Much-needed help in simple translation as part of my conversion process

[squaferno]

I am getting very close to converting to Christianity, and there may be a translation that would really help me.

I am doubting that the final editors of Ezra-Nehemiah knew their history. (As a reference to a time close to the editing, Josephus and the Jewish Talmud show an understanding of history that isn’t true). So far, I am not satisfied by any solution I’ve read about in the much-debated chronology of Ezra-Nehemiah. But perhaps an alternative translation in Ezra will solve my problem.

I don’t know any Hebrew - so that’s where you come in.

English translators of the Old Testament seem to use vowels in the Masoretic Text and to use the Greek translation of the Septuagint, but I am seeking a translation of the Hebrew without the Hebrew vowels, because they were added later. (The Septuagint translation isn’t always correct.)

I read that the word עד can be translated as either ‘until’ or ‘during’. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/05705.html

Here is the Hebrew text that I’m looking at: https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-bible/ezra/4.html

In Ezra 4:5 - WITHOUT THE HEBREW VOWELS - could it possibly be translated as: ‘hired counselors against them to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, and even DURING the reign of Darius king of Persia’ ??

And then in Ezra 4:24, without the vowels, could a possible translation be: ‘and it ceased DURING the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia’ ??

Since I want to focus on the translation, I will write a comment about my doubts of the whole chronology after my question has been answered.

 

[MT1926]

Hi and welcome,

Your post spurred my interest. I wish I could give you the answer you are looking for but I don’t know Hebrew either.

However, your questions left me wondering. What change in meaning does it make if the word is translated as during or until? When I read the text both verse convey the same meaning regardless of which word I use?

The reason I ask is because the one think I was taught is that in the Bible the word “until” doesn’t necessarily denote a change is going to occur after the time specified.

So basically in verse 5 if we read… “UNTIL” the reign of Darius… all it would be telling us is up to the reign of Darius the “counselors frustrated their purpose”. Once his reign began the until doesn’t automatically denote a change. Therefore, their purpose could still be frustrated during his reign as well. So either word gives me the same thought process.

Now in verse 24 it actually seems to make more sense if we would use the word until, which could still mean it remained ceased during Darius’ reign.

When I read verse 24 it tells us the work had already stopped. Then it goes onto say it ceased during the second year. When I read this it makes it sound like it stopped then started then stopped again. But if we use the word until it makes it sound like it continued to be stopped, but doesn’t really say whether it restarted or not. Which would mean it could still be stopped during his reign.

Not sure if this helps or not.

I hope someone else can answer better than I did. I’m really interested to see how this change can impact the text.

God Bless

 

[BartholomewB]

I read that the word עד can be translated as either ‘until’ or ‘during’. Strong's #05705 - עַד - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org

Is this a question about language or about history? If it’s about language, then the word ad (עַד) , meaning either “until” or “during”, is always spelled the same way, with the same vowel sign, a patach. With or without the vowel sign, it’s the same word.

If your question is about history – that is, if you’re hoping to use Ezra to work out exactly when the Temple was rebuilt, when work stopped and later restarted – I suspect you’re looking for something that isn’t there. I don’t think Ezra is concerned, in these verses, with providing such detailed information about the dating.

 

[squaferno]

I’m trying to use language to figure out the chronology. Inconsistencies seem to be pointing to a bad editor, which made me doubt divine inspiration.

If it is translated as ‘until’ in the verses of my original post, then the temple would not have been finished until the reign of Darius II (and not Darius I), because before him was Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I (Ezra 4; Ezra 7:1).

But there are problems with this:

1. The Jews would have remembered that Jerusalem went over a hundred years without a proper temple, but we see in John 2:20 they believed that rebuilding the temple took only 46 years.
2. I read somewhere that, usually, once a Persian king made a decree it was frowned upon to be reversed, and so in Ezra 4 Artaxerxes I specified that ceasing was to be made until he made another command (Ezra 4:21). Therefore, this is foreshadowing of either the decree in Ezra 7 or the command in Nehemiah 2. But Ezra came AFTER the temple was completed under a Darius (I or II) (Ezra 7:1).
3. If Nehemiah went to Jerusalem under the command Artaxerxes I, frustration in building was unlikely during the reign of Darius II (as seen in Ezra 5 under one of the two Darius in question) because Nehemiah had already built the walls around the city (Nehemiah 6:15). Why would Darius have to order Jerusalem’s enemies to keep away (Ezra 6:6)?
4. Nehemiah 12:26 says that Nehemiah was still governor when Ezra was present. As the next verse suggests that this was near the time of the dedication of the wall, Ezra was unlikely to have come under Artaxerxes II because Nehemiah built the walls under Artaxerxes I in just 52 days (Nehemiah 6:15).
5. Ezra 6:14 says that the order of decrees were of Cyrus, the Darius, then Artaxerxes. But Artaxerxes’ decree was not in Nehemiah 2 (as it was simply a letter granting Nehemiah’s request), but in Ezra 7:13,21. Therefore, the foreshadowing mentioned above (Ezra 4:21) was fulfilled by Artaxerxes I, by Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem.

My solution in translating the verses in the original post as ‘during’ rather than ‘until’ is so that Ezra 4 has a list of frustrations under Cyrus, then Darius I, then Xerxes I, then Artaxerxes I. Then (remembering that verse numbers were added later), verse 24 uses a comparative transition back to the reign of Darius I. If this was all chronological throughout the book of Ezra, it is unnecessary for Ezra 7:1 to suddenly specify, 'after this’, during the reign of Artaxerxes. This is evidence that chapters 5 and 6 are a flashback, for lack of a better word.

This translation of ‘during’ in Ezra 4:5,24 would solve the inconsistencies, and would make me much more closer to converting to Christianity because of the Daniel 9 prophecy and the traditional year of Jesus’ crucifixion (topics for another day, of course.)

 

[squaferno]

Hopefully I answered your question in another comment that I just wrote in this thread.

You seem to know your Hebrew well. I’d just like to be certain, do the words surrounding ‘ad’ in verses 5 and 24 fit with the necessary Hebrew tenses for a possible translation to be ‘during’?

 

[FiveLinden]

If your conversion depends on literal inerrancy of biblical editing then you may have a difficult time! Do you read Bart Ehrman? As I understand it the Catholic Church puts equal emphasis on tradition and scripture, which does away with these concerns.

 

[LittleFlower]

Ezra 4:5

If I am after the Hebrew version of OT texts I usually go to Chabad.org who have all of that online, with Rashi’s commentary.

Ezra - Chapter 4

Their text:

And they would hire advisors against them to frustrate their plan, all the days of Cyrus, the king of Persia, and until the kingdom of Darius, the king of Persia.

Rashi’s commentary:

And they would hire: Heb. וְסֹכְרִים. This is written with a “sammech,” but its meaning is as though it was written with a “sin,” [meaning] that they would hire advisors to disrupt the work.

all the days of: the reign of Cyrus and the reign of Ahasuerus, who reigned after Cyrus, until the second year of Darius, who reigned after Ahasuerus, the work was stopped.

 

[Kei]

Please don’t refer to Bart Ehrman as a credible source.

 

[squaferno]

By my understanding Ezra-Nehemiah are supposed to be inspired, and they were edited, and the current form is supposed to be inspired.

However, the verse numbers that were added even later are merely to reference the place. Vowels were also added after the current form of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in my view are not inspired, yet at the same time do have weight of tradition, but not infallibility.

 

[BartholomewB]

Squaferno.―I’m not sure about the tenses of the Hebrew verbs. I’m a bit out of my depth there. All the translations I’ve seen go for the preposition “until” in these two verses, but whether they base that choice on strictly grammatical considerations, such as verb tenses, or whether it’s just what seems to make the best sense, I don’t know.

John 2:20 refers to Herod’s rebuilding project, not Zerubabbel’s. Work began on Herod’s Temple in either 20 or 19 BC, so that when “the Jews” are questioning Jesus sometime in the twenties AD, they are making the point that building work has being going on for 46 years so far. In fact Herod’s Temple was not finally completed until more than thirty years later, when Albinus was governor.

That is the standard explanation given in the commentaries I’ve seen, though what “the Jews” seem to be saying in Greek is that it took 46 years overall to build the Temple, from start to finish. The usual explanation of the discrepancy is that the author of the Fourth Gospel, or a later copyist, misunderstood his original source.

 

[FiveLinden]

Please don’t refer to Bart Ehrman as a credible source

I will, because he is. He makes careful and expert observations, states his conclusions and changes his mind when new facts appear or when he realises he is wrong. He has no religious argument to peddle and cars not a jot what others choose to believe. But he challenges them if they make claims about scripture that are not supported by evidence. That’s the very definition of a credible source.

 

[po18guy]

In conversion, a point to be made: As John the Baptist said “He must increase. I must decrease.” And so it is with each of us. We disagree with many things, especially Christianity, as it opposes our human nature. We are adopted as sons and daughters of God - not by force, but by submission.

It is safer to assume that you are incorrect (or misunderstand) than to question a document written under inspiration thousands of years ago - and which has been studied and studied and studied, dissected and analyzed ever since.

When you pray, pray for illumination on the book.

 

[squaferno]

I have read Bart Ehrman. His arguments are problems for some protestants, but not Catholics. Some protestants are obsessed with trying to find the original texts of the Bible. But a reason I would be okay with converting to Roman Catholicism is because it teaches that God works with humanity with scripture, and that back in classical times there was not the same attitude towards original texts as today. Textual variants are handled by tradition. The Catholic Church even calls today’s attitude towards original texts as a ‘superstition’. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/where-are-the-original-scriptures

One might object, arguing that God should have a better standard: today’s standard of preservation. However, even if that was the attitude of the time, by now there would be even more progress in the debate of standards of writing. God could always go one step better. But he is working with humanity in authorship.

 

[po18guy]

DURING the reign of Darius king of Persia’ ??
And then in Ezra 4:24, without the vowels, could a possible
translation be: ‘and it ceased DURING the second year of the reign of
Darius king of Persia’ ??

I would not over-think this. We know from the prologue to Sirach that the Hebrew language is highly nuanced and loses meaning when translated. Reading and reflecting on this ancient wisdom will be helpful.

Excerpt from the Prologue to Sirach

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent[a]
in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem
to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally
expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated
into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the
prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally
expressed.

Those who speak English are limited, not only by the written form, but also by the fact that they think in English. Not so the ancient writers. To me, “During” does in no way indicate that it perdured throughout the reign of Darius, only that it was present for a time - partially, in other words.

In no way would I ever make this a stumbling block in my relationship with God.

 

[Kei]

Er…no, that’s simply not true. He clearly has a bias, and many biblical scholars disagree with him on many things.

That’s not to say all. He has made fair judgements, but by far I would not say he is credible.
I base this off of how other Biblical scholars have handled him.

Am I too hard on him, could it be his foibles are simple foibles and not purposeful? Perhaps, but he seems to have been “broken” by his fundamentalist upbringing, in a sense. Pray for him

 

[squaferno]

To me, “During” does in no way indicate that it perdured throughout the reign of Darius, only that it was present for a time

With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand my problem.

 

[squaferno]

Ok, I think that po18guy actually helped me out.

I had previously rejected a solution by apologists that Ezra 4:6-24a is a parenthesis, because verse 24 seemed unnatural. But now my thinking has begun to change.

In classical times, languages seemed to use the word ‘until’ in a different way to us. For example, see https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-case-for-marys-perpetual-virginity

Chronology had little emphasis in classical times, (as seen by the most obvious example being that Ezra-Nehemiah is a non-chronological book).

‘Until’ in Ezra 4:5 implied that it is going to be written about. Then in verse 6 we see a transition. Then verse 24 seems to be a potential transition of comparison. This supports the explanation that it is a parenthesis. The word translated as ‘ceased’ can also be translated as ‘hindered’. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/levattala_989.htm

Besides evidence for this that was already mentioned by me…

Work did not cease until (in our sense of the word) Darius. It was brought back with the command by Artaxerxes, to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2). This is seen in the foreshadowing of another command (Ezra 4:21). I’m now thinking that Artaxerxes did not trust Jerusalem, but he did trust Nehemiah, and so he made him governor of the city.

Under Cyrus, the building process was frustrated (Ezra 4:4), but under Artaxerxes I it was the ‘work’ (Ezra 4:24). There was an order for beautification of the temple in Ezra 7, because it seems that it had already been finished under Darius I Ezra 6). It seems that Artaxerxes was unsure about Jerusalem because he sent Ezra to make inquiries. Ezra 4:12 even says that Jews have come ‘from you [Artaxerxes]’. Then the letter in Ezra 4 tries to convince the unsure king that Jerusalem is rebellious.

 

[FiveLinden]

I have read Bart Ehrman. His arguments are problems for some protestants, but not Catholics. Some protestants are obsessed with trying to find the original texts of the Bible. But a reason I would be okay with converting to Roman Catholicism is because it teaches that God works with humanity with scripture, and that back in classical times there was not the same attitude towards original texts as today. Textual variants are handled by tradition. The Catholic Church even calls today’s attitude towards original texts as a ‘superstition’. Where Are the Original Scriptures? | Catholic Answers

Agree. But Bart Ehrman is an expert scholar and Catholics will need over time to develop some other traditions to explain his and other modern findings and perhaps recalibrate the extent of human error contained in them.

 

[FiveLinden]

Er…no, that’s simply not true. He clearly has a bias, and many biblical scholars disagree with him on many things.

That’s not to say all. He has made fair judgements, but by far I would not say he is credible.

I base this off of how other Biblical scholars have handled him.

Am I too hard on him, could it be his foibles are simple foibles and not purposeful? Perhaps, but he seems to have been “broken” by his fundamentalist upbringing, in a sense. Pray for him

He did not have a fundamentalist upbringing. He was raised Episcopalian and moved through fundamentalism to liberal protestantism to agnosticism, while all the while following the same approach to his academic subject of textual criticism. Scientific and historical truth does not arise from votes by partisan scholars driven by their beliefs to their conclusion.

 

[squaferno]

Agree. But Bart Ehrman is an expert scholar and Catholics will need over time to develop some other traditions to explain his and other modern findings and perhaps recalibrate the extent of human error contained in them.

Ehrman doesn’t even Google apologetics on some of his claims of human error. For example, he uses the refuted claim that the author of Matthew, in chapter 21, misunderstood the prophecy of the donkey and the colt.

Colts go through a period when they should not be separated from its mother. Then they put coats on both the donkey and the colt because that’s a custom of decoration. For example, if a car is following the limousine of the president of the U.S., it won’t be an old, beat-up car, but another limousine. When it says that ‘he sat on them’ it means the coats - not both the donkey and the colt.