NET—A flawed translation

 kw: book reviews, partial reviews, Bible translation, Bible interpretation, annotations, grammar

In late February I reviewed the NET's rendition of Genesis.  See that review for background information and my impressions up to that date. NET is The Holy Bible, New English Translation. I considered at that time finishing my reading of the text and all the notes before reviewing again, but now having read the books of Moses and a few of the historical books, I think it worthwhile to write this update.

In the prefatory material, beginning on page XI, the Translation Team members are listed. A team of five worked on the books of Moses (the Pentateuch), and a team of four on the historical books, from Joshua to 2 Chronicles. I note that two persons are members on all the teams for the various sections of the Old Testament, so I presume they are the editors.

I am at present midway through 2 Samuel. Here I will focus on a few helpful notes, then on notes or translations that I consider the most egregious errors, and finally on obscure terms used without explanation in the notes, that were not found in notes on Genesis. I begin with positive or helpful items.

• Note E, Ex 4:19: The SN (Study Note) discusses the possible dates of the return of Moses to Egypt, supporting 1450 BC or soon thereafter, after the death of Thutmose III, who reigned 1504-1450. This places the Exodus early in the reign of Amenhotep II, who is thus denoted the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is good. It is in marked contrast to speculations I encounter from time to time that the Exodus might have taken place two or three centuries later. Israel's sojourn in Egypt is stated to have lasted 400 years, making 1450 BC the latest possible date. Many exegeses confuse the city of Ramses with one or another Pharaoh of that name.
• Note C, Ex 10:22: The SN correctly points out the fallacy of trying to "explain" the plagues imposed on Egypt by various natural phenomena. God's miracles are God's miracles. A similar note is found as Note O in Dt 8:3, regarding manna. Natural products such as honeydew are no substitute for the real thing. Consider also that manna never arrived on the Sabbath day.
• Note G, Josh 15:63: The TN (Translator's Note) makes a good point that the writer was writing before David captured Jebus.
• Note d, Ju 5:27: discusses the word shadad and the NET translation "violently killed", which is better than most translations.
• Note R, 1Sa 25:37: A very good TN, that God's striking of Nabal needs no medical explanation, though this should be a SN.

Now, on to some questionable items:

• Conversions of units, such as the cubit, beginning in Ex 26:2. The numbers used, primarily 3 and 5 and the half-units 1½ and 2½, are important to interpreting the typology of the tabernacle and its furniture. They got the cubit wrong anyway (see further in the prior review). The numbers and their units belong in the text; it is best to explain such conversions in footnotes or marginal notes.
• Dt 11:13, 18: The translation of "heart and soul" as "mind and being" reveals that the translators are confused about the use of these words, and the rich meaning inherent in understanding human tripartness (spirit, soul, and body, with the "heart" composed of part of both spirit and soul). 
• Note a, Ju 5:15-16: The Text-critical note (TC) states, "The great majority of Hebrew MSS have 'resolves of heart,' but a few MSS read 'searchings of heart,' which is preferred in light of v. 16." This misunderstands Hebrew parallelism, in that a near-synonym was written to avoid repeating an expression. The two terms differ by a single letter and they rhyme. Sloppy translating!
• Note a, Ju 13:25: In the translation the word "control" is used where Hebrew has "stir." The note indicates what the Hebrew word is, but the word "stir" properly belongs in the text, and then no note is needed. "Control" is too harsh and absolutist.
• Note N, 1 Sa 1:12: It is curious that the 6th letter of Hebrew is spelled "vav" in the Notes to the Pentateuch, but "waw" in the Notes to the historical books. Didn't these scholars communicate amongst themselves?
• Note D, 1Sa 14:15: The TN states that "God" may have been used as an intensifier. This just waters down the force of the expression.
• Note E, 1Sa 24:6, 10: The word "anointed" is rendered "chosen one," which weakens the sense. Anointing by a prophet was a really big deal!

Of a total of 47 comments I have gathered from Exodus to the end of 1 Samuel, I see that ten are highlighted dark red, by which I indicate something really awful. Several of my comments refer to weakened expressions, such as "being" for "soul" or "leading" for "judging" and "show respect" for "sanctify". Besides these, I present just four:

• Note D, Ex 26:37: The SN derides typology and the study of symbolic meanings. Terrible advice! To the Jews, the Old Testament is history and is literally true. In the New Testament, Paul writes in a few places about the symbolic meaning of certain passages, even using the words "type" and "antitype", and in one place, "allegory". To a Christian, the Old Testament is a rich source of typology and symbolism regarding divine matters.
• Note R, Lv 7:32: The "heave offering", alternatively "lifted-up offering", is translated "contribution offering", which destroys the sense. This offering was literally tossed a few inches into the air (and then caught), and is a type of the ascension of Christ. Similarly, the wave offering (which NET properly translates) is a type of the resurrection of Christ.
• Note U, Ju 2:10: The Hebrew expression "gathered to their fathers" is translated "passed away", which obscures the beauty of this term; it indicates that there is an afterlife in which a dead person is reunited with ancestors. Many Christians think the Jews didn't (and don't) believe in an afterlife. The term "gathered to their fathers" proves the opposite. There are other indications also.
• Notes A, T, Dt 1:29, 45: More instances of a strong expression being toned down in the translation, and explained away in the note. Disgraceful!

I complained at length in the prior review that thousands of notes speak of adding or changing a word for "stylistic reasons" or "clarity". The volume would be quite a bit shorter if the historical custom of using italics to indicate supplied words had been used, and a single statement in the preface would then suffice.

I think that's enough to illustrate why I consider the translation to be flawed, and the scholarship expressed in the notes to be frequently sloppy. I don't recommend NET. Now, to explain another flurry of obscure grammatical terms. Firstly, a few more Hebrew verb tenses:

• hishtaphel - a very rare verb stem that expresses causative action in active voice.
• hitpoel (=hithpoel) - "to do something to oneself". Rare.
• poel - a verb stem based on the noun meaning "worker", referring to repeated action.
• khetib (properly ketib or ketiv, versus qere) - ketiv and qere are markings to indicate the difference between what was written and how it is to be read.

More grammatical terms almost nobody knows:

• cohortative - expressing desire, or a first-person demand.
• apodosis - the consequent clause of a conditional sentence: "If you asked me I would agree."
• protasis - the conditional clause, as "If you asked me..." above.
• frequentative - indicating repeated action, not necessarily iterative.
• paranomastic (-tia) - a fancy word for "pun" or double meaning.
• volitive - expression desire or volition; "volitional" is a better known synonym.
• asseverative - a statement made with great solemnity, certainty and conviction. Think of court testimony.
• epexegetical - added words to clarify meaning.
• talionic - a synonym for retaliation; talionic law, or lex talonis, is "an eye for an eye", for example.
• optative - a verbal mood expressing a wish, desire, hope or prayer; "if only..."
• aposiopesis - breaking off a sentence in the middle, to hint at the unspeakable or to express shock.
• adversative - in opposition to, like an adversary.
• casus pedens - probably a typo for casus pendens, the placement of a noun or pronoun first in a sentence, but modified later in the sentence. "Pendens" means "hanging".
• haplography - accidental omission of one or more repeated letters in a longer word, as philology→philogy. This is a particular occurrence in manuscript copying. "Haplo-" means "half".
• metathesis - in linguistics, swapping sounds or letters in a word, such as ask→aks or nuclear→nucular.
• homoloteleuton - literally, "similar ending", a near rhyme for rhetorical effect or to sort-of-rhyme a word that is hard to rhyme, such as "orange".
• casuistic - either resolving an ethical dilemma, or being rhetorically subtle and deceptive.
• erotesis - a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer: "Am I my brother's keeper?"
• merism - speaking of parts to refer to the whole, as "day and night" to mean "all the time".
• strophe - a defined section of a poem; often a synonym for "stanza".
• paraenesis - moral exhortation, usually basing one's argument on tradition.
• chiastic - literary structure best described as "going out the way one came in." Many stories detail a protagonist's trials to reach a goal, to be repeated in reverse order to return home.
• homoiarcton - when a series of lines begin the same way, a copying scribe may skip from one line to the next, leaving out an intervening portion of text.
• nunated - the use of the letter "nun" as a suffix; in Hebrew the letter is written differently when it is the last letter of a word.
• stative versus fientive - stative verbs express a condition, fientive verbs express actions.

I knew only four of these words previously. Even Blogger marks nine as unknown. It is a serious fault of the NET volume to omit a glossary.

At the rate I am reading, I expect to finish the Old Testament near the end of 2026. I hope I observe better results in the New Testament.

The dark side of genetic medicine

 kw: book reviews, partial reviews, nonfiction, medicine, genetics, corruption

I began to read The Tyrrany of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and its Threat to Public Health, and soon realized that I could see where the author was going. The Introduction and first chapter lay out his thesis. I read the last chapter, titled The "Gleevec Scenario", and for me, the picture was complete.

Genetic Medicine, AKA Personalized Medicine and Precision Medicine, is the current fad in medical and pharmaceutical circles. However, it is miraculous for a few, useless to most, and incredibly expensive: even the few who can benefit from a precision therapy cannot afford it; without a very robust insurance plan (hard to find or afford), they often cannot even afford the copay.

The Introduction features the sad story of the author's father, who died of lung cancer thirteen months after trying to get out of bed one day and finding that his legs were paralyzed. A metastatic cancer had damaged the nerve trunk to his legs. He had fourth stage lung cancer. When one of the bits of cancer was surgically removed and tested genetically, it was found to be susceptible to a new medication that helps a few percent of lung cancer patients. The cost was a few thousand dollars per month. What kept this from becoming a million-dollar story? The father's life was extended by only a few months. At first, the tumors receded and his body began to heal. He was able to wiggle his toes. Then the tumors became resistant to the medication and resumed growing. Whether his life was extended by two months or ten, from his original situation, is not known. What is known is that the "miracle" was temporary. The author cherishes the memory of those few extra months. Fortunately, his family could afford the medication over that period of time.

Why are such treatments so costly? The author tells of medications that can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars monthly. The reason, we are told, is that it costs millions or tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars for a pharma company to research and test a drug, and to comply with all the regulations to bring it to market. If the number of people who can be helped is only a few thousand, or perhaps a million, the sunk cost has to be recouped by high prices. This is true, but the last chapter focuses on another factor.

When Gleevec was developed it was miraculous, for a small number of patients. Here, "small" is in proportion to the millions of people who have a certain kind of leukemia that Gleevec can't help. The number of people that could be helped was still large enough that the original developer and manufacturer, Novartis, made billions of dollars in profit. Right away I smell a rat: Gleevec did not cost billions to discover and bring to market. Its cost could have been reduced by a factor of ten and Novartis would still have made tens of millions in profit.

The second factor is "Because We Can". The last chapter shows that over time several medications similar to Gleevec were developed, and then put on the market at even higher prices. So much so, that when generic Gleevec appeared (after a few years of legal delays of the end of patent protection), the generic cost more than the original had at the beginning!

The pharmaceutical industry is an astonishing mixture of blessing and curse. Let us not forget that "big pharma" is the largest lobbyist in Washington (and other national capitols in which lobbying, AKA bribery, is permitted). Yet many, but probably not most, of the industry's products are lifesavers, or at least life-enhancers.

From time to time there is a flurry of interest in radical life extension, and a certain debate arises: If it becomes possible to extend almost anyone's life to 150 or 200 years, but it costs a few million dollars for each extra year, is it ethical to develop it? If only the super rich can afford it, won't they become an oligarchy? Of course, America and other Western nations are already de facto oligarchies, and many of the super rich are already taking advantage of better medical treatment, and frequently have longer lives than most of us. Precision/Personalized Medicine fits right into this scenario.

We have to think this through…except most people are unwilling to think, living on autopilot. 

The author's second theme is public health. There is less emphasis on public health measures as more and more funding and interest are focused on genetic medicine. This is a mistake. Public health advances such as separating sewage from drinking water sources and promoting hand washing have been responsible for most of the increase in average life span and general health since the middle-to-late 1800's. We still have more to do, but now it is being done more slowly or is neglected.

I read an article or book by Lewis Thomas years ago, about the three kinds of medicine:

1. Medical repair, as exemplified by surgery and cancer chemotherapy. This is the most intrusive and costly.
2. Maintenance medicine, ranging from analgesics such as aspirin and ibuprofen to symptomatic relief such as cough medicines and to antibiotics. Such remedies are mostly in the form of pills or injections and are usually inexpensive.
3. Preventive medicine, not only vaccines and antitoxins but also vitamins and other supplements that improve our health or prevent disease. These are usually the least costly (but not always!).

Public health measures could be considered meta-preventive medicine. They remove causes of disease and damage. The author's father had been a smoker for part of his life. Very, very few lifelong nonsmokers get lung cancer. He also had a couple of other "risk factors", secondhand smoke as a child, and a period of time exposed to asbestos. Had his history been different, all three factors would not have occurred. Yet, the two most prevalent addicting drugs, alcohol and nicotine, still plague a large proportion of the population, causing great amounts of premature death. Further, overuse of sugar is behind "metabolic syndrome", which includes Type II Diabetes and, as in the case of my uncle, frequent amputation of toes or feet, and reduction of life span by ten to thirty years (my uncle died in his early 70's; his widow lived more than 100 years. Based on family history, he could have lived to age 85 or 90).

Public health is not "sexy"; genetics is. But it's more effective for more people.

I decided not to read the whole book because it is suffused with the author's pain, and he had made his points well enough in the parts I read, that I get the picture. It's worth reading at least a few chapters of this book; it may induce you to help with the tough Thinking part.