b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
- To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: Re[2]: Bible translations
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:04:09 +0200
Dear Peter,
>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.
>
I will not engage in a theological argument about geenna, it may have the
same meaning as in the pseudepigraphic literature (though the word is used
in many different senses in this literature) or it may have a completely
different meaning as the NT seems to imply.
However, I was really shocked by your reply because:
(1) You as a logical thinker do not see that to translate a proper name
with another word with a huge load of connotations do not meet my
definition of bias based on linguistics. I am simply breathless.
(2) You as a responsible Bible translator feel it is correct to force upon
the unaware reader a particular theological viewpoint therough translation,
something that he or she has no possibility to know.
I really feel sorry for such Bible readers, and it enhances the need for
literal translations.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo
-
Re: Bible translations
, (continued)
- Re: Bible translations, Jonathan Robie, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Loren Crow, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, peter_kirk, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Jonathan Robie, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, CCailes, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Dave Washburn, 03/09/1999
- RE: Bible translations, Bill Ross, 03/09/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Rolf Furuli, 03/10/1999
- Re: Bible translations, mjoseph, 03/11/1999
- Re[2]: Bible translations, peter_kirk, 03/11/1999
- Re[2]: Bible translations, Rolf Furuli, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Rolf Furuli, 03/12/1999
- Bible Translations, Andrew C Smith, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible Translations, Jonathan D. Safren, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible Translations, Jonathan Robie, 03/12/1999
- Re[3]: Bible translations, peter_kirk, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible Translations, Irene Riegner, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible Translations, GregStffrd, 03/12/1999
- Re: Bible translations, John Ronning, 03/20/1999
- Re: Bible translations, Rolf Furuli, 03/20/1999
- Re: Bible translations, John Ronning, 03/20/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.