Nahum 1:7 yada yada

No, not a Seinfeld episode. There are a few things many things I have never done, and watch a Seinfeld episode is one of them. The Marx Brothers, yes, Seinfeld, no.

I received a request to write about Nahum 1:7 today, with reference to the difference between the original Tyndale tradition and other translations.

The LORD is good,
a stronghold in the day of trouble;
he knows those who take refuge in him. ESV

but

The Lord is good,
a stronghold in a day of trouble;
he protects those who take refuge in him, NRSV

The Hebrew verb is ידע yada, which means simply "to know" and is the word for "know" in the most obvious sense in English, as well as "to have sexual relations with". It has a wide range of meaning. Can it also mean "to protect" or "to care for"?

Here is how the different Bible versions translate ידע in Nahum 1:7.

• know KJV, ESV, NASB, JPS, D-R, CEV
• is close to NLT
• protects, cares for (T)NIV, NRSV, NET, HCSB, NAB, GNT

There are several possible reasons for a difference like this. First, it could be a text variant, different letters in different Hebrew texts, very unlikely and that is not the case here. Second, it could be that there are two different Hebrew words with the same consonants. Once again, this does not account for the variation.

All Bible versions are working from the same Hebrew text, and from the same lexical understanding. However, ידע is a word with a broader semantic range in Hebrew than "know" has in English. The Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon mentions,

• observe, realize
• find out, experience
• recognize, perceive
• care about, be concerned about
• get to know, become acquainted with
• have intercourse with
• care about, be concerned with (theologically)
• select, choose
• understand
• know, come to understand
• know, have insight, judgement

I found it especially interesting to read these simple lines so typical of Hebrew,

וַיַּעֲזֹב כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, בְּיַד-יוֹסֵ
, וְלֹא-יָדַע אִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה
, כִּי אִם-הַלֶּחֶם אֲשֶׁר-הוּא אוֹכֵל

And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand;
and, having him, he knew not aught
save the bread which he did eat. Gen. 39:6 JPS

I guess we can easily suppose that Potiphar did not suddenly take on the intelligence of a potted plant, knowing about nothing but his own nourishment. Surely, it means that he doesn't have to worry about anything but his food. He leaves the responsibility for his own household affairs in Joseph's care.

Of course, the Hebrew is able to delightfully say that Potiphar puts everything in Joseph's yad (hand) and now he doesn't have to yada (know)! Or Potiphar puts everything in Joseph's care and now he doesn't have to care. (I wish I knew how Alter translates this.)

For Gen. 39:6 the following translations now translate ידע as "have concern for" or a synonym. (T)NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, CEV. However, as noted above, many translations have not made the change for Nahum 1:7. Is this simply an oversight rather than a disagreement? I would guess that it simply was not a concern - there is no theological issue at stake here.

So far, I have given just the short answer. The NET Bible notes point to a more detailed background and explicitly favours the sense "protect".

When the subject is a king (suzerain) and the object is a servant (vassal), it often has covenantal overtones. In several ancient Near Eastern languages this term depicts the king (suzerain) recognizing his treaty obligation to protect and rescue his servant (vassal) from its enemies. For example, a letter from Abdi-Ashirta governor of Ammuru to the Egyptian king Amenophis III ends with a plea for protection from the raids of the Mittani: “May the king my lord know [= protect] me” (yi-da-an-ni; EA 60:30-32). Similarly, in the treaty between Muwattallis and Alaksandus, the Hittite suzerain assures his vassal that in case he was attacked, “As he is an enemy of you, even so he is an enemy to the Sun; I the Sun, will know [= “protect”] only you, Alaksandus” (see H. B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31-37; idem, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA`,” BASOR 184 (1966): 36-38.

Still, I often like to turn the words over in my mind and see if there is not some way that is more concordant to express these same ideas. I like to imagine how "know" can extend its semantic range in English. I found myself saying "acknowledge" - it really should be "acknowledge".

And so, belatedly, I turned to Rotherham and found,

Good is Yahweh,
as a protection in the day of distress, -
and one who acknowledgeth them who seek refuge in him.
Nahum 1:7 Emphasized Bible (Rotherham)

It is only with great reservations that I praise concordance in a translation. Concordance has very definite limits, it can be greatly misused; but in my opinion, Rotherham sometimes does some very good things with concordance in translation.

There is no such thing as a 'transparent' Bible, but I often think, there is such a thing as a 'translucent' Bible, a Bible that lets more light shine through. For me that is Rotherham's, an extraordinary translation. If you are thirsty for a translucent Bible, try Rotherham.