Leabhar na Seanfhocal 31:3

Béarla: "Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings"

nó

"Do not expend your energy on women nor your wealth on those who ruin kings"

An Bíobla Naofa:

"Ná caith do neart go léir le mná,
ná do [leasracha] leis an lucht millte ríthe seo."

An bhfuil botún sa leagan Gaeilge. Cén fáth lúibíní? Leasracha = thighs?

Ní thuigim. Tuairim ag éinne?

Hi, leasracha does indeed mean "thighs" normally, but it is being used as the plural of "leas" here - benefit/advantage and by extension here wealth.

Leas does not normally have a plural - but maybe the original hebrew or the latin of the vulgate had a plural word that the translators (Pádraig Ó Fiannachta???) wanted to get across?

In Standard Irish, "thigh" is leis, but the original was "leas", of which "leis" was the dative form. So "leasracha" as the plural of "leas" meaning thigh, is being borrowed as the plural of "leas" meaning "benefit, advantage", lthough "leas/leis" meaning "thigh" is feminine, and "leas" meaning "your best interests; benefit, advantage" is masculine.

Ó Dónaill's dictionary shows no plural of leas, and neither does any other dictionary I know. You could well struggle to find any other examples of leasracha meaning "riches" (as the word appears in the Douai Bible used by Roman Catholics) - I am wondering wether "leasa" as a plural would be more natural to a masculine word like this - but it may have been felt that leasa looked like a genitive singular - as the word does not have an established plural - and maybe it was felt the weak plural in -racha was more clearly a plural, albeit associated with the wrong word?

It's a little bit suboptimal and unclear why another word wasn't chosen (eg saoltacht?). You could even argue the passage is poorly translated here. But it is not clear what parameters the translators set themselves, eg whether to translate the Hebrew, or translate the Latin, or whether to translate literally as far as possible, or using the method of dynamic equivalence, all of which could have affected word choice.

It would be interesting to know if native speakers of Irish instinctively understand the passage - maybe they feel instinctively that leas could have a plural leasracha concocted on the fly as it were - or maybe the passage would be opaque to almost everyone???

(Message edited by corkirish on December 14, 2010)

I believe brackets are used to show where a word has had to be inserted in a translation of the Bible in order to fill the sense. Maybe the Hebrew is unclear, or doesn't specifically say "riches" or "ways" (as the King James Bible would have it). Maybe it could be something vaguely worded like "do chuid" in Irish - why wasn't that chosen?

Bedell's Bible (1680s) has: "Ná tabhair do neart do mhnáibh: nó do shlighthe don ní mhillios na Ríghthe", clearly derived from the King James Version?

I see that that is the way it is here:
http://www.anbioblanaofa.org/pdf/221Seanf.pdf

I must check the print edition.

I asked Pádraig Ó Fiannachta: his answer below

Gura maith agat ar son a cheist siúd a chur ar aghaidh chugam. Má fhéachann sé faoi leasracha ag Ó Dónaill gheoidh sé treoir go leis agus faoi sin an iolra leasracha agus an míniú thigh. Ciallaíonn na lúibíní sin go bhfuil amhras faoin léamh bunaidh san Eabhrais ach gurb é sin an moladh leasaithe (!) is fearr a thaitin liom.
Nollaig faoi mhaise na ngrás duit féin agus dó siúd. Beannacht, Pádraig.

Thanks for your help. Modern printed edition (the teeny-weeny mini one)has the same wording as the online version.

Antóin 1115 14/12/10

(Message edited by admin on December 14, 2010)

?? Aonghus, does that mean that POF thinks the meaning is thighs in that sentence? He has a personal view that opposes the Latin Vulgate and the Douai Bible? I must have misunderstood his answer.

The Vulgate says "ne dederis mulieribus substantiam tuam et vias tuas ad delendos reges" - where "vias", "ways" corresponds well to the version in Bedell's Bible (slighthe) and the version in the King James Bible. I understand that "femera" is the Latin for "thighs".

More importantly, the Roman Catholic Church determined at Trent that the Latin Vulgate was a correct translation of the Bible and without error. I think Seán W. may be able to tell us more exactly when the Tridentine resolutions meant on this.

If that is the case, then the version of the Bible prepared by POF cannot be used in good conscience by Roman Catholics. I don't know whether to laugh or cry - POF has a private interpretation of Proverbs 31 that leads the Irish Bible he did to diverge from the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? I give up!

quote:

Ciallaíonn na lúibíní sin go bhfuil amhras faoin léamh bunaidh san Eabhrais ach gurb é sin an moladh leasaithe (!) is fearr a thaitin liom.

The brackets mean that the interpretation of the original Hebrw is doubtful but that this was the suggestion for correction I preferred.

As I understand it, Bíobla Má Nuad, for which he is the editor, is approved also.

I have no idea whether POF speaks Hebrew or not - but I would like to make clear that PUL's translation of the Bible was a direct translation of the Douai Bible, with an eye on the Greek Septuagint. Unfortunately, his Old Testament is in nearly 5000 pages of manuscript kept at Maynooth, and they told me the manuscripts are not in a condition to be viewed by the public [I wondered why they don't just destroy them then, if they're never going to be available]. So I can't say what PUL had in his Bible for that passage, but as a direct translation of the Douai, he must have something meaning "riches".

Bíobla Má Nuad was worked on by a whole team of experts, not one person, and working with the original texts in whatever language they were in.

quote:

The brackets mean that the interpretation of the original Hebrw is doubtful but that this was the suggestion for correction I preferred.

Yes, Aonghus, that's what I thought POF's email meant, but if you cast your eye over that statement - what does it mean? "The brackets mean that the interpretation of the original Hebrw is doubtful but that this was the suggestion for correction I preferred". Is he saying he thought the word should be "thighs" there, or not? He seems to imply that, without being clear.


I think his Bible received the nihil obstat and the imprimatur - but I am just pointing out he has "his own" interpretation of that passage, and probably little knowledge of Hebrew to back it up.

King James Bible
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

American King James Version
Give not your strength to women, nor your ways to that which destroys kings.

American Standard Version
Give not thy strength unto women, Nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Bible in Basic English
Do not give your strength to women, or your ways to that which is the destruction of kings.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Give not thy substance to women, and thy riches to destroy kings.

Darby Bible Translation
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to them that destroy kings.

English Revised Version
Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

Webster's Bible Translation
Give not thy strength to women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

World English Bible
Don't give your strength to women, nor your ways to that which destroys kings.

Young's Literal Translation
Give not to women thy strength, And thy ways to wiping away of kings.

An exposition of the Hebrew of the passage is at http://bible.cc/proverbs/31-3.htm , and says nothing about "thighs" being a possible meaning...

quote:

probably little knowledge of Hebrew to back it up.

What is that particular allegation based on?

That is based on the fact that at http://bible.cc/proverbs/31-3.htm there is nothing about "thighs" being a possible meaning. It is not an "allegation" as we are not in a court of law. Is he a fluent reader of Biblical Hebrew?

I am sorry Aonghus, I am distressing you, so I'll avoid commenting in this thread again.

quote:

nothing about "thighs" being a possible meaning...

Not so. Many of the notes relate to this being a warning against sensual pleasure.

You are not distressing me: but I found it odd that you would state in one comment

quote:

I have no idea whether POF speaks Hebrew or not

Yet minutes later assert

quote:

probably little knowledge of Hebrew to back it up.

As I said, that edition of the Bible was edited by him; but a large team of experts worked on it.

I am going to withhold comment on the actual text until I get a chance to look at the Hebrew and Greek tonight when I get home. I'll write about that tomorrow most likely. Here is the feedback on the other questions:

quote:

More importantly, the Roman Catholic Church determined at Trent that the Latin Vulgate was a correct translation of the Bible and without error.

The Vulgate edition of the Bible is declared to be "authentic" by the Church in the sense that anyone can read and use it (including in the liturgy) and will not encounter any errors in faith or morals. It is not a declaration that the text is without error in terms of it corresponding to the original Hebrew or Greek, or that it cannot be edited or correct. Many translators since about the 20s have translated directly from the Greek or Hebrew, or in light of the two. The Vulgate, even if there are problem passages, which there are, is a great translation (St. Jerome knew Hebrew, Greek, and was familiar with Aramaic, and lived in Bethlehem) and clarifies many passages which are ambiguous in the original. Not to mention that the Latin Vulgate's manuscript tradition is very good, whereas the Hebrew and Greek are more spotty. It would be an error to think the Church put Her weight behind it because of tradition alone or not being able to accept the original languages. At the time of the Council of Trent (mid 16th cent) the state of manuscripts was not as good as we have it now! (Thus the general opinion till the 19th century was that some were too bold in rejecting the Latin in favor of the originals.) She accepts the original text certainly, but only "certifies" that the Latin Vulgate is free from error in terms of faith and morals. More info:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30 091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

See paragraph 21 on.

quote:

If that is the case, then the version of the Bible prepared by POF cannot be used in good conscience by Roman Catholics.

The Maynooth Bible most certainly can be used by Catholics, or anyone for that matter. Any translation which the Church approves only certifies that they are free from errors in faith and morals. She does not certify that they are accurate (but they can't be blatantly falsified either). This, of course, would be impossible since some passages are still debated. She allows debate in these matters as long as the Faith isn't offended against (which in Her view leads people away from the truth of the matter). Take the very beginning of the Bible! Genesis 1 is still debated about a lot, but none of the texts approved offends against the Catholic beliefs. Debates on everything from evolution to how we actually arrived at the modern text of Genesis are allowed, again, except when someone starts saying something like, the Big Bang created everything, not God, the universe is eternal, Adam and Eve were not the first humans, or God created the world from something, not from nothing, Adam did not sin in eating the fruit, etc.. The biggest problems I've had with Bibles is not the translation, but the notes. The notes are where people start going off with their theories. Some of them I think are utter bunk, but the debate is on, and sometimes the bunk wins the debate for a while. The Maynooth Bible is quite conservative in its translation, so I don't think anyone needs to worry.

I hope this helps.

Seán, are you familiar with the version of the lord's prayer in St Matthew's Gospel? The Douai version is quite distinction in saying, "give us this day our SUPERSTANTIAL bread" - do you have an understanding of the Greek there and know why the Protestant versions translate differently? Is there a dispute over the manuscripts? PUL translated this verse from the Douai as: tabhair dúinn inniu ár n-arán ró-shubstaintiúl!!!!!

quote:

Seán, are you familiar with the version of the lord's prayer in St Matthew's Gospel?

Yes, this is one of those instances! St. Jerome came up with the supersubstantial translation (supersubstantialem), but he retained the other reading in Luke (quotidianum), which is the one which is prayed at the Mass. They're both right to a degree, and highlights different nuances to the teachings on this. The Greek is the same for both. The Greek literally means super-substantial or over-essential or something like this (epi-ousiou). The prefix means over or above, while the main stem is related to essense or being (the word ontology is related). The primary use, however, of the Greek was the simple sense of daily.

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersubstantial

I prefer daily as the translation, and an explanation of supersubstantial to be exegesis in the footnotes. The originial Douay had supersubstantial, and later was revised to daily in all translations. Neither are technically wrong, but one certainly rolls of the tongue a bit better. Plus daily is used in the Mass, and always has, which lends to the idea that the Church favors the use of daily.

quote:

An bhfuil botún sa leagan Gaeilge. Cén fáth lúibíní? Leasracha = thighs?

So here are the results. Mind that this is just a cursory glance and it would take more in depth research to figure out a more definite answer.

Hebrew (main text): drkyk "thy ways" (manner of life, from the root drk, to tread or march)

Hebrew (critical apparatus "to be read as"): yrkyk "thy thighs" (loins, or where the baby-making happens. Hard to know why this is recommended without in-depth research.)

Greek, LXX: ton son noun kai bion "thy mind and manner", that is, your manner of life and the resolve behind it.

Greek, Aquila, Symmachus, & Theodotion: ta sa khremata "thy riches"

Latin, St. Jerome: vias tuas "thy ways"

Latin, St. Jerome (variant): divitias tuas "thy riches"

quote:

Hard to know why this is recommended without in-depth research

I'd suggest the whole proverb is a warning against spending too much time with concubines; that brought down both the Kingdom of Judah & Israel a few times.

Isn't saying the same thing in two different way a feature of Hebrew poetry?

Yes. Often the same thing is stated with slightly different words. Or there is a play on the roots of words, for instance, the Aramaic behind Matthew 1:21 must have been a play on the words save and Jesus, which are based on the same root. I don't know if such a poetic device is present here. It takes research, but the moral meaning of the passage is clear to me, and we can understand how the various readings relate to one another. Often in Hebrew manuscripts they won't change mistakes, or what seem like mistakes, but will put a recommendation to read another word in its place. In this case I guess they thought that y and d were mixed up. But again it takes research to figure out the historical development of the passage. I've done that before in other cases and sometimes you reach no conclusive answer. Another example is Genesis 3:15, in which the traditions diverge as to who shall crush the head of the serpent.