. That goal does not succeed well because adequate substitutes do not exist for everything religious concern addresses. A sizeable set of English words in Old Testament texts currently appear mostly in modern religious contexts with religious connotations—sometimes negative ones. It is difficult to find authentic-sounding, current replacements for Bible words like Almighty, bless(ed/ness), defile, flesh, glory, godly, heaven (for sky), holy/holiness, iniquity, joy, proclaim, prophesy/prophecy, rejoice, repent/ance, righteous/ness, redeemer, salvation/save/savior, sanctify, sin/sinner/sinful/sinless, testify (outside of courtroom proceedings), transgression, voice (for sound), witness (outside of court proceedings), worship, wrath, and so on.

The Conversational Version has not aimed at a certain “grade level” even though it tends toward that effect by simplifying vocabulary and shortening sentences.

Pendens Constructions Avoided

Pendens constructions mark off appositives or stray comments, especially long ones that are not grammatically integral parts of their sentences or modifying an integral element. We have eliminated them, for example, in Numbers 14:22-23; Judges 17:2; Jeremiah 13:11; Amos 8:14; 9:5-6. They are retained in several places like Genesis 2:19; 23:15; 24:14, 43-44; 2 Kings 17:36; Proverbs 20:10; Nehemiah 13:10; Isaiah 56:6-7.

CV has used a couple nominative absolutes: Exodus 22:11, 13.

Possessive Gerunds Avoided

“The Message the LORD Spoke to Jeremiah About Nebuchadnezzar Coming to Strike Egypt” appears in the Jeremiah 46:13 heading instead of the ‘correct’ “Nebuchadnezzar’s Coming to Strike Egypt.” (The subject of a gerund in standard English carries the possessive case.) Zephaniah 2:8 says, “I’ve heard Moab’s taunting my people and Ammon’s reviling them” changed to “I’ve heard Moab taunting my people and Ammon reviling them” (using participial objective complements). But see Jeremiah: “I remember . . . your following me in the open country” (Jeremiah 2:2).

Quotation Marks

Quotation marks identify direct discourse, that is, a speaker’s purported words. Imbedded quotations are direct discourse that falls within direct discourse: Isaiah told the king, “This is what the LORD says, ‘Set your house in order; you’re going to die’” (1 Kings 20:1). Sometimes embedded quotations can go three, four, five, or maybe even six levels deep: “The LORD says, ‘These people say, “It’s not time to rebuild the LORD’s house”’” (Haggai 1:2). Zechariah is four deep in 1:2-6.

English uses indirect discourse much more frequently than the Hebrew Old Testament does, so CV transforms quite a number from direct to indirect form. A list of many such transforms appears later under “indirect discourse formats.”

Texts with indirect questions include Genesis 24:47; Exodus 12:26; 16:15; Joshua 4:3; 15:18; Judges 6:29; 9:2; 12:5; 2 Samuel 14:32; 2 Kings 9:17, 18, 19; 18:22; Ezekiel 12:9; 20:49; 21:7; Zechariah 1:21; 2:2; 5:10.

Quotation marks appear around words that indicate the meaning of place names: See below under “Mechanics of Written English: Quotation Marks.”

Sentence Structures

Using shorter sentences mimics the way people talk in contrast to their formal writing. Complex-compound sentences yield to smaller units unless they are short. Compound-complex sentences have two or more independent clauses along with one or more subordinate ones: “She opened the back door and let the dog out into the back yard because she wanted to mop the kitchen floor.” If the original text has a lengthy sentence, a period break can appear with italicized re-start words for the rest of the thought (unitalicized if inside italics):

¹⁴(“Don’t worship any other god, because the LORD—whose name is Exclusive—is an exclusive God.) ¹⁵Destroy those things so you won’t be making covenants with them, carrying on prostitution with their gods, sacrificing to them, eating their sacrifices with them—¹⁶so you won’t be taking their daughters for your sons, and their daughters carry on prostitution with their gods and get your sons to do it” (Exodus 34:14-16).

“Destroy these things” (unitalicized in verse 15 from verse 13) and “so you won’t” (unitalicized in verse 16 within italics) re-starts the statement in 34:15 so readers can more easily follow the train of thought.

CV aims for the more common sentence sequence: subject, verb, direct object, indirect object. If the indirect object is short, it may appear ahead of the direct object without its sign (to). CV avoids putting much material ahead of the subject, like Samson’s riddle does in Judges 14:14: “Out of the eater came something to eat.” An English verb seldom stands ahead of its subject: “the LORD says,” rather than “says the LORD” (Ezekiel 11:21, etc.). Direct object before subject does happen in 2 Chronicles 23:14 to avoid having too much material between the verb and direct object if put in its standard place: “Whoever follows her, put to death with a sword.” So, sentences keep to a minimum the amount of adverbial material placed ahead of the subject and between the other main parts of a sentence—subject and verb, verb and direct object. Sentences use introductory adverbial clauses in place of participial phrases and “nominative” absolutes. (Only in a few set expressions do English speakers ever use nominative absolutes anyway: “Truth be told”; “That said.”). If an introductory clause is too long, it and the main clause can become two independent clauses joined by a comma plus coordinating conjunction or perhaps recast as two sentences with a semi-colon between plus no conjunction.

Informal speech tends to be paratactic. It reduces the frequency of introductory adverbial clauses, participial phrases, and absolute constructions. For example, “Opening the door, she let the dog out.” The wording is more likely, “She opened the door and let the dog out.” Paratactic contrasts with hypotactic. Paratactic format puts ideas—opening the door, putting the dog out—on the same grammatical level by using and between equal verbal forms. Hypotactic structure subordinates one grammatically with a participial phrase (“Opening the door, she put the dog out.”), introductory adverbial clause (“When she opened the door, she let the dog out.”), or infinitive phrase (“She opened the door to let the dog out,”). The last two examples also nuance the meaning differently in ways that the context might suggest.

English speech increasingly practices asyndeton, where speakers say sentences without putting coordinate—or even subordinate—conjunctions between them, especially if the sentences are long. Hebrew has the opposite, syndetic pattern; it puts its coordinate conjunction between virtually every full sentence (as well as between serial items in it). Whole books can start with and: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, Kings, and so on. See below under “Hebrew-English Shifts.” CV reduces the number of subordinating conjunctions, especially where a second clause supplies a reason for the first. As based on experience and knowing the nature of things, if a listener will understand that the second clause states a reason for the first, because or so does not have to appear at all (Deuteronomy 15:2; 28:39).

These comments on conversational style describe an endeavor similar to creating a paraphrase. A paraphrase should be more exacting than “telling it in our own words.” That would more easily risk losing content or altering meaning. This version makes a more deliberate, element-by-element decision on the way to express individual points. The translation considers (1) grammatical and (2) custom-of-usage levels. It also considers (a) whether an element in the original can be dropped without loss (repeated material), (b) whether it can be expressed in fewer words (economy of expression), (c) whether it can be relocated for more natural English sequencing (smoother connections), and (d) whether it can be left to a reader’s automatic inference. Below, “Shortening Mechanisms” indicates procedures for more efficient, more interesting, expression. Hebrew idiom tends to use pleonastic, replete, tautological, redundant expression—perhaps for emphasis—in contrast to English. But that does not require reducing content; it means eliminating repetition and statements about implicit information. Interesting communication says only enough for the reader to flesh out the rest of the picture accurately. Much of the effort in preparing this version has consisted in tightening up the manner of expression.

Hebrew-English Differences

The previous two sections (“Features of Contemporary English” and “Conversational Characteristics”) included some Hebrew-English differences. This section notes other differences between Hebrew and English custom of usage. We have limited our alterations in many places that would obscure structural features in the text: poetic parallelism, bookends, poetic repetition, portions organized around body parts, and a number of set expressions like afraid or intimidated, strong hand and outstretched arm, strong and courageous, eat and drink, food and water, day and night, on every high hill and under every green tree, come back on (their) own head; and various combinations of the related descriptors: commandments, ordinances, statutes, laws, regulations, charges, and judgments through Moses.

Anaphoric Entries

(a)   anaphoric nouns

Hebrew creates a kind of grandiloquence by re-using a noun instead of replacing it with a pronoun in subsequent entries. We have changed that pattern to English preference for pronouns: Genesis 27:22; 29:12; Exodus 33:7-11; Joshua 6:6; 10:24; 1 Samuel 11:6; 2 Samuel 21:15 check; 2 Kings 15:4; 2 Chronicles 28:24; 35:24-27; Psalm 115:11, 13; 116:13; 42:1; 118:7, 9, 14, 26; 44:21; 135:3, 4.

Poetry might justify reusing a noun because, if sung/chanted as in the Psalms, the delivery might be slower with more spacing between entries. Even there we reduce from four to three, for example, the LORD’s in Psalm 33:1-5.

(b)  anaphoric adjectives

Personal possessive suffixes in Hebrew append to each word, but English can put one possessive ahead of a list because the possessive is a separate word: Numbers 14:23; 18:22; Deuteronomy 6:9; 2 Kings 18:12; 1 Chronicles 28:6; Nehemiah 5:10, 13; Psalm 7:8; 8:3; 27:1; 35:38; 84:3. That free-standing adjective can then apply to two or more subsequent nouns. Sometimes that double or triple application might not be correct, so the adjective-noun combination can go last in the clause,

(c)   anaphoric articles

This version often omits second articles: (“the x and the y” becomes “the x and y”): Genesis 1:1: “God created the heavens and the earth” (“created the earth and sky”); note also Nehemiah 5:6, 11²; Esther 1:16. Using one article in these situations does alter slightly how the author views the nouns’ referents—as two separate items of equal importance here or as one set comprised of two items. The semantic value remains.

(d)  anaphoric prepositions

Hebrew has several inseparable prepositions, which cannot have multiple objects because they prefix to their objects. They are not free standing as they are in English, Greek, and Latin. So, they are re-expressed for each object in a series. We have eliminated the re-expressions in places like Exodus 29:27.

(e)   anaphoric conjunctions (See and under “Individual Words” below.)

(f)   recurrent descriptors that seem unnecessary for clarity as in “the Law of Moses, the man of God” (2 Chronicles 30:16) and similar additions like 2 Chronicles 34:33 (“their God”); 35:3; 36:13, 15

Body-Part Imagery

            Hebrew uses body parts to symbolically express many ideas in ways not customary in English that has not been influenced by biblical expression: arm, bones, bowels, cheek (Lamentations 3:30), ears, eyes, face, feet, fingers, flesh, forehead, hair, hand, head, heart, knee/knees, leg, lips, loins, mouth, neck, shoulder, teeth, throat, toes, tongue, voice. CV drops them in favor of English idiom whenever possible.

(a) voice/sound of x: 1 Kings 1:48; 5:24; 18:9; 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Chronicles 30:27; Jeremiah 47:3; Ezekiel 26:13

      (b) agency: arm

      (c) perspective: eyes

      (d) “(stiff) neck”: stubbornness

Such expression may remain in poetic structures or in body-part lists for oratorical flare: Deuteronomy 29:4; Nehemiah 1:6; Job 8:20-21; 20:12-19; 16:9-15; 33:2-4; Psalm 66:17; 115:5-7; Isaiah 6:5-6, 9-10; 11:4; 32:3-4; 30:27-28; 33:15; 35:3-6; 37:29; 45:23; 58:3; 59:3; 66:12; Habakkuk 3:16.

            Body-part language is part of the propensity for parallelism, double entry, as well as concrete and expansive expression, which includes specificity of expression, as illustrated in “Specificity for Vividness.”

Brevity

What departs norm grabs attention, which can give emphasis. Hebrew seems to use expanded expression to emphasize (above norm) while English prizes brevity for that purpose (under norm). Pleonastic style comes across in English as less interesting; it is wordy, tautological, redundant, repetitious, something a written comp prof marks in red. After this section, “Shortening Mechanisms” lists efforts CV has made to adjust the idiom without losing the content.

We have not shortened or removed some set expressions:

“Jeroboam that made Israel sin” (1 Kings 15:26, 30, 34; 16:2, 19, 26; 2 Kings 3:3; 9:9; 10:29; 13:2, 6, 11, 23; 14:16, 24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21), a standardized label that, along with Jeroboam^I, helps distinguish him from Jeroboam^II (2 Kings 3:1, 6ff; 14:23-24; 15:8-9);

afraid or intimidated (Deuteronomy 1:21; 31:8; Joshua 1:9; 8:1; 10:25; 1 Chronicles 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chronicles 20:15, 17; 32:7; Jeremiah 46:27; Ezekiel 3:8);

day and night (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9; 10:10; 1 Samuel 30:12; 1 Kings 19:8; Job 2:13)

strong and courageous (Deuteronomy 31:6, 7, 23; Joshua 1:6, 18; 10:25; 2 Samuel 10:12; 13:28; 1 Chronicles 19:13; 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Psalm 27:14), and others;

afraid or intimidated (Deuteronomy 1:21; 31:8; Joshua 1:9; 8:1; 10:26; 1 Samuel 17:11; 20:23; 1 Chronicles 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chronicles 20:17; 32:17; Jeremiah 8:9; 46:27; Ezekiel 2:6; 3:9)

eat and drink: By custom, English says “eat” to cover whatever goes on at a meal (Judges 19:21; Ruth 3:3; 1 Samuel 1:9; 2 Samuel 19:35; 1 Kings 18:41, 42; 19:5, 6, 8²; 2 Kings 6:23; 9:34; Job 1:4). In about a dozen cases, the double statement stays in CV because drinking was perhaps a more prominent concern in arid countries or because food and wine were more special than food and other drinks: Exodus 32:6; Deuteronomy 2:6, 28; 2 Samuel 11:11; 1 Kings 18:41, 42; Proverbs 23:7; Ecclesiastes 2:24; 22:13; Jeremiah 22:15; Daniel 1:10; Zechariah 7:6²; (note Jeremiah 16:7 as well.);

food and water (Deuteronomy 2:6, 28; 23:4; Isaiah 3:1);

Haman enemy of the Jews (Esther 8:1; 9:25);

Mordecai the Jew (Esther 5:13; 6:10; 9:29; 10:3);

strong hand and outstretched arm (Deuteronomy 4:15; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Psalm 136:12; Jeremiah 21:5; 32:21; Ezekiel 33:34; cp. 2 Kings 17:36);

bookends structure: Exodus 6:1-8; Numbers 3:42; 5:11-15 (intro), 16-28 (body), 29-31 (end); Judges 11:32; Psalm 8:1 + 9 (“LORD, our Lord, you’re so majestic all over the world!”)

The LORD our/your God is shortened in several texts where the longer expression has recently occurred: Exodus 8:27; 10:26; Numbers 10:9; Deuteronomy 2:7, 28, 33, 37; 4:34; 12:29; 16:5, 21; 20:4; 24:19; 1 Samuel 12:14; 14:26.

Poetic repetition stands in antiphonal Psalm 136 (“His love is everlasting”) and Psalm 103:1-2 + 20-22; Psalm 135:19-21 (“bless the LORD”).

Note also 1 Samuel 1:11.

Discontinuities

Texts frequently do not maintain continuity of person, tense, number, or viewpoint, especially in poetic materials. Instead of being a lapse in thinking, authors made such changes perhaps to break up sameness by shifting perspectives. At any rate, to an English reader they distract and confuse rather than increase interest. Consequently, in shorter sections especially, CV has taken the liberty of establishing a continuity of person, tense, or number.

person: Genesis 4:15; 18:14, 17-19; 27:25, 27; 28:22; 49:26;

Exodus 3:12; 12:7-8; 16:23; 19:21, 22, 24; 20:7, 12, 11; 24:1;

Leviticus 26:40-45; Numbers 20:19; 24:9b;

Deuteronomy 18:33ff.; 25:3; 29:14-21; 31:13; 32:14-15, 38; 33:3b, 18-19;

Joshua 15:4; Judges 2:22; Nehemiah 2:13; 3:7;

2 Samuel 12:10; 17:7; 22:10-26³ + 27-30² + 31-36 + 37-41² + 42-43³ + 44-46² + 47-48³ + 49-50² + 51³;

1 Kings 14:11; 17:15; 2 Chronicle 36:23;

Psalm 3:3, 4-5, 6-7, 8; 5:2 + 3; 7:2, 10-11; 9:3; 13:6; 14:4-6; 18:5; 18:28-29; 34, 35-36; 20:6-7; 23:4; 24:24-27; 25:12; 41:3; 43:4; 44:8; 49:18; 50:23; 53:4; 54:3, 5; 60:12; 65:9; 68:18; 74:12; 77:4; 81:15; 89:6; 94:19-21; 99:3-4; 104:3ff; 108:13; 115:9-12; 116:17; 121:1-2, 3-9; 128:1; 132:11-12; 135:13; 138:4², 5-6³, 7², 8a³, 8b²; 142:3; 145:4-7, 8-13; 145:15-16;

Proverbs 9:11; Isaiah 1:4; 2:5-8; 3:12a³, 12b²; 6:9-10; 9:3-4; 10:24-27; 12:1-6; 14:4; 26:15-16; 27:8; 29:2, 16; 30:3, 23; 33:13-24 (second person throughout); 42:2, 45; 42:20; 42:24; 44:23; 49:15; 51:15, 18; 53:12; 56:6-8; 58:2; 59:8-11; 61:7-10; 64:5a² b³²;

Jeremiah 3:1; 7:26; 9:6; 11:15; 11:17, 21; 14:10; 15:3, 4, 7-8; 23:2, 36; 35:5-9; 44:4, 10;

Lamentations 2:20-22); 23:2;

Ezekiel 5:14; 11:17; 22:7; 23:32-49; 32:28; 34:2;

Daniel 9:1-12;

Hosea 2:1-17 (3), 18-19 (2/3), 20-23 (2, 3); 3:16; 5:1-4; 6:5, 7; 8:5; 9:5-6; 12:4; 13:5²-6³-7² (changed to second person throughout);

Joel 3:17; Amos 2:9; 6:1-7; Jonah 2:2;

Micah 2:7b, 12-13; 3:4, 5-7; 5:6; 7:4, 15, 18, 19

Zephaniah 1:17; Zechariah 7:13, 14; 8:22; 10:6, 11; 12:10; Malachi 1:9. Our longest persons shift occurs in Isaiah 59:1-15, which begins with you (1-3), continues with they (4-8) and closes with we (9-15).

The complexity of this issue can be confusing as illustrated by Jeremiah 30:7b-9. CV has taken considerable liberties with what is evidently a variance in textual transmission on top of discontinuity of person and number. The Greek LXX reading varies from the Hebrew, and the Hebrew evidently exhibits a dual discontinuity. The following treatment captures the threefold complexity (Hebrew/LXX/CV): “He [Jacob] will be saved from it . . . I’ll break his [Jacob’s] yoke from off your/their/his neck and tear off your/their/his its straps. Foreigners won’t enslave him anymore. ⁹They’ll/He’ll [Jacob as a collective] serve Yahveh their/his God and David your/his king that I’ll raise up for them/him.” The result makes a true statement even if it fails to represent the form of the intended true statement in the original.

            We have kept the discontinuity in some poetry (Psalm 30:3, 4, etc.).

tense: Genesis 2:8; Exodus 15:6-7; Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 94:23; 95:10; 132:6, 17; Isaiah 26:15; 32:14 check; 37:24; Ezekiel 7:19

number: Deuteronomy 9:4; Psalm 10:16; 22:29; 35: 8; 49:12, 20; 57:4; 92:14; 103:15-16; 123:2; 127:5; Proverbs 6:1-19; Isaiah 10:25; 44:7; 46:7; Jeremiah 49:20-21; Ezekiel 5:14; Hosea 7:11-16; 10:2; 13:14; Micah 2:9

                        Discontinuity of both number and person shows up in Nahum 1:13.

viewpoint: CV tries to maintain viewpoint by choosing between go/came and take/bring to fit the viewpoint in the previous context: Psalm 121:8.

sequence English custom builds to a climax; Hebrew tends to start with the climax and come down from it. We have reversed the sequence in a few cases where that seems to be the rationale for the order in the text.

                        size      1 Kings 7:10, expensive stones 15ft and 12ft reordered to 12ft and 15ft

Judges 18:19 tribe-family to family-tribe;

                                    2 Chronicles 28: Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication

                        “least to greatest” from “greatest to least” (Jonah 3:5)

                                    Zechariah 5:2?: 30 x 15 feet changed to 15 x 30ft

                        degree See also Exodus 15:16 (“panic and dread” changed to “dread and panic”);

                                    most holy and holy to holy and most holy (Leviticus 21:22).

                                    See also 2 Kings 12:10; Isaiah 40:30.

time designation 2 Kings 25:27 (year, month, day changed to American practice: day, month, year)

                                    Job 41:61; Psalm 40:5, 6; Proverbs 24:7; 34:27; Isaiah 27:6; 40:30; 52:2

direction “head to toe” instead of “foot to head” (Isaiah 1:6); note also “between Beth-horon and Samaria” instead of the reverse because the direction of the troops’ movement was from south to north (2 Chronicles 25:13).

                        Change of sequence to avoid misreading in English.

            Putting an adjective, article, preposition, or phrase with the first of two or more nouns inclines an English reader to associate it with the subsequent nouns as well. To help avoid that problem, we have changed the order of the nouns so the modifier appears ahead of the last noun. 2 Kings 1:8 says, “He was wearing clothes made out of hair and a leather belt”; the statement becomes, “he was wearing a leather belt and clothes made out of hair.” Hebrew can have the textual order because the possessives, prepositions, articles are attached to each word.

   Change of sequence for English euphony and custom

                     English custom is for speakers to put themselves second in a combined entry. That lies behind reversing entries in Genesis 31:42²; Exodus 9:27 (“my people and I” from “me and my people”); Joshua 24:15; Judges 11:37 (“companions and I”); 1 Kings 1:21; 2 Chronicles 32:13 (“father and I”); Esther 7:4; 9:6-10; Psalm 111:7; Ezekiel 20:12, 20. Original order retained in Judges 12:2.

            earth and sky: Genesis 1:1, 18; Haggai 1:6; 2:21. Heaven and earth is natural enough; but since we have used sky in place of heaven, we have reversed the order.

            Which of Eden’s trees equals you in size and glory? (Ezekiel 31:1) from Which of Eden’s trees equals you in glory and size?

                  bigger and stronger: Deuteronomy 9:14

                  my King and God to my God and King: Psalm 84:3

                  come and go: 1 Samuel 18:13; 29:6

                  up and down: Isaiah 50:2

            sword, famine, and plague vs. other sequences made uniform in 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16

            morning and evening (Genesis 1 seriatim) rather than evening and morning. In Hebrew reckoning, a day began in the evening. English parlance reflects the custom of starting the twenty-four-hour period in the morning (technically at midnight). In Psalm 55:17, evening. morning, and noon changes to morning, noon, and night. Note Exodus 16:8, 12.

                  good and evil from evil and good: Leviticus 5:4

                  flesh and bones from bones and flesh: 2 Samuel 5:1; 19:13

            head to toe rather than foot to head: Deuteronomy 28:35; 2 Samuel 15:25; Isaiah 1:6

            day and night from night and day (because a day was thought of as beginning at sunset?): 1 Kings 8:29; Jeremiah 14:7

            left and right from right and left: Exodus 14:22; 1 Kings 7:21; 2 Chronicles 3:17; 23:10; Nehemiah 8:4 (but not 12:31 + 38); Psalm 26:10; 142:4; Proverbs 3:16; Ecclesiastes 10:2; Isaiah 54:3; Jonah 4:11

                  made and formed from formed and made: Isaiah 43:7

                  rich and poor: Ruth 3:10

                  just and good from good and just (Psalm 25:8)

            great and small from small and great: 2 Kings 23:1; 1 Chronicles 25:8; 26:13; Job 3:19; Psalm 15:13

                  shovel and fork becomes fork and shovel: Isaiah 30:24;

                  children and women becomes women and children: Esther 8:11.

             “My God” and “my Lord” can sound like interjections, like “using the Lord’s name in vain,” like bywords. The whole vocative falls out in Genesis 12:11; Daniel 9:6, 8. In other places, CV drops my, especially if the vocative starts the sentence (Daniel 10:16; 12:8). In Genesis 44:18; 1 Samuel 1:26; Daniel 4:19 the initial vocative is relocated away from the front of the sentence.

NOTE:  English custom of sequence for multiple adjectives ahead of the same noun tends to apply also to the sequence of factors presented aside from that circumstance. For example, size precedes quality: “big red barn” rather than “red, big barn” (hence the use of commas in the “un-customary” order). The switchover from Hebrew to English custom calls for an unconscious re-ordering of factors beyond what natural, temporal, or logical sequence might call for.

Resequencing to natural order and English customary order

                        CV changes some word orders to fit English custom: 

                                    cause to effect: Deuteronomy 16:15 produce-do to do-produce

      turn aside, spend the night, wash feet to turn aside, wash feet, spend the night (Genesis 19:2);

               destroy and subdue to subdue and destroy: Deuteronomy 9:3;

                  “they die for lack of water” then “The fish in them stink”: Isaiah 50:2;

      “spread the tablecloth and set the table” from “set the table and spread the tablecloth”: Isaiah 21:5;

                  “succeed and build” becomes “succeed at building”: 1 Chronicles 19:3; 22:11;

                  “dry land” put after “separated the water”: Exodus 14:21;

                  take root, sprout, blossom from take root, blossom, sprout: Isaiah 27:6;

“tied the money in bags and counted the money” to “counted the money and tied it in bags”: 2 Kings 12:10;

Joshua 6:26 reverses poetic lines.

re-ordered word sets: “earth and sky” rather than “heaven and earth,” “day and night” vs. “night and day,” “you and I,” vs. the text’s sequence, “feet and hands” becomes “hands and feet,” “life and death” vs. “death and life” (2 Samuel 15:21), “land and sea” vs. “sea and land” (Jonah 1:9).

       See also Deuteronomy 9:23, 28; 11:30; 33:17; 2 Chronicles 6:28; Psalm 17:9; 144:3; Isaiah 19:12; Jeremiah 15:3; 14:14; 23:1; Jonah 3:5.

Joshua 3:4: “Put about 3,000ft ^{2,000 cubits} between you and it. Don’t get close to it.” The sequence becomes “Don’t get close to it” then “Put about 3,000ft ^{2,000 cubits} between you and it.” (general order to specific suggestion)

                             Obadiah 11: carry off wealth, enter gates, cast lots for Jerusalem reversed

Jeremiah 32:44: “Men will [buy fields for money ^repeat] call witnesses and sign and seal deeds and call witnesses in Benjamin” instead of ‘sign and seal deeds and call witnesses.” Calling witnesses would precede the other parts of the transaction (cp. 32:10).

Daniel 7:11: “its body was destroyed and thrown into the flaming fire and destroyed.

See also Genesis 1:14; Leviticus 11:40; Joshua 6:18; 2 Samuel 22:9; Nehemiah 2:6b; Psalm 71:6; Isaiah 22:17-19; 51:22; Jeremiah 25:34; 27:1; 31:34; 33:26; Ezekiel 3:10; 7:3; 20:39; 23:35; 35:10; 36:33; Micah 1:13; 3:3; Habakkuk 1:7; some of the pairs in the “there’s a time for” list in Ecclesiastes 3:2-8

                  Hebrew tends to put the main element first instead of the natural, causal sequence.

Double Entry

            In keeping with expansive expression, body-part imagery, and parallelism in both poetry and narrative, the Hebrew text uses several kinds of double entry for synonymous or near synonymous ideas perhaps to emphasize or arrest attention.

(a)   Synonymous double entry reduced to one

Judges 20:7 (advice and counsel)      

2 Samuel 7:12 (“When your days are over and you lie down with your ancestors)

2 Kings 9:15 (“leave and escape”)

1 Chronicles 21:17 (“I sinned and did very wickedly”)

2 Chronicles 7:19² (“serve and worship” [though different in scope])

2 Chronicles 32:16 (“insult and speak against” check)

 2 Chronicles 32:18 (“frighten and terrify”)

Hosea 1:10 (“Israelites . . . you can’t measure/weigh or count”)

Psalm 40:16 (“rejoice and be happy”)

Jeremiah 15:20 (“saved you and deliver you” check)

Leviticus 11:13 (“detest and abhor”); Numbers 14:18 (“iniquity and sin”); Deuteronomy 9:5; 11:2, 4, 6, 16; 12:9, 10, 12; 15:10; 17:1; 18:22; 26:13; 31:21; Joshua 9:26; 1 Samuel 12:14, 15; 25:26; 1 Kings 13:6; 20:22 (“observe and see”); 2 Chronicles 13:6 (“rose up and rebelled”); 29:6 (“left and turned back on”); Nehemiah 4:20; Esther 4:14; Job 3:5; 6:2; 14:11; 16:4; 18:19; 39:24; Psalm 10:15; 27:2, 9; 32:8; 35:27; 40:5; 63:5; 70:2; 90:2; 91:7; 119:163; 121:3 (“slumber or sleep”); 130:2; 144:11; Proverbs 5:19; 13:5; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Isaiah 1:2; 10:17; 20:3; 27:10; 30:7; 40:30; 44:8; 49:17 (“destroyers and devastators); 49:26; 53:19; 65: 17; Jeremiah 7:20 (“anger and wrath”); 9:23; 15:1; 16:18 (“iniquity and sin”); 18:11; 23:4; 27:8, 22; 33:8; Ezekiel 13:8 (“falsehood and lied”); 16:3; 18:25; 20:44; 30:23, 26; 33:15; 36:19; Daniel 6:11; 9:16 (“anger and wrath”); Daniel 9:3, 17, 18, 23 (“prayer and supplication”); Hosea 1:3; Joel 2:20 (“stench and foul smell”); Amos 9:19; Zechariah 1:4 (“spoke to and said”/”told); Malachi 2:1 (“If you don’t listen and take it to heart”)

Antithetical Double Entry (positive statement plus denial of opposite)

            Hebrew idiom has a penchant for affirmation plus denial of opposite. As such, it is one expression of a larger impulse toward parallelism. Proverbs 31:12 illustrates the idea in its familiar description of the ideal wife: “She’ll do him good and not evil all the days of her life.” Joshua 1:7 says, “^(a)Be careful to do everything in the Law that Moses commanded you; ^(b)“don’t turn from it to the right or left” becomes ⁷“Make sure you do everything in the Law that Moses commanded you.” Jeremiah 32:33 says, “They’ve turned their back on me, not their face.” See also 1 Kings 2:36; 2 Chronicles 35:21.

 (a) reduced to one

Genesis 18:25; 41:23; 42:1; 47:19; Leviticus 22:21; 26:11; Deuteronomy 15:8; 17:11, 15; 20:12, 15; 33:5; Joshua 1:7; 7:19 (“tell me . . . don’t hide it”); 1 Samuel 1:11; 6:3 (don’t send it away empty; return a guilt offering); 14:19, 45 (saved Jonathan and he didn’t die); 20:21; 24:1; 1 Kings 3:27; 5:57 (x and not abandon us”); 13:21-22; 22:8, 18; 2 Kings 4:27; 5:3; 10:23; 13:5, 11; 18:6, 32; Job 27:6; Psalm 28:5; 111:8; 118:17; Jeremiah 16:17; 18:17; 42:10; Ezekiel 17:14; 18:21, 28; 24:27; Amos 5:14

              (b) hendiadys (two words for one compound referent) expressed by some combined wording

“bowed and worshiped” becomes “bowed in worship”: Exodus 4:31; 34:8; 2 Chronicles 29:29, 30;

                  “deliver them and throw them into confusion” becomes “delivered them by throwing them

                        into confusion”: Deuteronomy 7:23;

                  “Job didn’t sin or blame God” becomes “Job didn’t sin by blaming God” (Job 1:22);

                  “your harlotry and wickedness” becomes “your wicked harlotry” (Jeremiah 3:2);

                  “they’ll die for the treachery and sin they’re committing now” (Ezekiel 18:24);

                  “fell on his face and did homage” becomes “fell on his face in homage” (Daniel 2:46);

                  “tremble and be afraid” become “tremble in fear” (Daniel 5:19);

                  “to seal up [fulfill?] vision and prophecy” becomes “prophetic vision” (Daniel 9:24);

                  See also Genesis 18:7; 50:18; Deuteronomy 32:18, 29; Job 1:22.

            (c) unnecessarily detailed expression

“knew his wife and she conceived and bore a son” becomes “had relations with his wife and she bore a son”: Genesis 4:1, etc.;

“reached out and took hold of”: 2 Samuel 6:6;

“humbled their heart/them with labor”: Psalm 107:12.

                  “You’ll store up for safekeeping, but you won’t preserve it because I’ll deliver most of it

                        to the sword” (Micah 6:14b)

            (d) equivalents to ingressive action

“take and x”: Genesis 29:23; Deuteronomy 9:17, 21; 1 Samuel 16:23; 25:18; 2 Samuel          4:12; 18:17;

“arise and x”: Nehemiah 2:20;

                  “go and x”: “I will go and see him before I die” becomes “I’ll go see him before I die”:

                        (Genesis 45:28), etc.

(e) Sometimes the double entry says the same thing two ways simply for emphasis: “there’s nothing devious or twisted in it” (Proverbs 8:8); “(your words) became a joy and delight to me” (Jeremiah 15:16; “I’ll cleanse them from their sin against me and pardon their transgression” (Jeremiah 33:8); likewise Isaiah 29:14; Amos 5:21, “I despise your festivals; I hate them;” Habakkuk 1:5, et alii.

            (f) Double entry can be a rhetorical device for balance.                                 

      (g) In a few examples, the double seems merely to be a customary expression, as in “eat

            and drink,” which we have sometimes reduced simply to “eat.” Note also

“marry and given in marriage” can reduce simply to “get married”; the Hebrew expression probably stems from the custom of two parents arranging a marriage for their offspring instead of the offspring arranging their own marriage.

“see and hear” can become “see” in some cases: 

“flesh and bones” means related people; in this case, CV lets the expression stand (Genesis 29:14; Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:2; 19:12, 13; 1 Chronicles 10:11; Job 2:5) instead of shifting it to the more familiar “flesh and blood” (cp. Matthew 16:17).

                        “fear and trembling” (Psalm 55:5)

                        “day and night” for “all the time,” “every day,” continually, characteristically;   

                         “word and deed.”

                        “from the head to the sole of the foot” to “from head to toe” (Isaiah 1:6)

Idioms for Intensity

            Cognate constructions

“Slew with slaughter” becomes “slaughtered”: Joshua 10:10, 20 both the same?

“Swear with an oath” becomes “solemnly swear”: Ezekiel 21:23.

Burn with fire means “burn intensely”: Exodus 29:34

            Double entry (See earlier in “Hebrew-English Differences.”)

Indirect Discourse Formats

(a)  English keeps all the parts of indirect discourse after the start of the clause. Hebrew may put the noun ahead of the beginning and then repeat it with a pronoun inside the clause:

Genesis 1:4: “God saw the light that it was good” becomes “God saw that the light was good.”

Genesis 6:2: “The sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful” becomes “The sons of god saw that the daughters of men were beautiful.”

 (b) Direct discourse we have changed to indirect discourse in many places, especially where it can eliminate some level of embedded quotation (one quotation within another). The Hebrew text seems reluctant to use indirect discourse; indirect expression sounds more natural in English and reduces the complexity of longer passages. English speakers prefer indirect discourse over direct quotation when talking about what someone said. The greater use of direct quotation does have the effect of hearing the content in contrast to hearing about it, so eliminating direct discourse entirely would not be wise. CV has adjusted quite many texts into indirect statements as listed below.

Genesis 3:3, 13, 14; 8:16-17; 12:12, 29: 14:23; 16:13; 20:5, 13; 24:7, 14, 30, 45; 26:7, 32; 30:8²; 31:29, 31, 46; 32:4-5, 9; 37:14, 17, 20; 38:22; 41:55; 42:4, 32; 43:3, 8, 31; 44:32; 45:9-11, 17-20; 46:31-34; 49:4-5; 50:15-16;

Exodus 1:22; 2:10; 3:13, 14-17; 4:1, 21-23, 26; 5:1, 8, 10-11; 6:9, 26; 8:1-2, 5, 16, 21-23; 12:3; 13:14-16; 14:3, 12; 16:9, 12, 16, 19, 32-33; 18:6; 19:15, 23; 20:2; 21:3; 31:13-17; 32:12, 17; 33:1, 12; 35:4-5;

Leviticus 14:17; 25:20;

Numbers 8:2; 10:29; 11:12, 13, 21; 14:15-16; 23:26; 26:65;

Deuteronomy 1:28, 42; 4:10; 5:30; 6:20; 8:17; 9:23; 12:30; 13:12-13; 15:16; 17:14, 16, 19; 19:7; 22:7;

Joshua 1:11; 3:6; 4:2-3; 6:6, 7, 22; 7:12, 13; 8:6, 20; 9:9-13, 22-23; 10:17; 17:9; 20:2; 22:11, 27; 24:26;

Judges 3:24; 4:20; 6:13; 7:2, 3; 8:16; 9:8, 10, 12, 14, 48; 12: 6; 13:7; 16:2, 12, 15, 20; 18:8; 20:39; 21:5, 18;

Ruth 2:21; 3:17; 4:2, 4;

1 Samuel 4:14; 9:3, 11, 23; 11:5, 9; 13:9, 12; 14:19, 34; 15:12, 18; 16:2; 18:11, 25; 19:19, 22; 20:40; 22:18; 23:9; 24:1, 4, 9; 25:13; 29:9;

2 Samuel 1:16; 4:10; 5:2, 7; 6:10, 12; 7:27; 9:1, 11; 10:15; 12:13; 13:5; 14:7, 32; 15:26; 16:3; 17:10, 16; 18:4, 12, 22², 25, 19; 19:9, 10, 14, 29, 32-34; 20:1, 5; 22:15; 24:1, 12;

1 Kings 1:5, 6, 13, 17, 24, 30, 44, 51, 52; 2:4, 8, 9, 29, 39; 8:8, 9, 19, 29; 12:24; 13:9, 16, 18, 27; 14:7; 18:11, 14, 30, 31; 19:20; 21:6, 23; 22:27, 30, 32;

2 Kings 1:2, 6, 9, 11; 2:21; 3:16; 4:26, 43; 5:4, 11, 22; 6:3, 15; 7:4, 12b; 8:7; 17:12; 18:25, 36; 20:17-18; 21:11-13; 22:5, 8, 9; 23:18;

1 Chronicles 11:2; 19:5; 21:11-12;

2 Chronicles 11:3; 18:10, 11, 26, 30; 26:23; 32:11; 33:4; 34:23-28;

Ezra 5:9, 15;

Nehemiah 5:12; 6:9;

Esther 1:17; 3:3;

Job 3:3; 8:18; 11:4; 15:23; 35:2; 37:7;

Psalm 10:4, 13; 13:4; 14:1; 31:31; 35:3; 38:16; 53:1;

Proverbs 7:4; 20:25; 23:7; 24:2; 28:24; 30:16;

Ecclesiates 2:2²; 8:4, 17;

Isaiah 7:4-6; 8:19; 10:29; 14:13-15; 19:11; 27:8; 36:10, 21, 72; 37:6, 9, 10, 33-35; 38:1; 40:25, 27; 43:9; 44:26, 27, 28; 45:19; 48:5, 7, 20; 49:21; 51:23; 57:10; 62:11;  

Jeremiah 1:7; 4:10; 10:19; 11:21; 13:6, 12; 14:13, 15; 15:2, 17; 21:4-7, 8-10; 23:17², 35; 25:27, 28-29; 26:9; 27:16; 28:13-14, 16; 31:34; 32:7, 25; 33:24; 37:9, 13, 14, 16, 19; 38:26; 42:19, 20; 43:2, 10; 45:4; 48:14;

Ezekiel 12:10-16, 19; 14:17; 18:25; 20:7; 33:8, 21, 25-29; 37:9, 18-19, 21-23; 38:14; Hosea 2:12; Amos 2:12; 7:15, 16; Obadiah 3; Micah 1:11; 2:11; 3:5; Zephaniah 1:12;

Haggai 1:2; Zechariah 1:19; 4:2; 12:5

(b)  Contemporary English usually leaves out the conjunction that introduces indirect discourse noun clause: “You know that your father and his men are strong” (2 Samuel 17:8; recast as “Your father and his men are strong men.”).

Specificity for Vividness

An appositive—or a part of a whole joined to the whole—makes a heavier statement that creates vividness, focuses attention, and emphasizes: “Keep me from the jaws of the trap they’ve set for me” (Psalm 141:9). Those structures CV sometimes reformats into shorter English ones:

            “When their feet waded into the edge of the water” becomes “when they waded into the                           water” (Joshua 3:15; 4:13); wading covers the feet part of the expression and “into”                  covers “the edge of”;

            “like the sin of divination” (1 Samuel 15:23);

            “by the edge/mouth of the sword” (Judges 4:15, 16);

            the people of Israel (Judges 4:23; 10:8; 11:33);

            “gather at the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Numbers 10:3, etc.);

            “Pardon the iniquity of these people” (Numbers 14:19);

            “from the power of our enemies” (1 Samuel 4:3; cp. Psalm 22:20-21; Daniel 6:25);

         ¹⁸I’ll leave 7,000 in Israel whose knees haven’t bowed to Baal and whose mouths haven’t

                  kissed him” (1 Kings 19:18); 

            “My eyes have seen and heard” becomes “I’ve seen and heard” (Job 13:1);

            “because it didn’t shut the doors of my mother’s womb” (Job 3:10;

“Let the proud step on me,” instead of “Let the foot of the proud step on me” (Psalm

            36:11);

 “Give him over to his enemies,” in place of “give him over to the desires of his enemies”

(Psalm 41:2);

 “Spoken by the prophets,” rather than “spoken by the mouth of the prophets”;

            “Go near the door of her house” (Proverbs 5:8);

“the time of battle” (Proverbs 21:31 Leviticus 23:43; 24:8; 2 Kings 7:6);

            “the sound of melody” (Isaiah 51:3);

            “the ones that despise you will bow at the soles of your feet” (Isaiah 60:14);

            “the tents of destroyers prosper” (Job 12:6);

            “(your words) became a joy and delight to me” (Jeremiah 15:16;

Write it “on the tablet of your heart” (Jeremiah 17:1).

“thrown out of the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19);

            “Obey the Lord,” in place of “obey the voice of the Lord.”   

            “Toss your bread on the surface of the water” (Ecclesiastes 11:1);

            “The LORD watches over the way of the godly” (Psalm 1:6²).

            Note the parallelism in Hosea 13:14:

      “Should I ransom him from the power of Sheol?

      “Should I redeem him from death?

            “He’ll eat the meat of the healthy ones and tear off their hoofs” (Zechariah 11:16)

            “Put your turbans on your heads and your shoes on your feet” becomes “Put on your      turbans and your shoes.” (Ezekiel 24:23).

The structure includes phraseology with the body-part imagery (see above):

                  “No rest for the soles of your feet” (Deuteronomy 28:65; cp. 1 Kings 5:3, 4 redone in CV);

      “I’ll be with your mouth and his” becomes “I’ll be with you and him” (Exodus 4:16).

      “It’s pleasant for the eyes to see the sunrise” (Ecclesiastes 11:7).

            See also Psalm 27:12; 55:18; 63:10; Jeremiah 7:34; Ezekiel 2:8.

Partitive Reference

            English expects the hearer to recognize partitive reference in obvious cases:

                   “eat from the fruit of the tree” (Genesis 3:2);

                  “eat from my game” (Esau to Isaac, Genesis 27:19).

Relative Clause Formats

(a)   The redundant pronoun falls out:

“the land that you are about to possess it” (Deuteronomy 31:13). The Hebrew ’asher (that, אשר) splices two clauses without occupying a grammatical slot in either one—and so is not really a relative pronoun.

(b)  When possessives appear before a clause and there is a duplicating pronoun inside the clause, CV has replaced the possessive with a definite article:           

“your/the inheritance (that) you redeemed” (Deuteronomy 9:26);

“my/the sacrifices (that) I’ve commanded” (1 Samuel 2:29);

                        “your/the people you have chosen” (1 Kings 3:8);

                        “his/the strength he showed” (1 Kings 21:45; 2 Kings 17:15)

                        “out of my/the land I’ve given them” (2 Chronicles 7:20);

“your/the wonders (that) you did” (Nehemiah 9:17);

‘their/the enemies that want to kill them” (Jeremiah 49:37);

“All their/the abominations they committed” (Ezekiel 33:29);

                        “all his/the benefits (that) he’s given” (Psalm 116:12).

See also Genesis 31:18; 32:13; Numbers 14:31?; 22:30; 1 Samuel 10:19?; 2 Kings 2:13; 1 Chronicles 10:13; 16:12; Ecclesiastes 9:9; Ezekiel 13:20; 16:20; 18:24; 35:11; 45:9; Daniel 3:17; 6:16; 9:10; 11:4; Amos 5:26(?); Zechariah 11:16.

Relative Negatives

            Relative negatives, also called limited negatives, use both the negative and positive forms of a statement. We have translated as apparently relative negatives what in form are direct opposites. A reader can tell from context and the kind of action involved that the two elements are not real opposites, but real alternatives for different degrees of the same thing.

Genesis 29:30: “(Jacob) loved (Rachel) more than Leah” (lit. “He loved Rachel from Leah.”);

Genesis 45:8: “It wasn’t so much you as God”;

                        The loved wife and the less-loved wife (?): Deuteronomy 21:15-17;

2 Chronicles 19:6: “You’re not just judging for people but for the LORD that’s with you”;

‘It’s not so much for your sake that I’m about to act; it’s for my holy name that you’ve profaned in the nations where you went’ (Ezekiel 36:22).

                        Hosea 6:6: “I want mercy and not sacrifice” becomes

                                          “I want mercy more than sacrifice” (since God actually commanded

                                                sacrifice); cp. Jeremiah 7:22-23; Ezekiel 36:32.

CV applies the relative negative idiom to the famous text of Jeremiah 7:22-23, where God says, ²²“When I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I didn’t speak to them about burnt offerings and sacrifices so much as ²³I commanded them, ‘Obey me, and I’ll be your God, and you’ll be my people. Follow the way I command you so things will go well for you.’” God obviously “spoke to them about burnt offerings and sacrifices” in the same records that chronicle the exodus and wilderness peregrinations. A reader would not expect Jeremiah to be denying that, given all the instructions in Moses regarding that very thing, starting with the Passover lamb while the Israelites were still in Egypt. The more basic point Yahveh wanted was obedience; ritually offering sacrifices to obtain benefit apart from expressing commitment to God and personal righteous living was not obeying in the spirit of why God instituted them. The red-letter addition in CV’s wording above nuances Jeremiah 7:22-23 in that direction. As such, Jeremiah’s comment about sacrifices echoes Isaiah’s comments about ritual fasting (58:3-6).

                  Note Exodus 16:8; 1 Samuel 8:7; Proverbs 21:3; Ezekiel 32:36.

Cp. in CV “loved Jacob and hated Esau” (Malachi 1:2-3) as handled by Paul in Romans 9:13.

Streamlining Causal Distinctions

            Hebrew idiom can use the same wording for direct cause, indirect cause, conditional cause, combinational cause, and occasional cause (permission). Translating that idiom into English in a direct-cause format creates misleading impressions, to say the least. In Hebrew, God is even said to do evil: “all the evil the LORD brought on Job” (Job 42:11). The same book details how God allowed Satan to do those evils to Job (1:6-2:7). What God allowed he is said to have done: occasional cause in the form of efficient cause. So, in the case of Job 42:11, CV reads, “They consoled him for the misfortunes the LORD had let come on him.” Some unfortunate turns of events are said to be “from the LORD,” a wording we have recast in some places as “the LORD let x happen” (1 Kings 12:15; cp. 1 Kings 12:24; Joshua 11:20; Judges 2:14; 14:14; 21:15; Zechariah 11:6). Others like Judges 21:15 have been let stand as worded.

            Restating that idiom could be an aspect of second-level translation, but in many cases we have left the first-level wording stand. Changing the wording from efficient cause to occasional cause assumes the translator knows what the case was. Such verdicts should often be left with readers—after being made aware that causal streamlining is a feature of Hebrew idiom. Removing the original wording could interfere with that possibility. In obvious cases, we have changed the wording a from “did” to “let do” (Jeremiah 21:4). Pharaoh’s house steward tells Jacob’s sons how he put their money in their sacks: “Your God . . . put your treasures in your sacks” (Genesis 41:16). “I’ll give you long life” (Exodus 23:26) comes into English “and you will have long lives.” Note also Malachi 1:9, etc. The important point is the fact that causal streamlining happens in Semitic idiom and affects interpretation and translation. The two enterprises are intertwined, but some cases are more difficult to translate because they are more difficult to interpret.

            In that light, we have let the presentation stand about God’s bringing Babylon against Judah in judgment. Yet once that judgment had taken place, God saw to it that the Medes and Persians brought judgment on Babylon for that evil against God’s people. The fact that God allowed it did not remove the fact that it was evil, and that God would punish them for it even though it served his purpose (as evil often does):

            ^11“Sharpen the arrows, fill the quills!

            The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes

                  to destroy Babylon.

            It’s the LORD’s revenge for his Temple” (Jeremiah 51:11).

Solving that conundrum calls for understanding that God let the Babylonians do what the Babylonians wanted to do anyway. He did so because it served his purpose of disciplining and cleansing Judah; God did not incite the Babylonians to do it. But the evil that Babylon was inclined to do in Israel and elsewhere in the region was itself something subject to divine condemnation. The reader, however, does not get that understanding from the immediate words or context, but from near and distant contextual considerations, including the understanding of Semitic causal idiom.

            Translation involves hermeneutics, but translating scripture should not interfere with the theological enterprise that readers must be free to carry on. Not keeping in mind this Semitic mode of expression can lead to conclusions that are not correct about divine operation or worthy of divine character. That is the rationale for highlighting the idiom in these notations.

            Some features of Hebrew idiom get covered up by “conversationalizing” the text. CV takes away some of the charm of biblical presentation, especially in the poetic portions. That character of the text has been retained in traditional translations, which can be consulted as desired. The presentation here has structured and worded the text to give some poetic flare: balanced construction for parallelism, appropriate cadence for meter, alliteration for (rare) rhyme scheme, and the use of pointed expression,

Vocabulary

            We have tried to use familiar equivalencies for measures of length, weight, and volume. Lengths, weights, and measures are somewhat approximate because ancient Middle East units do not closely match modern ones. Relationships between the Hebrew measurements are fairly exact, but finding ways to word the English equivalents is more difficult. Various scholarly sources provide fairly different values. For internal consistency in measurement of volume, CV follows G. F. Hill, Dictionary of the Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 1989; James Hasting, ed.), 967-71 even though it yields considerably larger amounts than several more recent versions. The Hebrew terms often appear in the text in superscript so readers can consult other reference works for comparison if exactness is desirable. Such sources should include BDB (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs (based on William Gesenius).

Measures of length are complicated by having royal and common variants. G. F. Hill puts the royal cubit at 20.67 inches and the common one at 17.72, a 16% difference. Ezekiel evidently uses the royal cubit (20:5); so CV uses there the royal cubit and other measures of size. The cubit in Solomon’s Temple may have been the royal variant as well. Nevertheless, for simplicity’s sake, CV gives the cubit as 1½ feet aside from Ezekiel.

Before the exile, talents, shekels, darics, and minas/minehs/manehs were weights rather than coins (cp. Jeremiah 32:9-10; Ezekiel 4:10, “shekels of food”). CV has standardized these weights as 75½ lbs for a talent, .4 oz for a shekel, 185 lbs for a daric, and 20 oz for a maneh (Exodus 38:25-26). See, e.g. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 891-92.  

Measurements of value present an even more difficult problem because modern inflation constantly alters the correlations, so the transliterated terms appear in the CV text.

Genealogy, deference language, arranged marriages, wanton executions, and other matters foreign to modern western culture and taste lie outside the purview of translation work. We have not always interfered with the wordings to “tone them down” or sanitize them verbally. Those behaviors existed in those degrees, so we have “allowed” the CV text to report them.

On deferential language, CV has reduced the amount of it (a) by dropping its repetition (“your servant”: 1 Kings 3:7-9; cp. 1 Samuel 1:16, 18; 12:19). It has altered it (b) by reducing the number of jussive expressions (third-person imperatives) in second-person interchanges, because they have less natural English formats: “Let him be wet with dew from the sky” (Daniel 4:23²). In most cases, CV has struck a compromise (c) by toning down the deference custom to reduce the foreign feel and moderate the distancing from today’s readership. It replaces the noun or third-person pronoun in second-person circumstances. It does not leave the literal rendering in adjacent superscript as it might have: “Your ^Pharaoh’s dreams both mean the same thing” (Genesis 41:25). The superscripted entry could give access to the original sentiment by using the literal rendering—especially in the public reading of scripture. Consequently, The Conversational Version sacrifices a degree of verisimilitude to bring modern readers more naturally within the horizon of the biblical content without changing its objective meaning. The Yahveh Version retains quite a number of deference expressions. That version is a variant of The Conversational Version and uses the personal name of Israel’s God along with a couple of other main features. See the “Introduction to the Yahveh Version” elsewhere on this website.

Terminology About Relatives

            The breakdown of Hebrew social division does not come into English cleanly. Ancient and modern cultures structure society differently, so the terms in each do not correspond well. Something of the Jewish social structure shows up when the LORD has Joshua conduct a search for who sinned at the conquest of Jericho. According to CV, he had Joshua narrow down the nation down from tribe to family to household to individual (Joshua 7:14-18). The New American Standard Bible has tribe, family, household, individual. The New Living Translation uses tribe, clan, family, individual. Things are less clear in free-standing references, which include elders, leaders, heads of tribes (cp. 1 Kings 8:1-2). Translation options become difficult when texts like Ezra 2:1-70 (cp Nehemiah 7:7-73); 8:1-14, and 10:18-44 speak of sons-of and men-of. Descendants for sons sounds too distant for the 70-100 years of captivity. Family (and house[hold]) sounds too small for the large numbers indicated, especially since by custom only men and nuclear family heads were probably counted.  Besides, the lists consist of persons and places, and which is which is often unclear. Some person or place names may not appear elsewhere; if they do, their common identity is not evident. So, do we say residents of, people from, sons of, or what? The accompanying numbers give the clearest clue. Nothing major hinges on the choice of terms, but readers need to remember that the structure is ambiguous because it does not correspond to modern western societal structure.

Variety of Expression

            With some words that occur frequently, CV has substituted several more specific terms to enhance interest by variation: say, tell, ask; men, servant, master, lord, troops, soldiers, warriors, advisers, officers, officials, etc. See under Individual Words toward the end of these introductory notations. CV has chosen more specific terms based on context and custom.

Syntactical Placement

            English tends to put time words (today, tomorrow, yesterday) after their clause. In many cases, Hebrew puts them in initial position: “Today, if you hear him” becomes “If you hear him today” (Psalm 95:7). If English uses initial position, it carries more emphasis as a variant from the usual sentence sequence.

Poetic Portions

            CV has kept something of the integrity of Semitic poetry by using separate lines for parallelism, its most fundamental feature. That usually means not melting synonymous parallels into one expression to gain economy of expression as has happened in narrative sections. It also means tolerating more repetition in poetry than elsewhere, which includes cases of synthetic parallelism:

“The LORD will have a day of vengeance,

     a year of payback for what Edom did to Zion” (Isaiah 34:12; also 13:12; 51:18 MT).

            We have paid more attention to cadence (vs. meter) than in non-poetic portions. Cadence serves as a loose substitute for meter, which Hebrew poetry does not have anyway. Balanced construction can assist in creating that poetic feel.

            Rhyme scheme does not appear in Hebrew poetry. The closest thing CV uses to salve that English expectancy is some initial, medial, and terminal alliterations with same and similar sounds in nearby words: “He thwarts what the wicked want” (Proverbs 10:3). Rhyme scheme usually applies to the ends of lines whereas alliteration occurs anywhere within the same line.

            Some attention to formatting and layout helps achieve a poetic vs. narrative or didactic appearance. In some sections of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, that includes grouping lines via indentation patterns to help trace topical continuity and distinction.

            The difference between Hebrew poetry and narrative or didactic content is not as obvious as what English speakers associate with poetry vs. prose. Readers can verify that point by noting that translations frequently differ in what they present as poetry—by parallel lines rather than continuous text. Non-poetic presentation can approach free verse.

Coordinating vs. subordinating constructions;

Paratactic vs. hypotactic formatting

            In comparison to Hebrew, English tends more to subordinate one clause to another (hypotactic) instead of making them grammatically coordinate (paratactic). CV sometimes replaces a parallel format with a subordinate one. For one independent clause, the subordinating format can use an adverbial introductory clause introduced by a subordinate conjunction:

            “If you listen to what I’m telling you, you’ll be my people, and I’ll be your God” (Jeremiah 11:4). The original more literally reads, “Listen to my voice and do-them according to all that I command you, and you will be to me for a people, and I will be to you for God.”

            Esther 6:14 reads, “The king’s eunuchs arrived and took him to Esther’s banquet.” CV rewords the sentence to say, “The king’s eunuchs arrived to take him to Esther’s banquet.”

Personalizing Proverbs

            Many Hebrew proverbs come in imperative form, which personalizes them in second person. But in other places, CV has changed Hebrew third-person proverbs from that more abstract form into second and sometimes first-person declarative transforms: Proverbs 10:9, 17, 22, 27, 29; 11:4; 12:5, 11; 13:3, 11, 20, 24; 14:2, 6, 11, 27; 15:4, 11, 13, 17, 22, 31, 32; 18:8; 20:25; 21:2, 5, 16; 24:24; 25:7; 26:13; 27:9, 18. Using second person reference also circumvents the problem of inclusive language.

Rhetorical Questions

Speakers sometimes make claims in question form in a way unexpected by English custom. When Saul was trying to locate David, some men came up from Ziph and said to Saul, “Isn’t David hiding among us in the strongholds at Horesh on the Hill of Hachilah south of Jeshimon. Come down and do whatever you want to. We’ll surrender him to you” (2 Samuel 23:19-20). The wording is a form of deference language. See also Deuteronomy 11:30; 1 Samuel 10:1; 24:12; 26:1; 2 Samuel 11:3, 21; 13:28; 15:23², 27; 19:13; 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Kings 5:26; 2 Chronicles 32:11; Psalm 54 heading; Isaiah 29:17. In these case CV has shifted the words into declarative sentences.

In 2 Samuel 18:13, CV has made a question out of a statement.

CV exhibits a preference for statements in place of questions: Genesis 34:23; Proverbs 8:1; Ezekiel 17:9, 10; Amos 6:13.

Gentilics/Eponyms

            The Hebrew Old Testament employs gentilics more frequently than English does. CV has moderated their appearance and replaced some ite, ian, -i (Israeli, Pakistani) words with “John of/from y,” “the people of/from y,” or “descendants of x.” Sometimes Israel substitutes for Israelites (modern Israelis), for example. The use of such forms takes fewer words than “people of/from x” and serves as a reason for retaining a majority of them.

            Most of the biblical gentilics are straightforward and familiar, but sometimes avoiding the eponym can clarify whether the word designates:

            a place of origin: Zorah (Zorathites, 1 Chronicles 4:2),

            an ancestor: Abiezer (Abiezrites, Judges 6:11-12; 8:32, 32), Rechab (Rechabites, Jeremiah 35:2),

            or even a practitioner: Nazirites, people who took certain vows.

            At other times the form of the eponym can obscure the proper name itself: Ahohite < Ahoah, Archevites < Erech, Arkites < Arka, Avvites < Ivvah, Benjamites < Benjamin, Gittite < Gath, Gazites < Gaza, Gibeathite < Gibeah, Hittite < Heth, Hushathite < Hushah, Kenezite < Kenaz, Manassites < Manasseh, Netophathite < Netophah, Shilonite < Shiloh, Suchathites/Sucathites < Soco/Sucah, Tekoite < Tekoa, Tyrians < Tyre. Representative passages are Genesis 23:3, 18; 38:12; Numbers 10:29; Judges 10:3; 11:2; 16:2; 1 Samuel 16:1, 18; 18:19; 23:19; 26:1; 27:3²; 2 Samuel 3:2, 3; 4:3; 6:10; 15:19; 17:27; 18:2; 20:26; 21:1, 2, 8; 23:24-29; 1 Kings 1:3; 11:1; Isaiah 21:13; 37:12; Jeremiah 9:26; 25:21; 27:3; 40:14; 41:10, 15; 49:2; Amos 1:13; Zephaniah 2:9. See also the listing under Israelites in the Individual Words section below.

Deference Language Reduced

            From the standpoint of today’s English idiom and culture, the deference language in the Hebrew scriptures seems extreme. To reduce the heavy feel of such recurring expressions,

            (a) CV has put the deference language in superscript beside less extreme wording.

            (b) “My lord” has frequently changed to “sir” when possible (Genesis 18:3; 23:6; 42:10; 43:20; 47:25; Judges 6:13; Ruth 2:13; 1 Samuel 1:15, 26; 25:24; 2 Samuel 14:9; 1 Kings 3:17, 26; 2 Kings 8:12; Daniel 4:19; 10:16; Zechariah 1:9). The frequent “my lord the king” still stands.

            (c) The use of third person reference has typically been changed to second person in deference accounts: 1 Kings 1:19, 25. 

            Behavioral deference has to be left pretty much alone—not making eye contact, the bowing, and even prostration.

Shortening Mechanisms

The idea has been to remove repeated materials and to shorten expressions in a way that does not delete content while getting the reader on through it more efficiently. That aspect of CV’s presentation may require clarifications in single-verse citations of scripture, which cuts off context from clarifying pronoun references in contrast to what is necessary in through-reading the text.

Apostrophe s

Apostrophe s replaces “of” constructions in as many places as practical. (See below “Construct State” under “Hebrew Ambiguities.”)

Body-Part Language

            Body-part language is dropped whenever possible, as in statements like, “They were guided by the hand of the LORD.” “Your ears need to hear what he has to say” (Jeremiah 9:20). Some body-part expressions remain in poetic structures like Proverbs 26:28; the parallelism puts mouth parallel to tongue. See also Proverbs 4:24; Isaiah 29:13, etc. Note observations herein also under “Specificity.”

Changing Lines

In dialogue portions, verbal introductions for a replying speaker may fall out, as in “he answered and said” (2 Chronicles 18:4-27). The words of the next speaker begin a new line, and the reader can tell by line change, wording, and content who the new speaker is. In oral presentation of such texts, a reader does well to use voice modulation and pauses to express the switch between speakers in the text.

Contractions

Contractions usually shorten the text when made from pronoun subjects plus auxiliary verbs (He’s going), auxiliary verbs plus negatives (won’t), some nouns plus third singular s in present tense (“The LORD’s my shepherd” (Psalm 23:1), and present perfect tenses (“The LORD’s been with you” (Genesis 26:28; 2 Samuel 16:8; Ecclesiastes 3:17). Apostrophe s can occasionally cover does __ (“What’s it do?” Ecclesiastes 2:2; Malachi 3:14)

Double Entry

Double entries frequently reduce to single entry. (See above under “Hebrew-English Differences”)

Dropping Individual Words and Phrases

Omissions include behold, and in lists, relative pronouns that are also direct objects in their own clauses (Isaiah 19:16), interjections; repeated possessive adjectives, articles, prepositions, and conjunctions ahead of noun clauses: “The men said that there hadn’t been any shrine prostitute there” (Genesis 38:22).

Generalizing Specific Identities

Specificity is a Hebrew idiom. To match English expectancy, words fall out: “obey the voice of the LORD” (Deuteronomy 28:45); “Crush the loins of  his adversaries” (33:11); ^“The LORD that delivered me from the paw of the/a lion and the/a bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37); “let the eyes of their children faint from hunger” (Job 17:5); “the souls of the wounded cry out for help” (Job 24:12); “he loves the gates of Zion more than other places in Jacob” (Psalm 87:2). The next ruler “became king in his place” (2 Kings 24:6, etc.); “he had relations with his wife, and she conceived and had a son” (Genesis 4:17; cp. Isaiah 8:3). See also under “Hebrew-English Differences: Specificity for Vividness.”

Natural inferences are often omitted; readers know them without being told. Not explicitly saying them engages a reader more, which increases interest and makes for economy of expression.

Reducing Anaphoric Entries

  adjectives (Numbers 14:22; 2 Kings 18:12), articles, nouns, pronouns, prepositions. See anaphoric entries above under “Hebrew-English Differences.”

Repetitions/Redundancies/Tautologies Omitted

“Like the LORD commanded Moses” concludes many scripture portions after a record of his commands to Moses in Exodus and Leviticus. We have often regarded it as a structural feature (bookends), and let it stand as a termination marker.

But “I’m the LORD” appears four times in Leviticus 22:2-9; 26:1-13. In such cases, CV may reduce the expression to, say, one per paragraph.

“Enduring love lasts forever” becomes “love endures forever”: Ezra 3:11; 1 Chronicles 16:34, 41; 2 Chronicles 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Psalm 107:1; 138:8; Jeremiah 33:11.

 “continually all day long” (Isaiah 52:15)

Reduced Number of Identifications

            “Sihon king of Heshbon” in Deuteronomy 2:26 and 2:24.

            “In the LORD” is reduced from four times to once in Leviticus 22:2-9; cp. Ezekiel 25:3.

            Four times in six verses, Exodus 33:1-7 identifies Jethro as Moses’ father-in-law.

            “Laban his mother’s brother” omitted the next time (Genesis 29:10); Deuteronomy 2:24, 26

            “house of the LORD” frequency in 2 Kings 11-12. See also 1 Kings 8:22 + 54.

            “I’m the LORD your God” reduced to one per paragraph: Leviticus 26:1-13; Nehemiah 9:4

      Reduced Vocatives

David’s prayer to the LORD after Nathan’s vision has ten vocatives for LORD in twelve verses: 2 Samuel 7:18, 19², 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29. CV drops all but the first and fourth. Daniel’s supplication in 9:15-19 has nine vocatives in five verses. CV reduces them to the first and last. See also 1 Chronicles 22:11; Psalm 43:4; Jeremiah 24:3; Ezekiel 20:44

Repeated Reminders Reduced to Perhaps One per Paragraph

“the LORD says,” for example, in Leviticus 26:1-3; 1 Samuel 14:1, 6

Some repetitions we have let stand:

repetitions that serve as bookends;

                  added descriptors may amount to part of the name: Saul of Gibeah, etc.

closers: in dividing the land, Numbers 34:1-2 describes the process, then repeats the subject statement at the end in 34:29;

ones that are part of poetic structure, The elimination of repetition happens more extensively in narrative, didactic, and discourse sections than in poetic texts. The primary feature of Hebrew poetry is parallelism—synonymous, antithetical, synthetic. That sets up similarity as the basic feature of poetry. CV has been cautious about eliminating too many such parallels because it cuts into the genius of its poetic literary form.

Shortened Expression  

“This is what the LORD says” becomes “The LORD says” (2 Kings 20:1);

“Listen to me” (Genesis 22:8; 2 Chronicles 13:4; 20:20, but not Exodus 18:10?). See also Deuteronomy 26:16-19.

“Son of man” in Ezekiel drops out after it appears in the lead sentence of a paragraph: 2:2; 3:13; 8:6, 15.

Verse Adjustments

      Omitted verses and sets of verses

The most extreme form of reduction in CV comes from leaving out verse combinations, individual verses, and part verses to move the narrative along. We have indicated larger omissions by using bracketed verse numbers [^#]. Part-verse deletions are not marked. Omitted whole verses and verse combinations include:

Genesis 6:12; 9:16-17; 17:26-27; 23:5, 20; 36:29-30; 41:28, 30; 43:17; 49:32;

Exodus 1:13; 8:4; 12:24; 14:29; 30:11, 17, 22; 31:1, 12; 32:3; 36:4, 7; 39:25;

Leviticus 6:13; 11:12, 23; 15:21; 18:11, 27; 24:21; 26:43;

Numbers 1:19, 54a; 2:1; 4:37, 45; 5:11; 6:8, 17; 7:19-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37-41, 43-47, 49-53, 55-59, 61-65, 67-71, 73-77, 79-83; 8:18; 9:20, 23;14:32; 16:8; 18:24; 26:56; 29:37-38; 32:31-32;

Deuteronomy 4:21; 11:31-32 ; 12:11, 12a, 13, 23-24, 28; 13:18; 14:20; 27:8; 30:10;

Joshua 4:17; 10:23; 14:3; 21:8; Judges 2:23; 3 :2 ; 6 :7 ; 9:16; Ruth 3:5 ; 1 Samuel 4:22; 18:14-15; 2 Samuel 13:33; 1 Kings 2:30; 15:6; 2 Kings 17:5-6, 38; 19:5; 2 Chronicles 27:8; Ezra 7:8; Job 3:2; Isaiah 37:5; Jeremiah 19:13; 23:1; 27:21; 42:15; 44:24; Ezekiel 1:21; 10:22; 14:7; 20:14, 16; 22:22; 34:9; 37:24-25; 39:24; 40:41; Zechariah 14:19.

      Blended Verses

In the effort to shorten or clarify the English text, the recast wording calls for combining parts from different verses. The following are examples:

Genesis 1:29-30; 2:1-2, 11-12; 3:18-19; 7:19-20; 8:13-14; 9:12-13, 16-17; 17:9-10; 21:20-21; 25:9-10; 36:8-9; 44:30-31; 46:6-7; 47:5-6; 50:7-8;

Exodus 10:10-11; 17:5-6 ; 26:7-8, 20-21; 28:33-34; 30:7-8, 13-14; 35:25-26; 36:25-26 ;

Leviticus 4:1-2; 5:12-13, 14-15 ; 6:24-25; 7:22-23, 28-29; 9:19-20; 11:1-2, 4-6, 10-11; 12:1-2; 15:1-2, 5-6, 22-23; 17:1-2; 18:1-2, 12-14; 19:1-2; 20:1-2, 7-8; 21:16-17; 22:1-2, 17-18; 23:1-2, 9-10, 23-24, 27-28, 40-41; 24:3-4; 25:1-2, 48-49; 27:1-2 ;

Numbers 1:22-23, 24-25, 26-27, 28-29, 30-31, 32-33, 34-35, 36-37, 38-39, 40-41, 42-43, 44-46; 2:3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 18-19, 20-21, 22-23, 25-26, 27-28, 29-30; 4:38-41; 5:5-6; 6:1-2, 6-7; 9:2-3, 9-10; 14:26-28, 36-37; 15:1-2,15-16, 17-18, 20-21, 22-23; 26:6-7, 12-14, 15-18, 19-22, 23-25, 26-27, 28-37, 38-41, 42-43, 44-47, 48-50; 28:1-2; 29:20-22, 23-25, 26-28, 29-31, 32-34; 33:50-51; 34:1-2, 14-15; 35:12-13; 35:9-10;

Deuteronomy 6:18-19; 12:23-24; 13:12-13; 17:2-4; 21:16-17; 30:1-2;

Joshua 18:5-6; 21:41-42; 1 Samuel 13:20-21; 14:25-26; 25:23-24; 2 Samuel 7:12-13; 13:37-38;

2 Samuel 9:11-13;

1 Kings 6:23-26, 31-32; 8:1-2; 11:24-25; 12:32-33; 2 Kings 12:4-5, 11-12; 14:20-21;       

1 Chronicles 11:24-25; 17:25-26; 23:10-11; 26:31-32;

2 Chronicles 11:5-10; 27:2-3; 32:25-26;

Nehemiah 7:6-7; 10:1-8; Proverbs 26:18-19;

Isaiah 7:4-6, 7-9; 10:21-22; 19:23-24; 22:17-19; 35:1-2; 59:15b-16; 65:11-12;

Jeremiah 4:11-12; 27:14-15; 34:18-20; 43:4-5, 12-13; 44:29-30; Lamentations 3:34-36;

Ezekiel 1:19-20; 3:5-6; 9:5-6; 16:56-57; 17:22-23; 20:40-41; 22:4-5; 34:8-9, 13-14; 37:1-2; 39:4-5; 47:21-22; 48: 9-10; Daniel 9:8; Haggai 2:18-19; Zechariah 14:17-18.

            Blending usually reduces the length of the entry.

Re-sequenced Verses  

Genesis 25:13, 16, 14, 15, 17; Exodus 21:10-11, 9; 22:1, 3b, 4, 2, 3a; Deuteronomy 12:14, 11, 12b, 12a, 13; Judges 2:11-13; Esther 9:6-10

Vocatives Adjusted

Limited to one per set of verses: 1 Samuel 23:20; Isaiah 26:12, 16; Psalm 25:4; 86 several times; Daniel 10:12

Possessives with vocatives often dropped to accommodate English usage (1 Samuel 1:15)

That wording seems unnatural as in the Proverbs’ verses that say “my son(s)”: 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:10, 20; 5:1, 7, 20; 6:1, 20; 7:1, 24; 8:32; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13, 21; 27:1; 31:2a. See also 2 Samuel 20:9; 22:7; 2 Chronicles 29:11; Ezra 9:10; Nehemiah 4:4; 13:14, 22, 29, 31; Psalm 18:6; 42:6; 59:1; 84:10; 102:24.

    Vocatives are often moved from the front to later in the address; cp. “Don’t take your guns to town, son.” That placement seems more natural in English: Proverbs 1:8, 10; 3:1; 4:1, 10, 20; 5:1, 7; 6:20; 7:1, 24; 23:15, 22; 31:2; Daniel 10:16. The later placement removes any tendency for Lord or God to have a byword sound (Judges 6:15; Psalm 3:1). Exceptions to placement change may be in a group of people to single the other person out, or when a long entry accompanies the direct address (Proverbs 3:21; 5:20; 6:1; 24:21)

Hebrew Ambiguities

Construct State

            Nouns in construct state are prolific in the Hebrew text. Words for related referents of almost any kind can be joined by repointing (changing the vowels of) the first noun and (often) placing a Maqqeph between them (“head-of the king”). In effect, the adjustments often combine them into one word (like English “ín-law/s”). English translation renders construct formats as “x of y” because of-expressions in English cover about the same range of possibilities as construct state in Hebrew. The English of says only that the nouns’ referents are related; how their referents relate, the reader infers from context plus experience.

      The prominence of construct formats correlates in part with having relatively few adjectives in biblical Hebrew. It accomplishes the adjective-noun combination by using a construct noun plus absolute-state noun. So Hebrew does not need to have as many adjectives.

            Eliminating “of constructions” means choosing between apposition, description, cause, material, source; value, objective vs. subjective, (partitive), possession, and some relationships that are difficult to classify. Not every possible “genitive” value can apply to every instance, but the choice between just two can be challenging. The bail-out is that the ambiguity would probably have been there for the original Hebrew readers too—with perhaps the inference that distinguishing the unclear alternatives was not important to the writer’s purpose. In some cases, replacing of pushes a translator into circumlocution, and that can break up cadence and thought flow. Note the following ideas associated with construct form.  

material made from: Daniel 2:33 (“legs of iron”); “clothes made out of hair” (2 Kings 1:8)

apposition: Isaiah 27:13; 61:3 (land of Assyria). See Genesis 47:6; Exodus 13:4; Numbers 2:10-26; 2 Chronicles 7:5; Jeremiah 18:13; Daniel 11:1, etc.

content: people of Nineveh

description: 2 Chronicles 6:41 (“ark of your power” = “your powerful ark”). A construct format replaces adjectives: “sons of wickedness” becomes “wicked people” (2 Samuel 3:34). See also Numbers 6:18; Psalm 4:1; 18:22; 24:8-10; 32:7; 18:13 (“coals of fire” becomes “burning coals”); Jeremiah 14:21 (“throne of your glory” becomes “your glorious throne”); Psalm 24:8, 9², 10 (“King of glory” becomes “glorious King”); Isaiah 4:8; 22:23; 29:1-; 30:18, 30; 57:4; 54:6; 63:1; 65:16; Daniel 10:11, 19 (“man of high esteem” becomes “a highly esteemed man”)

object of action: “knowledge of God” becomes “knowledge about God” (Hosea 4:1); “abomination of desolation” becomes “abomination that makes desolate” (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 as streamlined in Matthew 24:15)

            subject of action: as when we say that a tsunami is an “act of God”

source: Jeremiah of Libnah (2 Kings 23:31); (1 Samuel 11:4 reversed to Gibeah of Saul in 1 Samuel 11:4)

construct strings (concatenations): “sin of the servants of the God of your fathers” (Genesis 50:17); likewise, 1 Chronicles 9:4; Ezekiel 10:19. Such arrangements we have tried to break up into “chewable chunks.”

Miscellaneous connections: merely connecting construct nouns:

                        tabernacle of the testimony (the tabernacle that held the testimony) Numbers 10:11;

water of impurity (special water that removed ceremonial impurity) Numbers 19:9, 13, 20, 21; 31:23;

bread of mourning (food others supply us when we are too overwhelmed with grief to prepare our own—Jeremiah 16:7—or eating sparingly from sorrow) Ezekiel 24:22.

            We have eliminated many of’s by using a different, perhaps more explicit preposition; the translation, admittedly, is more exact than the Hebrew original.

An added ambiguity here is that a Hebrew noun in construct cannot carry the Hebrew article. In the case of מלאך‾יהוה the translation could perhaps be an angel of the Lord or the angel of the Lord. The typical translation in, say, Genesis 22:11 says the angel of the Lord. The LXX (Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament) says, ἄγγελος κυρίου, which could be an angel of the Lord in English, but if regarded as a title, could call for English definite articles. The Jewish translators of the LXX evidently had some reason for making angel anarthrous here. The LXX does not follow the rule that if the second noun is definite the construct noun is definite as well though not indicated articularly. Perhaps those translators did conceive of the full expression as a title. At any rate, we are left with an English uncertainty. See also 1 Kings 12:22, “a man of God” (first mention); 13:1; 17:24; 20:28; 2 Kings 1:10, 12; 4:9; 2 Chronicles 25:7; Jeremiah 35:4 (first mention).

                        A partial answer to this issue is that the construct noun is definite if the noun it is tied to is definite, including proper nouns. But that is relative definiteness, one in contrast to what the phrase head itself would contrast to; it does not solve definite vs. indefinite within the category named by the phrase head—frame of reference.

                        We opted to use an angel of the Lord for ἄγγελος κυρίου and change the expression to the angel when articular. Note the phrase “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13, Aramaic), equaling a human being. Throughout the gospels it becomes a title “the Son of Man,” a self-designation Jesus uses (Matthew 12:8 = Mark 2:28 = Luke 6:5; John 3:14, etc.), indicating that he is the one in the Daniel reference. From the viewpoint of Daniel, it stands as a descriptor aside from its fulfillment.

No Indefinite Article

Readers must rely on context to distinguish indefinite and kind (a man and human/manly).

No Separate Intensive Pronoun

“So I’ll judge you, Israel, each person by their/their own behavior” (Ezekiel 18:30). “Let’s make people in our own image” (Genesis 1:26). There are some equivalents like “as for (me), I”; or “I even I” (Isaiah 52:12). In their vocabulary lists, grammars add own to possessive adjectives to clarify reflexive vs. personal pronouns, but that format is not always best in a sentence because own adds an intensive element on top of the reflexive value.

No Separate Reflexive Pronoun

“The goodness of the good is on him(self)” recast as “A person’s goodness applies to himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). See also Numbers 19:19.

No Neuter Gender

English has sex reference only and makes sexless referents grammatically neuter—at least in modern usage. (Older English would sometimes use “she” for ships and countries as perhaps “containers of” occupants or residents.) In Hebrew, however, pronouns for Old Testament place names often carry grammatically masculine gender because they are patronymics, named after an ancestral “father”: Nehemiah 3:8; Isaiah 29:2; Micah 7:10. English wants to use it for many such cases rather than he, but it does not substitute well in some contexts.

The same principle applies to common nouns. Wisdom (חָכְמָה) is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, but English prefers to say it rather than she:

         ²⁰“Wisdom shouts in the street;

                  it/she raises its/her voice in the marketplace.

         ²¹It/She cries out from the top of the wall

                  and speaks at the city gate” (Proverbs 1:20[-33]).

Esther 6:8 quotes Haman as suggesting to King Ahasuerus that if he wants to honor a man, mount him on “a horse you’ve ridden, one with a royal crest on its head.” That sounds more likely than honoring the man with a royal crown on his head.  

No Capitalization

From the writing, a reader cannot tell a common noun from a proper noun in Hebrew, that is, whether it is considered an identity or the name of an identity, whether it is a noun or a particular noun (proper noun). The problem is complicated by the fact that names often had a meaning based on some feature of their origin (etiology).

CV capitalizes many place names and other designations, supposing they were thought of as identities aside from the meanings the words themselves could have. Attached is a significant list of such places:

Absalom’s Monument (2 Samuel 18:18); Arabah Road (Deuteronomy 2:8); Ark of the Covenant (Numbers 10:33); Ark of the Covenant with its various forms and elaborations; Ark of Testimony (Exodus 30:6), Benjamin Gate (Jeremiah 20:2); Beth-eked of the Shepherds (2 Kings 12:10); Beyond the River (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7; 2 Chronicles 7:8), The Bread of Presence (Exodus 25:30); Brook Besor (1 Samuel 30:21); Cave of Machpelah (Genesis 23:9; The City of David (2 Samuel 5:7); City of Palms (2 Chronicles 28:15); City of Salt (Joshua 15:62); City of Truth (Zechariah 8:3), The Diviner’s Oak (Judges 9:37); Dung Gate (Nehemiah 2:13); Feast of Booths (Deuteronomy 31:11); Forest of Ephraim (2 Samuel 18:6); Foundation Gate (2 Chronicles 23:5); the Glorious Land (Daniel 11:41); the Glory of Israel (1 Samuel 18:29); the Great Sea (Daniel 7:2); Hall of Judgment (I Kings 7:7); Hall of Pillars (1 Kings 7:6); Hall of the Throne (I Kings 7:7); Hill of Hachilah (1 Samuel 26:1); Hill of Moreh (Judges 7:1), Holy Place (Exodus 8:28), Kidron Valley (2 Chronicles 29:16; King’s Valley (2 Samuel 18:18); Kishon River (1 Kings 18:40); Law (of Moses, Deuteronomy 4:4); The LORD Enthroned above the Cherubs (1 Chronicles 13:6); Mercy Seat (Leviticus 16:2); the Name (Leviticus 24:11); Oak of Moreh (Genesis 12:6); Oak of Tabor (1 Samuel 10:3); Oak of the Pillar (Judges 9:6); Oaks of Mamre (Genesis 13:18; 14:13; 18:1); Orchard of Eden (⁺Ezekiel 36:35; Joel 2:3); The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 7:2; 10:17, 18; Isaiah 22:8), Palm of Deborah (Judges 4:5), the Pit (= Sheol), Plain of Dura (Daniel 3:10); Plain of Moab (Numbers 36:13); Plain of Ono (Nehemiah 6:2); Potsherd Gate (Jeremiah 19:2); River of Egypt (Genesis 15:18; Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4, 47 rather than the brook of Egypt), Rock of Escape (1 Samuel 24:28); Rock of Oreb (⁺Judges 7:25; Isaiah 10:26); Rock of Rimmon (Judges 20:45); Second Quarter (Zephaniah 1:10); Solomon’s officials (1 Kings 4:1-19), Tabernacle, Temple (when designating the LORD’s Temple), Tent of Meeting (Exodus 27:21), the Testimony (Exodus 30:36), Tower of Eder (Genesis 35:21); Tower of Hananel (Nehemiah 3:1); Tower of a Hundred (Nehemiah 3:1); Ulai Canal (Daniel 8:2); Valley of Beracah (2 Chronicles 20:26); Valley of Jezreel (Hosea 1:5); Valley of Salt (2 Samuel 8:13); Valley of Sorek (Judges 16:4); Valley of Succoth (Psalm 60:6); Well of Sirah (2 Samuel 3:26); Wilderness of Damascus (1 Kings 13:15); Wilderness of Edom (2 Kings 3:8); Wilderness of Engedi (1 Samuel 24:1); Wilderness of Jeruel (2 Chronicles 19:16); Wilderness of Maon (1 Samuel 24:24); Wilderness of Paran (1 Samuel 25:1); Wilderness of Sinai (Exodus 19:1); Winepress of Zeeb (Judges 7:25); Wilderness of Zin (⁺Deuteronomy 32:51; Numbers 13:21; 20:1; 27:14; 33:36; 34:3; Joshua 15:1); Wilderness of Ziph (1 Samuel 26:2).   

God/god usually renders אֱלֹהִים. Translators customarily capitalize it for the one true God and use lower case for foreign deities or people that are “powerful ones,” which can take the term back to descendants as “sons of”; judges are called “gods” in Psalm 82:6. “Sons of God” has non-deific reference in Job 1:6; 2:1 (angelic beings?). One reference (“sons of God”) probably means powerful human leaders in Genesis 6:1-4, and looks at the degrading royal practice of amassing large harems that then supplied kingdoms with “powerful ones” via offspring.

Spirit/spirit is capitalized in reference to deity but left in lower case otherwise—when it carries its underlying meaning. Other usages of spirit include wind, a human aspect or capacity, (human) disposition, angels, breath. Contexts do not always solve the question. Ezekiel 36:27 says, “I’ll put my S/spirit in you.” Does that mean what Christians call “God’s indwelling presence” and therefore deific, or is it a looser reference to an “attitude” derived from influence from God the Spirit? Does Genesis 1:2 mean “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface/“face” of the water” (in anticipation of God’s upcoming involvement in the creative process), or does it mean “God’s wind was blowing gently over the ocean”?

            Job 31:33 could say as the NASB words it in its main text, “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom” with “mankind” for “Adam” in the margin. CV has taken the author’s intension more broadly, “Have I covered up my sins like people do by hiding my iniquity in my heart?”

             The Assyrian (and Babylonian) names/posts in 2 Kings 18, Isaiah 20, and Jeremiah 39 we do not understand well, so capitalization is a moot point with some. In 2 Kings 18:17, CV has treated tartan, rabsaris, and rabshakeh (plus rabmag) as Assyrian military designations instead of proper names and so does not capitalize them. They appear in the text respectively as commander-in-chief ^tartan, field commander ^rabsaris, and chief officer ^rabshakeh. The last designation appears also in 2 Kings 18:19, 26, 28, 37; 19:4, 8 and in Isaiah 36:2, 4, 11, 22; 37:4, 8, (9, he). The word tartan, a military post, also appears in Isaiah 20:1;

                        rabsaris appears as well in Jeremiah 39:3a;

                        rabsaris appears as field commander in Jeremiah 39:3 and 13;

                        rabmag is a military post in Jeremiah 39:3;

                        Nergal-sherezer appears as a military position in Jeremiah 39:3b and 13;

                        Shamgar-nebo is entered as a name in Jeremiah 39:3;

                        sarsekim is taken as a descriptor, the king’s advisor, in Jeremiah 39:3.

Punctuation and Accidence Considerations

            The original Hebrew Old Testament text was consonantal (abjad); that is, it had “consonants only.” In the (sixth to) eleventh century A.D., the Jewish Masoretes added “points” to indicate vowel sounds and diacritical markings to show how to pronounce and phrase the text at a time when Hebrew was becoming less well-known in the Jewish masses. Many diacritical marks are conjunctive and disjunctive symbols that show how words are to be “joined to” or “disjoined from” other words. Their effect is something akin to punctuation, but they do not match up very well with English mechanics. Besides, they are not part of the original inspired/canonical text. So, we have added a few notations about how that affects our punctuation choices, because they largely come at a translator’s discretion.

no comma; no way to distinguish restrictive from non-restrictive clause modifiers grammatically: Exodus 4:26

no dash; supplied for asides, for long entries before the main part of a sentence, and for pendens constructions: Deuteronomy 30:1-3; Judges 17:1-2; 1 Samuel 30:31; 2 Samuel 2:9; 11:21; Isaiah 33:15-16

no exclamation mark; In one place we have supplied a double exclamation mark to indicate a prophet’s insincere directive to attack: “Micaiah answered him, ‘Go right on up there! The LORD’s going to deliver it to you!!’” (1 Kings 22:15).

      no parenthesis; supplied for apparent textual asides, the original author’s explanatory comments, or perhaps later redactors’ additions.   

      no brackets; supplied in CV for a few translator’s additions like the [El-Shaddai] entries: Genesis 17:1; 28:3; 35:11: 43:14; 48:3; Exodus 6:3*. In a few cases, we have added our own brackets of explanations within the text: Ecclesiastes 12:3-4.

no quotation marks: a reader can tell from sentence flow where direct discourse begins, but where it closes can be unclear: Genesis 26:28-29; Exodus 3:15; Job 10:2 or 18 or 19 or 22? Isaiah 40:7-8?; Jeremiah 5:13a or b? Habakkuk 2:3 or 8?   

In 2 Samuel 7, does the direct imbedded quotation starting at 7:8 stop at 11a and pick back up at 12-16, or does it continue through 16? If the quotation goes 8-16, then 11b is an example of discontinuity of person, a frequent occurrence in Old Testament texts. But without quotation marks, the structure does not come through clearly. Note also 2 Samuel 14:17; Isaiah 42:4 or 7, or 9?; Jeremiah 20:7-10 or 7-12? Ezekiel 6:11a or 12c?

no bold-face print; supplied to indicate emphasis, draw attention to recurring elements

no underlining: supplied for emphasizing or drawing attention to connections in the text. Verbal equivalency of underlining happens in Deuteronomy 9:4; Isaiah 52:12 (“I even I”); the “as for me” expression can be handled by underlining I.

           Underlining draws attention to lists or aids in proper reading for clarity by showing where contrast lies. Underlining for clarity also draws attention to a list spread across a context.

            Word division does not often create a problem in the Old Testament because, unlike first-century Greek used in the New Testament, Hebrew spaced between words. In Proverbs 30:1b the Masoretic text can be divided to read “I’m weary, God; I’m weary and worn out, God” or “This man declared to Ithiel, to Ithiel and to Ucal.” 

Hebrew’s Verb System

            Hebrew verbs have two “tenses,” completed and uncompleted action. They roughly correspond to past and future, but finer distinctions within “past” and “future” must be inferred from context and experience rather than from verb form, and must be expressed according to English custom of usage. Two or three finer distinctions may make sense. (Participles cover present tense or timeless action.) These “tenses” do not mean all the possible nuances within each category in each instance; they “cover for” situations where such variants could be present without being expressible by variant verb forms. English speakers looking at the perfect and imperfect occurrences want to specialize the usages into what English custom wants to say in those circumstances.

Perfect tense covers for the following:

      simple past (went): “In the beginning God created earth and sky” (Genesis 1:1);

      characteristic past (would go): “He’d go to Gibeon to sacrifice” (1 King 3:4);

      progressive past (was going): “Pharaoh dreamed he was standing by the Nile” (Genesis 41:1; cp. 2 Chronicles 18:11; 23:13; Daniel 6:14?);

      ingressive/inchoative perfect (began to go): “Hagar started disrespecting her mistress” (Genesis 16:4, 5; cp. 41:2; 42:1; Joshua 5:11; Judges 10:8; 15:19; 2 Chronicles 32:23; Ecclesiastes 1:17; Joshua 5:11; Daniel 6:10; 8:15);

      used to (go): “We used to eat free in Egypt” (Numbers 11:5);

      kept (­­­going): “He kept urging Esau” (Genesis 33:11); “Absalom kept urging David” (2 Samuel 13:27);

      emphatic past (did go): “We really did come down to buy food” (Genesis 43:26); “You do see trouble and distress” (Psalm 10:14);

      present perfect (have gone): “My brothers . . . have arrived” (Genesis 46:31);

      stative perfect (had them x): Elijah . . . “had the Baal prophets killed” (1 Kings 18:40);

      past perfect/pluperfect (had gone): “which Abraham had bought from Ephron” (Genesis 50:13); cp. Exodus 11:9; 2 Kings 9:14, 29; Isaiah 38:21, 22

      conative past (tried to go): “You’re trying to destroy a city” (2 Samuel 20:19); cp. Genesis 37:35; 39:19; Exodus 2:15; 8:18; Deuteronomy 13:10; 1 Samuel 17:39; 19:10; 2 Samuel 21:5; 1 Kings 11:40; Ezra 4:4; Nehemiah 4:5; Esther 2:21; 3:6; 6:2; 9:2; Job 31:5; Psalm 40:5; 54:3; 73:16; 78:36; Psalm 119:42; Proverbs 10:24; 12:21; 23:4; Ecclesiastes 2:3; Isaiah 22:3; Jeremiah 2:3; 6:14?; 26:21; 51:9; Daniel 6:4, 14; Micah 5:6;  Zechariah 12:3; Malachi 2:12?);

      prophetic perfect, where a future event is treated as so certain that it is worded as having happened: Genesis 15:19; 35:12; Numbers 21:34; Deuteronomy 3:2; Joshua 1:3; 2:9; 6:2; 5:16; 8:1; 10:19; Judges 1:2; 3:28; 4:14; 7:9, 14, 15; 18:10; 1 Samuel 14:10, 12; 23:4; 2 Samuel 5:24?; 1 Kings 3:12, 13; Isaiah 15:1-4; 34:2; Ezekiel 32:20.

      Adjustments like those above can color the text in perhaps unintended ways. 1 Samuel 1:3 has David saying to the man that reported Saul’s death, “Where have you come from?” The same question in Job 1:7; 2:2, CV renders, “Where’d you come from?” So worded, it implies Satan did not particularly belong there.

Imperfect tense covers for the following:

      simple future (will go), “Many women . . . will carry out judgments on you” (Ezekiel 16:41); progressive future (will be going), “Everyone is accursed that does not continue to obey everything” (Deuteronomy 27:26, imperfect hiphil); 

      future perfect (will have gone); “God will have gone out ahead of you” (1 Chronicles 14:15; see also Zephania 3:11);

      conative future (will try to go): “Any prophet will die that tries to speak in my name” (Deuteronomy 18:20; Psalm 4:2; Zechariah 13:3);

      emphatic future (will go): “Whatever I say will happen soon” (Ezekiel 12:28?);

      tendential future: “The fears of the wicked tend to be fulfilled” (Proverbs 10:24; cp. 12:21). Many proverbs could have the “tend to” auxiliary added by virtue of the nature of what a proverb is: a generality or tendency to be remembered instead of a prediction or uniform promise.

                  imperatival future (the Ten Commandments; frequent, as in Genesis 17:10, 12; 21:30; 2 Chronicles 19:9). Everyday English rarely uses it now. If it does, it carries emphasis—as in the example. “You will stay home this evening, Johnnie” gets restated with the future command form “going to __”: “You are too going to stay home this evening.” CV typically renders as command forms what are apparently imperatival futures.

No Vowels

Vowel points and matres lectionis were added to the original consonantal Hebrew text. The first set indicates vowel sounds; the second set was an early use of some consonants to indicate a few of the vowel sounds (א ו י ה). That lack of pointing famously comes up in discussing the meaning of Genesis 1:1-2. Does it read, “In the beginning, God created earth and sky, and the earth was . . . ” (cp. LXX)? Or does it mean, “In the beginning of God’s creating earth and sky, (that) the earth was . . . ” (cp. TEV, 1976).

Having no written Hebrew vowels may explain variant spellings of some names: Joshua’s father (Nun in Joshua 1:1, etc., but Non in 1 Chronicles 7:27); Hiram (1 Kings 5:18) and Huram (2 Chronicles 2:2) as well as Malcom/Milcom (Jeremiah 49:1, 3; 1 Kings 11:8), Addan/Addon (Nehemiah 7:61; Ezra 2:59), and a host of other examples.

Smaller Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary

A smaller vocabulary calls for some words to cover a wider range of meaning than the closest English word: river-stream-creek-canal-wadi (intermittent flow), prophesy/prophecy-predict-exhort-speak-for-another(-act in a vigorous manner?), fear-respect, heal-[general remedy physically, politically, ceremonially, morally], father-ancestor/originator, God/god-[powerful ones-leaders-judges], son-descendant-[one like something]-[one-derived from something]. Spirit/spirit-wind, ground-dirt-region-world, ocean-sea-lake-pond-lagoon—to name some prominent ones. Hebrew compensates for its smaller vocabulary by circumlocutions, as do all languages when they lack a precise term for a precise point. All languages suffice for the communication needs within their culture, so there is no implication here that one language is better than another—as if English were better than Hebrew. In the case of the Old Testament, the hearer-reader must rely on context and the nature of the case to express its intended meaning in English. The original readers would have done the same thing in interpretation as we have to do in translation.

Textual Variants

            Many textual differences exist between the standardized Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint Greek text (LXX), the Syriac, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and individual manuscripts of various books. A few especially significant variants are the following:

            Psalm 40:6: “You pierced/opened my ears” (MT) vs. “You gave me a body” (LXX); note Hebrews 10:5 < LXX.

            Also note in 2 Chronicles 25:28: CV has David instead of Judah to agree with the more likely reading in 2 Kings 14:20, “The City of David.”

Omission of the Linking Verb

“Your throne (is) God” or “Your throne, O God,” said of the Son according to Hebrew 1:8 < Psalm 45:6 (45:7 in the Hebrew text); hence, an affirmation of the deity of the Son in the New Testament, while the original Hebrew is technically ambiguous because its verb is unexpressed. (Vocative and predicate nominative form would be the same.) Cp. in contrast the force of היה in Exodus 3:14 vs. its lack in Exodus 3:6 and how that point plays out in Jesus’ argument from 3:6 against the Sadducees (Matthew 22:31-33; Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-39: “is” of identity vs. time).

Elative for Superlative

In Jeremiah 25:32, CV has worded the text as elative rather than superlative because the Babylonian empire, though distant, was not the “most distant” area to the north, as the text is often translated: a great storm is brewing from the very remote parts of the earth.

Mechanics in Written English

Abbreviations

measurements (without a period and sometimes without a space before the unit: ft, in; see Exodus 25:10, 23; 26:13; Ezekiel 40-48, etc.)

Bold Type

book titles (all caps)    

listings

the plagues in Egypt: Exodus 6:8-11:10

                        David’s mighty men: 2 Samuel 23:8-39

the judges during the judgeship period: Judges 3:9 (Othniel), 15 (Ehud), 31 (Shamgar); 4:4 (Deborah), 6 (Barak); 6:11 (Gideon), 10:1 (Tola), 3 (Jair); 11:1 (Jephthah); 12:1 (Ibzan), 11 (Elon), 13 (Abdon); 13:24 (Samson); 1 Samuel 3:19 (Samuel).

dated prophesies and major chronological notations within narratives

Genesis 7:11, 17; 8:3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14; Exodus 12:41; 16:1; 19:1; 40:1; Numbers 9:1; 10:11; 33:38; Deuteronomy 1:3; 1 Kings 6:1, 37, 38; 14:25; 15:1, 9, 25, 33; 16:8, 10, 15, 29; 22:2, 41, 51; 2 Kings 1:17; 3:1; 8:16, 25; 9:29; 11:4; 12:1, 6; 13:1, 10; 14:1, 23; 15:1, 8, 13, 23, 27, 32; 16:1; 17:1, 6; 18:1, 9, 10, 13; 24:12; 25:1, 2, 3, 8, 25, 27; 2 Chronicles 3:2; 7:10; 12:1; 13:1; 15:10; 16:1, 12; 17:7; 29:3, 17; 34:3, 8; 36:22 = Ezra 1:1; 3:3, 6, 8; 4:23; 5:13; 6:3, 15, 19; 7:1, 9; 10:0, 16, 17; Nehemiah 1:1, 2; 6:15; 8:1, 14; 9:1; 13:6; Esther 1:1; 2:16; 3:7, 12, 13; 9:1, 14, 17, 21; Isaiah 7:1; 14:28; 36:1; Jeremiah 1:2-3; 25:1, 3; 27:1; 28:1; 32:1; 34:1, 8; 35:1; 36:1, 9; 39:1, 2; 41:1; 45:1; 46:2; 51:59; 52:4, 6, 12, 31; Ezekiel 1:1-2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; Daniel 1:1, 21; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1; Haggai 1:1, 15; 2:1, 18, 20; Zechariah 1:1, 7; 7:1

genealogical entries (to highlight or connect with a recurrent name; indentation maps extensive genealogical listing to help the eye trace through the listing). Genealogical interest lay in its being the basis for inheriting land and possessions, the offices of priest and king, tracing strictures on descendants of certain ancestors like an illegitimate son: a Moabite or Ammonite could not enter the LORD’s assembly for ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:2-3), and an Edomite for three (Deuteronomy 23:8; Amalekite as well). Citizenship was conferred automatically by lineage unless deliberate action took place to the contrary (“The older will serve the younger” in the case of Jacob and Esau).

headings sometimes: added topical labels supplied to aid navigating through complex material

      chapter numbers (enlarged);

verse numbers (superscripted),

repeated content in nearby entries: Exodus 29:13-34 repeats; Numbers 24:3-4 = 15-16; Deuteronomy 27:15-26 repeats; 1 Kings 19:10 =14; 36:22-23 = Ezra 1:1-3; Job 1:1 = 8 = 2:3; Psalm 8:1 = 9 bookends; 18:20 = 24; ; 24:7-8a = 9-10a; 42:3, 5 = 10b-11 and 43:5; 46:7 = 11; 62:2 = 6; 67:3 = 5; 80:3 = 7 = 19; 103:1a = 2a; 20a = 21a = 22a; 104:1 = 35b bookends; 104:35 = 105:45 = 106:1 = 48 bookends [Hallelujahs]; 107:6, 8 = 13, 15 = 19, 21 = 21 =28; 111:1 = 112:1 = 113:1 = 9 = 115:9 = 10 = 11; 111:4 = 112:3 = 9 = 115:18 = 116:18 = 117:2; 115:9 = 10 = 11 = 118:1 = 2 = 3 = 4; 118:1b, 2b, 3b, 4b = 20b; 119:154b = 156b = 159b; 135:1 = 21 bookends [Hallelujah]; 118:10 = 11 = 12 = 29; 119:154 = 156 = 159; 135:135; 135:19² = 20² = 21; 136 (antiphonal 1 per verse); 146:10 = 147:1 = 20 = 148:1 = 14 = 149:1= 10 = 150:1 = 6 bookends; Song of Solomon 4:9 = 10 = 12 = 5:1 = 2 (”my sister, my bride”); Isaiah 2:10 = 19 = 21; 5:25 = 9:12 = 17 = 21 = 10:4; 18:2 = 7; 28:10 = 13; 44:6 = 45:5 = 6 = 14 = 18 + 21² = 22 = 46:9; Jeremiah 6:12-15 = 8:10-12; 49:19-20 = 50:44-45; 51:11b = 12b; Ezekiel 18:9 = 17; 19:3 = 6; 24:6 = 9; Daniel 4:15-17 = 24, 25-26 = 32; Amos 1:3-4 = 6-7 = 9-10 = 11-12 = 13-14 = 2:1-2 = 3-5; 4:6b = 8b = 9b = 10b =11b; 7:2-3 = 5-6.

            What appear to be bookends or markers are often left in place as stylistic literary form: Genesis 17:19 + 21; 24:12 + 14 (“master”); Numbers 1:2-16; 2 Chronicles 33:2 + 9 bookends;

Southern Kingdom rulers after the Northern Kingdom begins 

            Northern Kingdom rulers have underlining. The narratives move back and forth between the two kingdoms, and some names occur in both king lists.

types of offerings: Leviticus 2:1; 3:1; 4:3

Brackets

      omitted verses: [^#] (or [^#] in direct discourse)

      translator’s explanatory additions as in name meanings not supplied in the original:

                  Genesis 35:11: God Almighty [El-shaddai]

                  Exodus 17:15: The LORD Is My Banner [Yahveh-nissi]

                  Jeremiah 32:18: The LORD of Hosts [Yahveh-Tsivaot]

                  Jeremiah 33:16: The LORD Is Our Goodness [Yahveh-Tsidekenu]

                  Ezekiel 48:35: The LORD Is There [Yahveh-shammah]

Capitalization (American rather than British spelling when they differ)

LORD in all capitals covers for God’s personal name, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה, vocalized something like “Yahveh” in modern Hebrew pronunciation). The name not to be used as a byword became the ineffable name at least a couple hundred years before the Christian Era. The Hebrew vowel points for Lord replace it in the Qere, the reading actually said out loud. In cases where the Hebrew word for “Lord” (אדני) happens to appear in front of the Tetragrammaton in the Kitib (what is written) the Qere becomes “Lord GOD.” In written form, the vowel points for “God” (אֱלֹהִים) are attached to the Tetragrammaton to remind the reader to say “Lord GOD.” That avoids saying in Hebrew “the Lord LORD.” We have followed English convention in writing LORD (caps) for the more usual circumstance and “Lord GOD” (capital and lower capital + all caps) for the second. The vowel points of אֱלֹהִים applied to the Tetragrammaton יהוה lie behind the blended “non-word” Jehovah that has become popular over the years in certain circumstances. That term does not appear in CV. The Yahveh Covenant is a form of the Old Testament that reproduces the Old Testament part of The Conversational Version, but allows the personal name of God stand in the text (found also on the christir.org website).

Nouns referring to deity are not capitalized unless they are used as proper nouns: not for “the creator,” “the angel of the LORD” (despite accompanying deific descriptors in some passages).

Nouns understood in the New Testament as referring to the Messiah and then taken as deific references are not necessarily capitalized in the Old Testament text cited (where they still look forward without fulfillment to clarify: associate (Zechariah 13:7); branch (Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; 60:21?; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15), King (Psalm 2:6); Ruler (Micah 5:2); servant (52:13; 53:11); shepherd (Ezekiel 34:23-24; Zechariah 13:7; ); son (Psalm 2:7, 12); stone (Psalm 118:22); cornerstone (Psalm 118:22; Isaiah 28:16); Messiah/Anointed One (Psalm 2:2); Messiah (capitalized in Daniel 9:25-26 as an obvious proper name); capitalized in reference to God in Psalm 80:1; Ecclesiastes 12:11). Those terms have also not usually been capitalized in the New Testament part of The Conversational Version.  

Pronouns that refer to the Judaeo-Christian deity are not capitalized, as per contemporary English practice. Previous custom often capitalized even indefinite, relative, indefinite relative, intensive, and reflexive pronouns along with personal pronouns. But we have capitalized the indefinite pronoun One for clarity’s sake.

      place designations taken as proper nouns. See list under “Hebrew Ambiguities” above.

      spirit capitalized in reference to deity; otherwise, lower case. The choice represents a translator’s judgment call. See supra under Hebrew Ambiguities and spirit below under Individual Words.

Colon

      used before long direct quotations or in phraseology meaning “that is.”

Comma

      for non-restrictive clauses. Restrictive clauses are not set off with commas in modern English.

      used ahead of shorter direct discourse

used ahead of appositional or (Ezekiel 45:14)

used the serial comma/Oxford comma, that is, a comma between the last two items in a list with or without and: Malachi 3:5. CV often omits and between the last two entries of lists; the effect implies the representative rather than complete nature of the listing.

reduced usage around appositives, especially if class precedes particular: his father Kish vs. Kish, his father. When class precedes particular, it has the feel of an adjective, and so does not seem to require a comma to separate the two. Like class, adjectives are typically broader than the particulars they modify. Most times in the format “x son-of y” CV has not added the comma of apposition because of the custom of using son-of as if it were a double name. David son of Jesse in the Yahveh adaptation, for example, becomes David Ben-Jesse. Cp Simon Bar-Jonah (John 1:42). A similar construction appears with “x of y”: Gibeah of Saul (1 Samuel 11:4).

not used between clauses if the subjects are the same—unless the clauses are long or have internal and’s that blur the grouping of the words (Leviticus 7:34). Conversely, we have used commas between clauses with different subjects unless they are especially short.        

Contractions (see supra Changes in Modern English)

Dashes (reduced usage to eliminate several pendens constructions)

Genesis 2:19, etc.

      used with an aposiopesis in Genesis 3:22

      left in several other places: Genesis 3:22; 24:14; Leviticus 24:4; Numbers 2:1-31; 2 Samuel 21:5; Proverbs 6:10; Isaiah 56:4-5; Amos 5:8

Ellipses: used in Genesis 3:22; 27:33; and Jeremiah 44:26; Amos 6:10

Exclamation Mark

      supplied at translator’s discretion

Hyphens

The Conversational Version hyphenates all En- [“fountain/spring”] names (except for Enaim/Enam): En-harod (Judges 7:1), En-dor, En-eglaim, En-gannim, En-gedi, En-haddah, En-hakkore, En-hazor, En-mishpat, En-rimmon, En-rogel (vs. Enrogel), En-shemesh, and En-tappuah.

            CV hyphenates all the Beth- names [“house of”] (except for Bethel and Bethlehem by convention), especially because they otherwise get rather long: Beth-abara, Beth-anath, Beth-anoth, Beth-arabah, Beth-aram/Beth-haram, Beth-arbel, Beth-aven, Beth-azmaveth, Beth-baalmeon, Beth-ashbea (1 Chronicles 4:21), Beth-barah, Beth-birei, Beth-car, Beth-dagon, Beth-diblathaim, Beth-eden (Amos 1:5), Beth-eked, Beth-emek, Beth-ezel, Beth-gader, Beth-gamul, Beth-gilgal, Beth-haccerem (Nehemiah 3:14), Beth-haran, Beth-hoglah, Beth-horon, Beth-leaphrah, Beth-lebaoth, Beth-lejeshimoth/Beth-jesimoth, Beth-maachah, Beth-marcaboth, Beth-meon, Beth-millo, Beth-nimrah, Beth-palet/Beth-phelet, Beth-pazzez, Beth-peor, Beth-rapha, Beth-rehob, Beth-shan/Beth-shean, Beth-shemesh, Beth-shitta, Beth-tappua/Beth-tappuah, Beth-togarmah, Beth-zur,

            The other hyphenated names have also been allowed to stand even if they have familiar lead-ins: Baal-, Beer-, Ben- (except for Benjamin by convention), El- (“god of”), Lo- (“not), Ir- (“city of”), Ish- (“man/husband of”), Kir-, Kiriath-. The part after the hyphen has lower case. The formidable list of conventionally hyphenated place and personal names is as follows:

            Abel-beth-maacaah, Abel-keramin, Abel-maim, Abel-meholah, Abi-albon, Adami-nekeb, Adoni-bezek, Aram-maacah, Aram-naharaim, Aram-zobah, Ataroth-addar, Atroth-beth-joab, Aznoth-tabor, Baal-berith, Baal-hazor, Baal-meon, Baal-gal, Baal-hermon, Baal-peor, Baal-perazim, Baal-shalishah, Baal-tamar, Baal-zebub, Balale-judah, Baaleth-beer, Bamoth-baal, Bath-rabbim, Beer-elim, Be-eshterah, Bene-berak, Bor-ashan, Ben-hail, Caleb-ephratah, Chephar-ammoni, Col-hozeh, Cushan-rishathaim, Dan-jaan, Ebed-melech, Eglath-shelishiyah, Emek-keziz, Ephes-dammim, Esar-haddon, Eth-kazin, Evil-merodach, Ezion-geber, Gath-hepher, Gath-rimmon, Ge-harashim, Gibeah-elohim, Gur-baal, Hadah-rimmon, Hamath-zobah, Hammoth-dor, Hamon-gog, Harosheth-hagoyim, Hash-baddanah, Havvoth-jair, Hazar-enon, Hazar-shual, Hazar-susah, Hazar-susim, Hazazon-tamar, Helkath-hazzurim, Huram-abi, Ishbe-benob, Ish-bosheth, Jaare-oregim, Jabesh-gilead, Jashubi-lehem, Josheb-basshbeth, Jushad-hesed, Kadesh-barnea, Keren-happuch, Kir-hareseth, Kir-heres, Kiriath-arba, Kiriath-baal, Kiriath-sannah, Kiriath-sepher, Lebo-hamath, Lev-kamai, Lo-ammi, Lo-debar, Lo-ruhamah, Mahaneh-dan, Mahar-shalal-hash-baz, Malchi-shua, Me-jarkon, Meribath-kadesh, Merib-baal, Merodach-baladan, Migdal-el, Misrehoth-maim, Muth-labben, Naphath-dor, Nathan-melech, Nergal-sar-ezer, Obed-edom, Pahath-moab, Perez-uzzah, Pi-beseth, Pochereth-hazzebaim, Rab-mag, Rab-osaris, Ramoth-gilead, Ramathaim-zophin, Ramath-mizpeh, Regem-melech, Romanti-ezer, Sar-sekim, Sha-alabbin, Shamgar-nebu, Shear-jashub, Shethar-bozenai, Shihor-libnath, Shimron-meron, Succoth-benoth, Taanath-shiloh, Tel-abib, Tel-harsha, Tel-melah, Tiglath-peleser, Tiglath-pilneser, Timnath-heres, Timnath-serah, Uzzen-sheerah, Zereth-Shahar,

Italics

      direct discourse, including quotation marks

added words for clarification when not in the Hebrew text; (non-italicized if added in italicized material). We could not be entirely consistent in this practice because the conversational wording significantly departs the word-for-word Hebrew original.

      Titles of resources cited by Old Testament writers

                  a.   The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)

            b.   The Book of Jashur (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18; and possibly in the Septuagint at 1 Kings 8:53)

                  c.   The Book of the Acts (ספר דברי) of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)

d.   The Chronicles (ספר דברי הימים) of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, 31)

e.   The Chronicles (ספר דברי הימים) of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29; cp. 15:7, 23, 31; 22:45 [46]; 2 Kings 8:23; 12:19 [20]; 14: 18; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20 [25]; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5)

            f.    The Chronicles (ספר) of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1; 2 Chronicles 33:18 [דברי]; same as preceding?)

                  g.   The Chronicles (דברי) of Samuel the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29)

                  h.   The Chronicles (דברי) of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29)

                  i.    The Chronicles of King David (2 Chronicles 27:24)

                  j.    The Prophecy (נבואת) of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles 9:29)

                  k.   The Chronicles (דברי) of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chronicles 9:29)

                  l.    The Visions (חזות) of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29)

                  m.  The Chronicles (דברי) of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15)

n.   [The Chronicles (דברי)] of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 12:15; a dual-authorship work with the preceding prophet?)

            o.   The Account (מדרש) of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22; same as the preceding?)

                  p.   The Book (ספר) of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26)

q.   The Chronicles (דברי) of Jehu Son of Hanani (inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel; 2 Chronicles 20:34)

r.    The Commentary (מדרש) of the Book of the Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27; 35:27; 36:8); note the writing of Elijah (2 Chronicles 21:12).

            s.   The Vision (חזון) of Isaiah the Prophet Son of Amoz (2 Chronicles 32:32; = the canonical book?)

                  t.    The Chronicles (דברי) of the Kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:18)

                  u.   The Lamentations (קינות) (2 Chronicles 35:25; = the canonical book?)

                  v.   The Book of Chronicles (ספר דברי הימים) (Nehemiah 12:23; Esther 2:23; 6:2)

                  w.  The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia (ספר דברי הימים למלכי מדיס;                                   Esther 10:2; cp. 9:32?)

                  x.   The Law of the LORD (2 Chronicles 35:27)

Tune names in the introductions of 21 Psalms scattered across Psalms 8-88: 8, 9 (also 9:16), 12, 22, 39, 45, 46, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 69, 75, 77, 80, 81, 84, 88, and 1 Chronicles 15:21; Habakkuk 3:1

In some cases, CV takes the liberty of putting an italicized name in place of an at-first ambiguous pronoun reference (as with proleptic pronouns—pronouns given before the noun they replace).

For variant forms of some names, we have entered both side by side with a slash between them and italicized the one not in the current text: Joram/Jehoram (2 Kings 8:23); Joram/Jehoram (2 Chronicles 22:5-11), etc.

For clarification to avoid contradiction with materials elsewhere: “visit the consequences of parents’ sins on their descendants” (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9) to avoid contradiction with the dictum that guilt and punishment are personal to the individual that does the sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:4, 17-20).

words used as words

Page Layout

Direct discourse of three lines or more is indented from both margins (Genesis 7:1-4).

Indentation patterns at various levels assist the eye in seeing relationships in genealogies.

            The patterns of indentations in poetic portions reflect the translator’s judgment about content relationships: Moses’ Song of Triumph (Exodus 15:1-18), The Song of Deborah (Judges 5); Hannah’s “Prayer of Thanksgiving” (1 Samuel 2:1-10); David’s “Psalm of Praise” (2 Samuel 22:2-51); “David’s Last Words” (2 Samuel 23:107); the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, extensive portions of the prophets. Whether a portion is poetry is itself something of a judgment call. Hebrew poetry has conceptual parallelism but not rhyme scheme or meter, which makes poetry less distinct from prose. Parallelism can occur in more prosaic portions that by custom of usage use double entry of various sorts. It makes spontaneous poetry a conceivable possibility: Note Hannah’s “Song of Thanksgiving” (1 Samuel 2:1-10), which is comparable to Mary’s “The Magnificat” (Luke 1:46-55), Zacharius’ “Benedictus” (Luke 1:68-79), and others like Simeon’s “Nunc dimittis” (Luke 2:29-32).

Line changes sometimes suffice for speaker changes in dialogues without using introductory remarks for the second speaker (1 Samuel 14:6, 7; 2 Kings 1-2; 2 Chronicles 18:4-27). Oral public reading needs to use voice inflection and pausing to clarify the change.

Empty lines for major breaks in the text are translation choices.

Empty lines appear before and after written documents reproduced in the text: 2 Kings 10:1-4, 6; 2 Chronicles 2:11-17; 21:12-15; 30:6-9, 17; 36:22-23 = Ezra 1:1-4; 4:11-16, 17-22; 5:6-17; 6:2-12; 7:11-26; Nehemiah 6:6-7