Ezek 1:22 and the difficulties of translating figures of speech

Translating figures of speech is a difficult choice for translators if there is no equivalent figure in English. Do you render the Hebrew figure directly or do you offer a dynamic translation? The Hebrew xrqh !y[k (Ezek 1:22) is lexically ‘as an eye of ice/frost’. Translations vary, for example, the NRSV has the rather dynamic “shining like crystal” and the KJV has the equally dynamic “as the colour of the terrible crystal”. The comparison ‘as an eye of’ uses the ordinary common noun for an ‘eye’. However, in the construct state, as part of an expression, we have a figure of speech, as is obvious elsewhere:

…like the color of (!y[k) gum resin Num 11:7 (NRSV)

…like in colour (!y[k) to polished brass Dan 11:6 (KJV)

These are the two occurrences of the comparison outside Ezekiel and translators render the figure again dynamically in terms of colour. Other versions may not use the word ‘colour’ but an expression of appearance such as ‘the gleam of’ or ‘the appearance of’. So, the comparison is not about composition (‘ice/frost’ or ‘crystal’); it is about colour and appearance; colour is a phenomenal quality.

Within Ezekiel elsewhere the comparison is consistently used in respect of colour and appearance (phenomenal qualities). The KJV and NRSV choices for the figure are:

…like gleaming amber/ as the colour of amber Ezek 1:4

…like the colour of burnished brass/like burnished bronze Ezek 1:7

…like unto the colour of a beryl/ like the gleaming of beryl Ezek 1:16

…as the colour of amber/ like gleaming amber Ezek 1:27

…as the appearance of amber/ like the appearance of brightness, like gleaming amber Ezek 8:2

…as the colour of a beryl stone/ like gleaming beryl. Ezek 10:9

The Hebrew xrq is equally rendered as ‘ice’ or ‘frost’—either is possible, but of the seven occurrences of this figure, ‘crystal’ is only preferred for Ezek 1:22 following the lead of the LXX and possibly also the NT (Rev 4:6). This is just interpretation on the part of the Septuagint translator and it misapplies the NT; since the figure is about appearance and not composition, there is no reason to discard ‘ice/frost’ for ‘crystal’ just because we have a divine theophany. Of course, ‘ice/frost’ and some ‘crystal’ are not unlike in colour. We can only guess at the colour indicated by ‘eye of ice/frost’—perhaps a transparency or translucency (cf. Exod 24:10).