Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Reading from Genesis 6:14 (NRSV):

Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

There is a note at "cypress" which says:

Meaning of Hebrew uncertain.

In the New Interpreter's Study Bible, the commentary states:

Neither the materials out of which the ark was built nor its design are completely comprehensible, nor do they appear to reflect the character of ships in antiquity. The terms for the ark's wood and the pitch to cover it (v. 14) are used nowhere else in the Bible. The NRSV has proposed cypress wood, likely because of its use elsewhere in shipbuilding (Ezek 27:5).

I notice that KJV translated this as "gopher wood" and NIV translated this as "cypress wood".

Is there any other evidence that the word would be cypress?

Why would a Biblical translator put in cypress if the word meaning is uncertain? I would think it would be better to put in the actual Hebrew word or a mark like [uncertain] if the exact translation is not known. Conjecture, like the word cypress, could go in a footnote. Is this standard practice for Biblical translations?

share|improve this question
    
I'm trying to find a particular commentary that I seem to remember addressing this, but so far digging under the bed has only produced three different Systematic Theology texts... :) –  GalacticCowboy Nov 3 '11 at 15:19
    
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Yes, it is the common practice to translate from the original language into the some word in the destination language rather than leaving it as the source language. Words like this are notoriously difficult to translate because the interpreters have to pick some word in the destination language that will make sense to the readers of that language.

Regarding choosing cypress wood over gopher wood over alpine spruce, the translators have to simply pick the word that they think is the closest.

Interestingly, "gopher" wood is actually the transliteration of one of the original hebrew words there. The transliteration of gphr ended up with the KJV as "gopher".

Cypress wood was chosen because it was an actual wood, rather than just a wood that with another semi-random word attached to it. (Ark wood, wall wood, white wood, etc.)

Ultimately, the translators just have to choose a word that makes sense to them.


This difficulty with translation is also reason why there are unicorns in the Bible!

share|improve this answer
    
I found my notes that I referred to above - it was actually part of my personal study, not a published work, and we're supposed to discourage "original research" so I won't post it here. Or should I? But anyway, what's interesting about this passage is that the Hebrew word we transliterate "gopher" and the word translated "pitch" later in the verse only differ by one Hebrew letter. And the word "pitch" is derived from the verb "cover". So my personal note said that, maybe, the author didn't mention the kind of wood at all. –  GalacticCowboy Nov 3 '11 at 16:26
    
@GalacticCowboy: Do you have references in the work itself? It sounds like referencing Strong's and a Hebrew copy of the text would be a good start toward backing up the argument you sketched out here. –  Jon Ericson Nov 3 '11 at 17:03
    
    
Yeah, it's pretty much built on Strong's and a Hebrew interlinear. (Oh, and @Richard, I get "403 Forbidden" on that link.) –  GalacticCowboy Nov 3 '11 at 17:14
1  
@GalacticCowboy Here is the entire Hebrew Bible, interlinear. If that doesn't work, it's a mystery to me. –  Richard Nov 3 '11 at 17:17
show 1 more comment

This is not really a direct answer to the question so much as some tangential musing on the Hebrew alphabet and "unknown" words, specifically as they relate to this passage. However, it might also lend some support to the "cypress" translation as well.

Gopher/cypress: Strongs H1613 גֹּפֶר gphr / go'fer; "from an unused root, probably meaning to house in". However, note the addition from Gesenius's Lexicon - he appears to also support the notion that this word is related to "pitch" and "cover", or even a misspelling of "pitch".

Gen. 6:14; prop. pitch, i. q. כֹּפֶר as I suppose; and I interpret עצי גֹּפֶר pitch trees, resinous trees, such as the pine, fir, cypress, cedar, and other trees of the kind used in ship-building; see ... Of the moderns, Bochard (Phaleg. i. 4) and Celsius (Hierob. 328) are not amiss in understanding specially κυπαρίσσι, the cypress; not without reason appealing also to the similarity of letters.

(The original is an image, which is why some of the Greek/Hebrew letters aren't an exact match and why I skipped one of the ones in the middle.)

Note as well the striking similarity to:

Pitch: Strongs H3724 כֹּפֶר kphr / ko'fer; "price of a life, ransom, bribe; asphalt, pitch (as a covering); the henna plant, name of a plant (henna?); village". Note that, in this verse it is preceded with a "beth" (בּ), which, according to Hebrew Alphabet for Dummies, means "in". This can be seen in the interlinear that Richard linked, in which this word is translated "in the sheltering-coat".

Cover: Strongs H3722 כָּפַר kphr / ka'far; "to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch".

In a marine application, the use of aromatic wood and/or some form of protective barrier or coating makes sense, to protect from rot. So the word could actually mean "resinous" wood (of which cypress would be an example) or perhaps it means "coated" or "covered". (Note that this also meshes nicely with the "unused root" definition above - if the root means "house in", that's very similar to "cover".)

Alternatively, suppose that 3,500 years ago some scribe saw גֹּ but copied כֹּ? Gesenius also seemed to hint at this possibility.

share|improve this answer
    
Excellent analysis! It's fascinating to me that the word for pitch in Hebrew also means a bribe. I wonder what the etymology of that could be? –  Jon Ericson Nov 3 '11 at 20:30
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.