Biblical Hebrew Forum

[mjoseph <mjoseph AT terminal.cz>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

>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).

>In a discussion of the role of theology and bias in Bible translation, the
>NWT is an excellent object to study. It is a strictly literal translation
>(though with some idiomatic renderings)

And Peter Kirk queries:

>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.

For the record, the NWT has "slow to anger" in Ex. 34:6, "sparks" in Job 
5:7 (for B.:N"Y-RE$EP) and "houses of the soul", in quotation marks, in 
Is. 3:20 (for B.FT"Y-HAN.EPE$). Dr. Furuli's phrase "a strictly literal 
translation
(though with some idiomatic renderings)" is self-contradictory. A 
"strictly literal" translation would translate all three of these (as 
well as other) idioms literally; one done according to to Nida's 
principles would give the English equivalent for each, based on research, 
etymology, comparative philology, historical factors governing and/or 
affecting interpretation, etc.

Back to Dr. Furuli's comments:

>and more than any other
>translation it is accused for bias, and even of being dishonest.

Check out Col. 1:16-17, where the word "other" is added three different 
times, in order to make it seem as though Jesus existed before and 
created all *other* things (implying that He Himself was created); if the 
word "other" is left out, of course, the verses state that He existed 
before and created all things, implying that He Himself was not created.

If that does not bother you, consider the following: Last night I had sex 
with my other wife.

>Because of its literalness it often has a wooden style, but
>the acute awareness of its translators of the nuances of the Greek and
>Hebrew verbs and their search for details makes it a fine study Bible
>(particularly the Reference edition of 1984).

If and only if one takes a sort of word-for-word transcription to be the 
basis for a study Bible. I find this to be ignorant of the nature of the 
difference between languages (see the endless thread on this list 
concerning the nature of yiqtol, wayyiqtol, weqatal, etc., in which all 
participants have correctly seen that we *can't* simply try to find the 
"English" way to understand these features, but have to try to understand 
them within the framework of the Hebrew verbal system as a whole, whether 
or not we are very good at doing that), and comes perilously close to 
suggesting that a computer could translate from one language to another.

There is, however, another problem here which completely vitiates the 
idea of a "totally literal" translation. That is the obvious fact that 
for many words, there is more than one way to translate them literally! I 
"set" it on the table; I "placed" it on the table. Not only synonyms, 
though, which is sort of a banal example, but what about the use of 
"NATFN" in Biblical Hebrew? Of course it means "give" most of the time, 
but there are is large minority of uses in which it means "permit." Are 
we to translate "give" every time? If not, how are we to claim 
"literalness" for our translation?

>The theology of the
>translators is seen in many of their renderings, as is more or less the
>case in all translations, and this gives a fine opportunity to ask about
>what bias really means. Is the criterion for what is biased or not biased
>in translation the orthodox theology, or what is it?

I believe that what is usually meant in such a discussion is 
"sectarianism." Of course, only a simpleton would claim that any work by 
an individual or a group has no bias, in the sense of having some given 
jumping off point.  On the other hand, sectarianism is more the case of 
limiting the input into any particular production to one, in this case 
theological, group. The NWT was done (if I'm not mistaken) only by JWs. 
The NIV had, and I quote, "Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, 
Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, 
Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and 
other churches." This was intentional, to help safeguard the translation 
from sectarianism.

(some good stuff snipped)

>I claim that words have individual meanings
>without a context because they serve as semantic signals of concepts in the
>minds of living people, and that this meaning is quite similar among the
>individuals having the same presupposition pool. Further do I claim that
>the context does not generate *new* meaning, but serves as a forefinger
>which makes visible a certain part of the meaning which already is there.

>The word np$, for instance,  served as a semantic signal for *one* meaning
>in the old Hebrew presupposition pool, the shades of this meaning being
>made visible by the context. Modern translators use 30 or more words to
>translate this single word, while the NWT translates it and the Greek
>equivalent yuce by the one English word "soul".

I find Dr. Furuli's "mid-point" between a lexically-oriented and a 
contextually-oriented approach to be right on the mark (an illustration 
might be the nature-nurture question. Nature [genetics] fulfils the role 
of the word, circumscribing in advance the possibilities as to the 
person's eventual role in life [meaning of the word-in-context]; nurture 
[context] actualizes the potential meaning in a specific manner, but 
always within the limits prescribed by the genes).

However, the NWT only translates one word in one way when it fits their 
theology. As a counter-example I offer the Greek word proskunew, which is 
translated "worship" when it has God as its object, and "do obeisance" 
when it has Christ as its object. Where is the literalness here? Where is 
the "strictly literally (translation), in order to let the target group 
get a feeling of the original text" (a quote from another part of Dr. 
Furuli's post) in this?

>This is a fine situation
>for an investigation of whether the use of *one* word as a modern semantic
>signal for one original word really do benefit the mentioned target group
>or not

It may well be, but it can't pretend to be a translation.

Mark Joseph