Neh. 5:2 "We are forced to pawn our sons and daughters in order to get grain to eat that we may live.” (competent translation?)

Question

In the Book of Nehemiah, the NABRE is virtually alone in interpreting the people's complaint about the lack of grain in terms of having to indenture their children. Other typical translations usually read something like the NIV:

Some were saying, “We and our sons and daughters are numerous; in order for us to eat and stay alive, we must get grain.”

Young's Literal Translation:

There are who are saying, `Our sons, and our daughters, we -- are many, and we receive corn, and eat, and live.'

The next verse clearly involves mortgaging one's farm in order to make ends meet.

NIV - Others were saying, “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain during the famine.”

YLT - And there are who are saying, `Our fields, and our vineyards, and our houses, we are pledging, and we receive corn for the famine.'

The YLT implies a sentence structure parallel to the previous verse. but has the NABRE gone too far here? Restating the question: Is the NABRE justified in interpreting Neh. 5:2 as a complaint about having to "pawn" one's children in order to get grain? Is there a basis in the text for this (related to the mysterious dash in the YLT perhaps)? Or are the translators merely presuming that because the farms were mortgaged, the children were likewise indentured to wealthy neighbors in order to make ends meet?

Answer 1

Using the NABRE and comparing it with the YLT serves to show the basic difference between "dynamic/functional equivalence" translation, and "formal equivalence" that strives to give the closest possible literal translation. The example here, of Nehemiah 5:2 illustrates that.

Young's work sticks to the ancient text when giving the English translation, while modern translations like to get an idea across that people today might prefer as it does a bit of interpreting for them.

However, the depth of meaning of the Hebrew text in verse 2 is shown in verse 5. All becomes clear when the first five verses are read in one go.

Poor Jewish people were complaining to Nehemiah that their fellow Jews who were rich did not have to mortgage their land, vineyards and houses in order to avert starvation. Some also had to borrow money to pay the king's tribute, and were unable to pay the loan back. This had led to their children becoming bonded labour - sold into slavery. That's what verse 5 states. The poor people and their children were being exploited and forced into permanent poverty so that they could not buy their children back. All translations show that in their rendition of verse 5.

However, the question is whether the NABRE is competently translating verse 2. In light of verse 5, it is not saying anything wrong or misleading, but it does not have grounds for its rendition of verse 2 according to the text of that verse. There are various Hebrew words for bondage / selling, and the ones used in Nehemiah are:

abduth (servitude) - 9:17

kabash (bondage, to tread down) - 5:5

makar (to sell) - 5:8; 10:31; 13:15; 13:16

None of those words are in 5:2. Therefore the answer is that the translation of the NABRE is not accurate (in verse 2), but in light of verse 5 it is not misleading. Does that make it competent? Well, that depends on whether putting words in that the text does not warrant is due to incompetence. Yet lack of competency here is not actually the issue, given the translator's awareness of verse 5. They have chosen to give a meaning to verse 2 that verse 5 warrants. However, the translation of verse 2 remains inaccurate as far as the actual Hebrew words go. In this case, the dynamic equivalence method of the NABRE appears to have been based on what the Hebrew words in verse 5 state. A bit of a liberty yet not based on incompetence - a choice that the dynamic equivalence system allows for.