Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Bible translations

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: Bible translations
  • Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:56:43 -0500


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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page