Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:


>Interesting to hear about these deliberately literal translations.
>
>Can I ask one question about how literal they really are? I have a
>test for those who insist on literal translations. How do their
>translations render )EREK )APPAYIM in Exodus 34:6 etc? Do they say
>that YHWH has a long nose, "length of nostrils" or something like
>that? I have never heard of an English translation which does so and
>so is truly and consistently literal.
>
>Peter Kirk
>
>
>
>I am aware of only two modern Bible translations that have translated
>strictly literally, in order to let the target group get a feeling of the
>original text, namely the NWT and The Schocken Bible, by Everett Fox (where
>just one volume has been published).
>
>

Dear Peter,

I do not insist on making literal translations. The functional equivalence
of Nida is evidently the best for missionary translations. However, for a
particular target group, namely, those who by the help of their mother
tongue want to come as close as possible to the original text, only a
literal translation will do. I have scrutinized one such translation from
the point of view of bias. One of my questions has been: Will the
interpretations that are forced upon the unaware reader be reduced in such
a literal translation? The translation under scrutiny translates the Hebrew
words above as "slow to anger", which is fine. Only interlinear
translations would translate as "length of nostrils" or the like. Remember
that literal translations communicate meaning to the reader while
interlinear Bibles do not communicate, they just substitute words.

I define bias primarily in relation to language and not to theology: "Bias
in Bible translation is characterized by renderings that either (1)
contradict lexicon, grammar or syntax; or (2) definitely weaken or distort
the meaning by addition or subtraction  of unwarranted semantic elements
when the text is translated, in order to promote the translator`s own
theology."

One outstanding example of bias is the widespread rendering of "hell" for
the Greek word geenna. This must be termed bias because it represents a
violation of normal translation procedures to promote a religious doctrine.
Regardless of our conception as to the religious meaning of geenna, it
cannot be disputed that it was a geographical place and that the word is a
proper name .
Normal translation procedures require that proper names are not substituted
by other words. The form of the name in the original language may be a
little different from the form in the receptor language, because the stock
of phonemes are different , but it is still the same name and not a
completely different word. The Hebrew equivalent gei hinnom is never
translated "hell".
Of the 15 modern translations being found on the Gramcord CD of 1996, the
following 12 have hell: NRSV, DRBY, ASV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, RSV, TEV,
KJV, RVB el infierno ("hell"). LUTH Hölle ("hell"). The following 3 have
Gehenna: NAB, YNG, SEGR la géhenne. All of these are more or less idiomatic
save YNG.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo