Typo in ESV?

I think I found a typo in the Bible.

Judges 5:25 - He asked water and she gave him milk; she brought him curds in a noble’s bowl.

Shouldn't it be He asked for water and she gave him milk; she brought him curds in a noble’s bowl. That would make sense and it is how all other translations render it.

Typo reported. Just thought it was weird to find a typo in the Bible

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ralph Mauch

Good question, the KJV also has it that way, so I don't think it's a typo, but in how the interperters decided to give us an english translation... one of course is more literal (kjv, esv), then others (nkjv, niv). Songs and Poetry are sometimes worded differntly, especially when in another language.

25 He asked water, and she gave him milk (The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

TCBlack

"for" is not in my print version, nor in my other electronic versions, nor on the esv website. I think it's the way it's meant to be.

Incidentally, the KJV also ignores the "for".

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150294#Comment_150294

i have seen what seems to me to be another weird construction, something about "at table" rather than "at the table", but that is also in print. Just sounds weird.

Alan Macgregor

There is no for in the Hebrew text.

It is very terse, as befits verse:

Water he asked; milk she gave:

In a noble's bowl curds she gave

conveys the poetic sense and the parallelism of the construction.

Every blessing

Alan

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150321#Comment_150321

There is no for in the Hebrew text.

It is very terse, as befits verse:

Water he asked; milk she gave:

In a noble's bowl curds she gave

conveys the poetic sense and the parallelism of the construction.

Every blessing

Alan

Alan, I like your translation the most [Y]

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150300#Comment_150300

Dan

"at table" is a normal, if slightly stilted and archaic, construction in English. E.g. Children should be taught how to behave at table. It refers to place in general.

Admittedly, you won't often find it in modern English and is probably on its way out.

Strictly speaking "at the table" refers to a specific table.

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150331#Comment_150331

Alan, I like your translation the most

How kind of you, Bohuslav! [:$]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150433#Comment_150433

Dan

"at table" is a normal, if slightly stilted and archaic, construction in English. E.g. Children should be taught how to behave at table. It refers to place in general.

Admittedly, you won't often find it in modern English and is probably on its way out.

Strictly speaking "at the table" refers to a specific table.

I think it's a British (and Canadian) vs. American construct. Similar to "in hospital" -- in the US we'd say "in the hospital" but in the UK and Canada, they say someone is "in hospital." American English retains this construct for "in bed"

"At table" is also retained in the song "God and Man at Table are Sat Down" ("are sat down" is also an odd construct; archaic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-AxPzY8Goo

And for the benefit of Ebbe and others, here it is in Swedish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTfHSoT7hvU

Sam McCloud

Here's some awkwardness in KJV and NKJV:

for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.

ESV has:

for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

The ESV reads so much better. (imo)

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150715#Comment_150715

for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

The ESV reads so much better. (imo)

The majesty of "behold" is preferable to "now", "listen". "Something" is interpolated and even NIV agrees it is a possibility.

Sam McCloud

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150752#Comment_150752

The majesty of "behold" is preferable to "now", "listen". "Something" is interpolated and even NIV agrees it is a possibility.

I guess I am just referring to whether "a" or "something" translates more smoothly the idea intended by the original text. I think that "something works better and more smoothly than "a".

or:

What's interesting to me is how translators ultimately decide on certain words to express as accurately as possible the original inspired meaning of the biblical text, especially when there isn't an exact English equivalent in some cases to the Greek or Hebrew. When there isn't a direct equivalent then some addition(s) would have to be made to convey the same truth(s) in English. That is a huge responsibility on the part of the translator, after all they aren't the inspired author, but merely a messenger of sorts. The more I look at these interlinear Bibles, the more I have to think about what the original author was trying to say, which is a good thing I would say. Anyway ultimately what I get from this verse is this: "Behold, Jesus > Solomon". You know, if he wasn't greater than Solomon, we'd all be up the creek.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/150765#Comment_150765

The more I look at these interlinear Bibles, the more I have to think about what the original author was trying to say, which is a good thing I would say.

Thats exactly why having access to multiple translations is useful. And to read the Introductions to see what angle the translation team or person used. Some tend towards word-for-word (which can be "almost perfect" but unreadable) or to carry the basic idea (and can tend to be "wrong"). Somewhere in the middle might be just right. It seems ESV is kind of there. Hence we get "at table" which bugs me too [:)]

Best is to have multiple, and attempt to dig into the originals too.

YAY for Logos4, so I can do all this without too much pain!

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151144#Comment_151144

Hence we get "at table" which bugs me too

Jim

As Rosie helpfully pointed out after I posted:

Dan

"at table" is a normal, if slightly stilted and archaic, construction in English. E.g. Children should be taught how to behave at table. It refers to place in general.

Admittedly, you won't often find it in modern English and is probably on its way out.

Strictly speaking "at the table" refers to a specific table.

I think it's a British (and Canadian) vs. American construct.

It's the old problem of the "barrier of a common language". Differences can grate on the ear. And a certain translation can feel "clunky".

A couple which "bug" me are the US English talk with instead of talk to and visit with instead of just plain visit. But, hey, variety is the spice of life. [:D]

And just what was it that crowed when Peter denied Jesus? US English says it was a rooster, but we British English speakers know it was a cockerel. (I wanted to put the NIV - Anglicised's word cock, but it was censored by the US English forum as an obscene word! So I used the longer English form of the word.) [:S]

Every blessing

Alan

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151170#Comment_151170

A couple which "bug" me are the US English talk with instead of talk to and visit with instead of just plain visit. But, hey, variety is the spice of life.

In US English, talk with has a more congenial connotation than talk to. If I'm going to talk with you, we are to be conversing together and I'll be listening to your side of the conversation too. If I'm going to talk to you, it's a bit more like I'm going to give you "a talking-to" (do you have that expression in UK English)? Or, we might say I'm going to go talk to the teacher about this. It's more like a one-sided approach. Yes, you do expect to listen and hear back when you talk to someone, but the emphasis is on your approach to the other person, whereas talk with is completely bi-directional. Even more one-sided (and obnoxious) is the construct talk at. If I'm talking at you, I don't care what you think and don't expect to listen to any response. I hope I'm not talking at you now! [:)]

I agree about visit with. The "with" is completely unnecessary. I don't think it's universal in US English. I'd be more likely to say visit, not visit with.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/151406#Comment_151406

I'd be more likely to say visit, not visit with.

To me, "I'm going to visit Mother" implies travel; "I'm going to visit with Mother" doesn't, it implies a conversation.