These two verses form one long sentence in Hebrew and also in most English translations. Verse 17 contains a series of six clauses introduced by Though (Revised Standard Version), and verse 18 gives two more clauses introduced by yet. There are two problems that must be resolved before we discuss the details: (1) how is this sentence related to its context; and (2) how is the translator to handle such a long sentence as this?
(1) Some scholars understand that verse 17 describes a series of facts rather than a series of possibilities. This has led them to regard the verse as a kind of side remark which is not closely related to the preceding and following verses. Thus Jerusalem Bible puts verse 17 in brackets, and implies that verse 18 both follows on from verse 16 and develops the expression of faith with which verse 16 ends. This makes verses 16-19 as a whole rather disjointed and robs verse 17 of any real relevance.
Even if verse 17 does describe facts rather than possibilities, in the context of this psalm, it is very reasonable to interpret them as possibilities which seem so vivid to the prophet that he describes them as if they had already happened. On this interpretation it is legitimate to translate verse 17 as a series of possibilities, to which verse 18 gives the prophet’s reaction. This makes verse 17 stand apart from verse 16, but gives a cohesion to the whole of verses 17-19 which enables them to be seen as a fitting climax to the psalm, and indeed to the whole book.
This second interpretation is found in most versions (King James Version, Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, New American Bible, New English Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) and is definitely to be recommended to translators.
(2) If the above interpretation is accepted, there still remains the problem of how to handle such an unusually long and complex sentence. The Though of Revised Standard Version introduces no less than six clauses, before the yet of verse 18 introduces the balancing half of the sentence. Most English versions simply accept this, and indeed the structure remains clear in English, even in Revised Standard Version. Several versions repeat the word “though” at the beginning of the third and fifth clauses (New American Bible, Good News Translation, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). This helps to make the structure even clearer and also indicates that the clauses go together as pairs in Hebrew.
One alternative is to do as the French Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has done, that is, to make verse 17 a separate sentence (“Yes, the fig tree does not blossom” and so on), then to begin again in verse 18 with “As for me, I will nevertheless rejoice in the LORD…” (compare Bible en français courant).
Another alternative is as follows: As already noted, the six clauses of verse 17 go together in pairs. In some languages it may be clearer to give the first line of verse 18 after each of the first two pairs of clauses in verse 17. This will necessitate combining the verses into one and numbering them as 17-18. It will also lead to some repetition which is not in the Hebrew. However, such repetition may help to increase the poetic effect in some languages. If this suggestion has to be adopted, a possible translation model for the two verses is:
• Even if there are no figs on the fig trees and no grapes on the vines, yet I will be joyful because of the LORD. Even if there are no olives on the olive trees, and no grain grows in the fields, yet I will be joyful because of the LORD. Even if there are no sheep in the sheep pens and no cattle in the cattle stalls, yet I will be glad because God protects me.
Once translators have decided how to handle the overall structure of the sentence, they can begin to examine the details. The verse is speaking of complete economic disaster, but it does so in the specific terms of the economy of Palestine. This was based on patterns of agriculture and animal use which may be unfamiliar in many cultures. However, the prophet is here speaking of things which are central features of his own culture, and these should be retained in translation if at all possible. If there is no way to speak of particular items like figs, grapes, olives, or grain, translators should not substitute other items (such as bananas, oranges, pineapples, and rice) which would have been unknown in Palestine in Habakkuk’s time. In such cases translators may have to use generic terms and perhaps combine each pair of clauses into one. A possible translation model in this kind of situation is:
• Even if the fruit trees do not bear any fruit and the gardens (or, fields) do not have any crops, yet I will be happy because of the LORD. Even if the animals that provide meat all die, yet I will be joyful and glad because God protects me.
In situations where it is possible to speak of the specific items of Palestinian culture, translators should note that the food items listed here seem to be mentioned in ascending order of importance. Figs were perhaps the most luxurious items in the list. They were important as a source of sugar but were not essential. See Nahum 3.12 for a detailed discussion on the translation of fig tree, which will also apply to other fruit trees. “Grapes” produced wine, the normal daily drink. To be without it was a hardship but would not kill anyone. “Olives” gave oil which was used for cooking and lighting, and the lack of this oil would be a serious inconvenience. “Grain” (primarily wheat and barley) provided the staple food for the entire population, and the loss of the grain crop would mean starvation on a large scale (compare Gen 42.2).
The death of all the “sheep” and goats would mean no meat, since these were the animals most often eaten. It would also mean no wool from the sheep, with which to make warm clothes for the winter, and no milk or other dairy products like butter and cheese from the goats. “Cattle” were eaten rarely and only as a luxury, but without them there would be no help with plowing to prepare the ground for a crop the following year.
Though the fig tree do not blossom: Good News Translation instead of blossom translates “have no fruit.” This appears to follow the Septuagint and implies a change of one letter in the traditional Hebrew text. But there is no real difference in meaning since, if the trees have no flowers, they cannot bear any fruit. The Good News Translation wording may have been chosen for translation reasons and may not in fact follow the Septuagint.
Nor fruit be on the vines: Good News Translation mentions the specific fruit that is to be expected on vines, namely, “grapes” (compare New International Version); but many languages will translate in a similar way to Revised Standard Version and say, “and the vines produce no fruit.” In cultures where grapevines do not exist, one may need to use a generic word for vines or vine-like plants, along with the English word “grape.” However, when choosing a word for a vine-like plant, one must avoid terms which may give the reader the wrong picture. One should identify the grapevine as a vine which produces fruit, and avoid types of vine which produce such things as pumpkins.
The produce of the olive is expressed more simply as “the olive crop” in Good News Translation (compare Moffatt, New English Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). In many languages this will be expressed as “there is no fruit on the olive tree.”
The fields yield no food: this is a generic statement which in this context obviously refers to the main crops grown in the fields, wheat and barley. These were the most important items of diet and were used in making bread. Good News Translation makes the meaning of food explicit by saying “grain” (British edition “corn”). In many languages the generic term for food will be identical with the name of the staple crop, such as rice, yam, sago, or sweet potato.
The flock be cut off from the fold: the word flock was used in Hebrew of both sheep and goats. Some English versions retain the ambiguity by keeping the word flock, which may refer to both sheep and goats (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, New American Bible, New English Bible). Other versions give the name of one particular animal; all the available English versions which do this say “sheep” (Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Presumably this is because sheep are much more common than goats in English-speaking countries. In areas where goats are more common, there is no reason why translators should not say goats rather than sheep, or else “goats and sheep.”
Be cut off is a common Hebrew expression for death or destruction (compare Nahum 1.12, 14, 15; 2.13; 3.15; Zeph 1.3, 4, 11; 3.6; and many other Old Testament passages). Good News Translation translates the plain meaning as “even though the sheep all die.”
The fold (“pen” in New International Version) and New Jerusalem Bible was a walled enclosure where sheep and goats were kept at night for safety from wild animals and robbers. In areas where this method of looking after sheep and goats is not known, there is no need to mention the fold (compare Good News Translation).
And there be no herd in the stalls: the term herd refers to “cattle” (Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). This means mainly cows and oxen, and in languages with no generic term equivalent to “cattle,” it may be necessary to mention by name whichever species is better known.
Stalls were places where cattle could be kept and fed. As most people possessed few cattle, the stalls were often near, or even inside, the house where the family lived. Again the emphasis is on the animals rather than their accommodation, and in areas where stalls are unknown, there is no need to mention them. Compare the two possible translation models suggested above for variation in this respect.
In the Hebrew verse 18 says the same thing twice in different words: I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation. Most English versions retain this parallel structure, as it has some poetic value in English. However, in some languages this may not be desirable. Good News Translation has restructured the verse as “I will still be joyful and glad, because the LORD God is my Savior.”
The God of my salvation (compare Psa 18.46; 24.5; 25.5; 27.9; Isa 17.10; Micah 7.7) is expressed in Good News Translation as “God is my Savior.” In some languages this may need to be expressed with a verb such as “the God who saves me,” “the God who protects me,” or “the God who delivers me” (compare New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible).
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on the Book of Habakkuk. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1989. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .