Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Rolf,

I don't want to get involved in a long discussion about Bible 
translations. But I do feel I must defend translators against the 
charge of bias which you bring concerning "Gehenna" - exercising a 
right of reply even though off topic.

The translation "hell" for the Greek "geenna" does not fit any part of 
your definition of bias, or of any other definition. It is based on an 
exegetical decision that the word, as used by Jesus, did not refer to 
a geographical location but to a place of punishment for the wicked 
dead, as also in intertestamental literature e.g. 2 Esdras 7:36, 
Assumption of Moses 10:10 (I don't have the latter to check). In 
Matthew 10:28 the meaning can only be the place of the dead, it cannot 
be a geographical location. This exegetical decision may be debatable, 
but it deserves proper academic discussion rather than accusations of 
bias.

Meanwhile no-one can complain at the published translation in the 
language I am working with: the word "jahannam" is both the proper 
phonological equivalent (via Arabic) of the Hebrew "ge-hinnom" and the 
commonly used word for the place of the wicked dead.

Then, concerning literal translations you wrote:

"Remember that literal translations communicate meaning to the reader 
while interlinear Bibles do not communicate, they just substitute 
words."

On my understanding the definition of a literal translation is one 
which just substitutes words, as opposed to one which uses words more 
flexibly to ensure that the correct meaning is communicated. There is 
indeed a respected group often known as "modified literal 
translations" which substitute words where possible but make deeper 
changes where simple word substitution would mis-communicate. Thus the 
NRSV translators defined their method as "As literal as possible, as 
free as necessary". You have called these translations "not strictly 
literal" as opposed to others which have been "translated strictly 
literally". My point is that these also are not strictly literal as I 
understand it if they substitute "slow to anger" for "long nose"; they 
may translate NEPE$ consistently as "soul", but they fail to translate 
)AP consistently as "nose". "Those who by the help of their mother 
tongue want to come as close as possible to the original text", as you 
put it, will want to know and need to know that "length of nose" was a 
Hebrew idiom for "slow to anger"; if they don't want to know things 
like that they should stick to a translation (whether "dynamic" or 
"modified literal") which communicates meaning in their own languages.

Peter Kirk