Think Wink.

One of the many ways that the Scriptures speak to us today is through literature. The biblical authors employ literary devices to make the text come alive in a unique way. Psalm 119, as well as other Psalms, use a literary device called an acrostic, in which a series of verses begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet: alef, bet, gimmel, etc. Each section can be remembered by the letter for which it begins with. It would be very helpful in memorizing and reading the text. The prophet Nahum does a similar thing in Nahum 1:2-6, but the acrostic is broken, which further reinforces his message of judgment and the shattering of the created order by that judgment.

There is a literary device that the prophet uses in Nahum 1:2-2:7 in which he speaks of a city or nation without cluing the reader into the identity of this city/nation that is to be destroyed by God’s wrath. In doing so, it gives a “If the shoe fits, where it” feel to the text so that Nahum’s Hebrew readers will not get too over confident in their safety. It forces them to examine their city/nation to see if they fit that bill.

But compare a functional/dynamic equivalent translation of this passage (click here for TNIV or NIV) with a formal equivalent translation of this passage (click here for NASB). You will observe that in the literal, word-for-word, translation of the NASB that the name of the city is omitted by the translators, staying true to the wording of the text. But both the NIV and its update TNIV both in Nahum 1:7 and elsewhere name the city as Nineveh (the Hebrew identifies the city as Nineveh in Nahum 2:8) to clue in the modern reader who it is that the prophet is speaking of, true to the philosophy that these translations hold to.

My question is this: does the NIV/TNIV ruin the literary effect and the intent of the author in omitting the name of the city when these translations do, in fact, give the reader the name of that city a whole chapter before the Hebrew does? Or more simply do these translations really preserve the thought of the author by “jumping the gun,” so to speak, on the name of the city? By not naming the city much suspense in created in the mind of a reader by wanting to know who it is he is speaking of, my enemy or myself. The question begs to be answered, who? So for any translation buffs out there, was it a good idea to supply the name of the city (as seen in the more dynamic/functional translations) at the cost of a literary effect (preserved by the more formal, word-for-word/literal translations)?

Greek Resources for Translation

I Really Like This One

Why I prefer the ESV and formal equivalent translations