Hi, just wondering if anyone uses Moffatt's translation on a regular basis and can tell me anything good or bad about it that I can not already read for myself on Wikipedia. I ordered one a few days ago but it has not arrived yet. Bash it if you like, or praise it, but please explain why you feel the way you do. Thanks
I know you're looking for someone who uses it on a regular basis, and that's not me, but I was looking at it for a moment and thought I would post my results/thoughts.
Exodus 19:1-6, My Translation
19:1 On the third new moon of the outgoing of the children of Israel from the land of Egyptthat very day, they entered the desert of Sinai.
19:2 They pulled up [their tents] from Rephidim, entered the desert of Sinai, and pitched [them] in the waste. Israel encamped there before the mountain.
19:3 And Moshe ascended toward The Elohim. And YHWH called to him from the mountain, ordering,
Say thus to the abode of Jacob,
So declare to the offspring of Israel:
19:4 'You saw what I did to Egypt, how I carried you on the wings of eagles and brought you [out] to me.
19:5 And now, if you listen carefully to my voice and observe my covenant, even though all the earth is mine, then you will become my treasured possession more than all the peoples.
19:6 And you will become for me a kingdom of priests, a sacred race.' These [are] the words that you must speak to the offspring of Israel.
Exodus 19:1-6, Moffatt's Translation
19:2a Leaving Rephidim, the Israelites reached the desert of Sinai, where they pitched camp in the desert;
19:1 it was in the third month after leaving the land of Egypt . . . on this day they entered the desert of Sinai.
19:2b [There Israel pitched camp in front of the mountain,
19:3 and Moses went up to God.]
The Eternal called to him from the mountain, saying, Tell this to the house of Jacob, tell the Israelites:
19:4
'You have seen for yourselves what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you safe on eagle's wings and brought you hither to myself.
19:5
Now then, if you will listen to what I say and keep my compact, you shall be my own prized possession among all nations (for all the world is mine),
19:6
and you shall be a dynasty of priests for me, a sacred nation.' This is what you must tell the Israelites.
Several things jump out at me right away about Moffatt...
1. Textual noise.
Sometimes in these forums, you'll run across authors who like to post things in a variety of colors, with underlines, lots of bold words, different font sizes, etc. I suppose there are a rare few who read that and enjoy it, but the rest of us (I think) find it highly unreadable and it prevents us from truly appreciating anything they have to say (if you have anything of substance to say, it doesn't require colors, underlines, italics, and variable sizes to garner attention). Moffatt's translation weaves in and out of normal text, italic text, and bracketed text in a way that may be informative in terms of the Documentary Hypothesis, but communicates exactly nothing to us as readers about what's going on with the narrative itself in terms of its grammar, syntax, style, genre, or semantic content. Instead of helpfully pulling us into the text as it stands before us, this pushes us out of it and makes us aware of something entirely othera supposed quilt of sources that underlie the narrative. And while there may, indeed, be such a quilt, it seems to me that the purpose of a translation is not so much to indicate how a text fragments into possible redactional sources, but to best represent that text in coherent, linear English.
2. Narrative rearrangement.
As you can see, Moffatt begins Exodus 19 with verse 2, not 1. Now, it may be that, originally (whatever that means), chapter 19 actually began with verse 2 or that verse 1 began somewhere therein, but in all the manuscripts we have before us (so far as I have seen), there is no evidence of this (and hence the traditional verse ordering from 1 to 2 and not 2a to 1 to 2b). Moffatt has re-arranged his translation to suit a non-existent text. Again, it seems to me that the purpose of a translation is not so much to rearrange textual units so that they tell the story more to our liking, but to present the same story that the text gives us in a meaningful way in a different language. Apparently, the Jews and Christians who preserved this text over the last thousand or two years actually cared about whether a certain phrase came before or after another phrase and tried their best to make sure it was passed on to us in the same manner as it was passed on to them. This kind of translation pretty much ignores that. Now, I can accept that sort of thing when it is fairly evident that the text as we have it has been corrupted and the rearrangement is an attempt to make better sense of it (see 1 Enoch: A New Translation; Based on the Hermeneia Commentary), but it seems to me that there is no need for this in verses 1 and 2. Verse 1 provides us with a time-line for past and present events, while verse 2 gives us a geographical course chart.
3. Dismissal of Massoretic markers.
The Massoretes pointed the Hebrew text in a way that represented the traditional, standard way of understanding the text as it was passed down to them from ancient times. Now, this doesn't mean they were right in every instance or that what they thought actually reflects how other Jews thought about the text long before them. It is, however, the way the biblical texts (usually) exist before us and, most likely, the way the texts existed before Moffatt. So, again, it seems to me that the purpose of a translation is not to ignore the punctuation in the text in front of us, but to do our best to conform that punctuation to another language. Moffatt translates There Israel pitched camp in front of the mountain, and Moses went up to God as if this were a complete, undivided thought, whereas the Hebrew places both a Silluq and a Soph Pasuq between mountain and and Moses, which is the equivalent in English of a hard period, indicating the end of a sentence.
4. Highly Interpretive
To each their own. Some people prefer a less literal translation. Others a more literal one. I prefer a more literal one. Moffatt is definitely not as literal as I. So, for instance, Moffatt translates
I bore you safe on eagle's wings where I render I carried you on the wings of eagles. The only real difference there is the inclusion in Moffatt of the word safe. It is an added interpretation. It may very well be that to carry on eagle wings could have included within it the concept of protection or safety from prey, but that detail is not present in the Hebrew as we have it. So also, Moffatt interprets the divine name as
The Eternal whereas I simply leave it as the Tetragrammaton without trying to define what it means. It may be that the consonants Y-H-W-H once meant something like The Eternal. What the divine Name means, however, is a highly contested, disputed, and unknown phenomenon, so I feel much safer by not saying much of anything at all than chiming in on the matter and declaring it to mean The Eternal as Moffatt does. And, finally, Moffatt says
what I did to the Egyptianswhere I have what I did to Egypt. The only real difference there is Egypt versus Egyptians. Does the text mean the people of Egypt when it says Egypt? It may very well. That's certainly a judgment call. But there is another word for Egyptians and it is not Egypt unless you disregard the vowels provided by the Massoretes.
5. Some good word choices
I like Moffatt's choice of compact for covenant and dynasty of priests for kingdom of priests. These word choices, I think, stretch our thoughts outside of the boundaries that the English words covenant or kingdom usually elicit. I tried to do that with sacred race, outgoing, and the poetic rendering Say thus to the abode of Jacob, So declare to the offspring of Israel.
Conclusion:
Moffatt's translation (at least of the Hebrew) is more interpretative than it needs to be (which might or might not be a good thing depending on your preferences). It feels free to disregard what the Hebrew text is saying and to present us with something it could (or should?) have said (which, again, is either good or bad depending on your preferences). About as often as it comes up with some really good word choices, it presents us with renderings that, if not outright bad, are questionable or perhaps even misleading. And it is presented in a format that is (probably) annoying and (possibly) detrimental for reading purposes.
