[b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Mon Nov 14 09:54:07 EST 2005


@Dr.Furuli:

Dr.Furuli:> Dear Kelton, 

> I do not have time to continue this discussion, but I will make some final 
> comments. 

Response: No problem, I understand how busy things can get. I just want to let you know that I appreciate your comments thus far. 
---------------------------------------------

Dr:Furuli:The question that started it was wether the NWT can be taken 
> seriously. In connection with the writing of my mentioned book I compared 
> every English clause in the NWT with the corresponding Hebrew one. My 
> conclusion is that the translation is a scholarly work made by persons with 
> an excellent grasp of Hebrew, and who have been very careful in following 
> their own translation principles. 


Response: That is interesting, I've never walked through the entire NWT and compared it with the Hebrew.  I might just have to do that.

-------------------------------------------
 
Dr.Furuli:> Criticisms of the NWT are often theologically conditioned. In other cases - and this relates to other literal translations as well - are its renderings 
> judged on the basis of idiomatic principles. And sometimes you fall in this 
> trap as well. See below: 

Response: That is true, for the most part the criticism of the NWT is theological. I think also that alot of folks just don't trust the watchtower's history.  I've never spent to much time dealing with the organization itself, but I always see arguments against false prophecies and the credibility of not only the watchtower but the translators of the NWT.  So when they offer a translation, I can see why a few eyebrows are raised.

----------------------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:We must never forget that a literal translation is a special type of animal 
that must be judged in its own right. The aim of such a translation is not 
 to make it appear that Luke and Paul spoke English, or to render the text in 
> good idiomatic English. So when you say that something does not make much 
> sense in English, this is beyond the point. Then you are judging the literal 
> translation in light of idiomatic principles, because the aim of the 
> translators of the literal translation is not that the renderings always 
> should "make sense" from an idiomatic point of view. A literal translation 
> is a study translation which challenges the readers to do research, to read 
> texts where the same word occurs and by this learn something about the 
> Hebrew concept behind the original word. 

Response:  I see what you are saying, so I guess it comes down to the *goal* of the translator.  Whether or not one is trying to get the reader to do some research or if one is trying to make the text understandable for today's modern reader. The problem with that from my perspective is that most readers are untrained laymen, who have no type of concept of how to do a word study or look for context etc.

I think what you are proposing takes a certain amount of skill on behalf of the reader, otherwise, they'll come up with all types of ideas and theology.

Now on the other hand, if the translator has a certain theological bias and does the translating for the reader, that can lead to problems as well.

----------------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:> An illustrative example is the NWT´s use of "Sheol" (and Hades and Gehenna 
> in the NT). This word makes absolutely no sense in English, so the readers 
> have to find where it occurs and make up their mind as to the concept behind 
> it. I guess that the reasons why the NWT translators in the case of the 
> three mentioned words chose transcription instead of using one particular 
> English word in each case, is that the words are so theologically loaded. 
> So the readers must find their meaning themselves by studying the text (here 
> we definitely can speak of semi-translation). 

Response: That is very interesting indeed.  And I have no problem with that if that is the actual intent of the NWT, and I don't know if we'd ever know that answer.  But even if they left it as a transliteration you still run the risk of an untrained laymen taking it and coming up with something that is not meant to be communicated by the original Hebrew author. 
--------------------------------------
> Interestingly, the principle of the literal approach mentioned above is 
> sometimes used even in idiomatic translations. In order to illustrate that I 
> use an example from the NT. The NWT translates KOSMOS 186 times as "world" 
> and one time ( 1 Pet 3:3) as "adornment". TEV is a very free translation, 
> even a paraphrase, but as for KOSMOS it uses "world" in 175 instances. Why 
> this literalism ? I guess that the translators realized that the amount of 
> interpretative material they had to force upon the readers by choosing 
> different renderings would be so great that they wanted to let the readers 
> do the interpretation themselves. A literal translation follows this 
> principle to a much greater extent. Therefore, to render KATA SARKA as 
> "according to the flesh" is perfectly legitimate in a literal translation. 
> True, this expression is not a part of a modern English vocabulary, but 
> again, that is beyond the point, because of the nature of the literal 
> translation. And such phrases make sense for the student who wants to work 
> with the text. 

Response:  Well, I'm not much of a fan of *Free* translations, but if I were to guess why they translated KOSMOS as literal I would have to say that there are'nt many other ways to translate it. (now this is total speculation, I really have no idea).  And I am not arguing that a literal translation is bad, but I do think there is a middle road so to speak, where in order for it to make sense (I know this is beyond the point) one has to try to explain Hebrew words and phrases to the untrained laymen as best as possible.

Dr.Furuli:> So do not judge the literal translation from the point of view of idiomatic 
> principles. That is the same as to compare apples and oranges. 

Response: Sure no problem.  And thanks for your time, I at least understand where you are coming from and for that I am grateful.  

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list