Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Mark,
>
>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.

I use 16 pages in my book to a discussion of Colossians 1(my viewpoint is
all the time what is linguistically possible and preferable). Conclusion: A
rendition of pas as "all other" is perfectly legitimate and "other" is no
addition (See BDB § 480). And particularly if prototokws in 1:15 is taken
in the only meaning it has in the Bible, "the one who is born first", a
rendition which many translations are at pains to avoid, the word "other"
can also be conceptually defended. However, while I demonstrate that
"other" is linguistically defendable, I , at the same time point out that
it better had been left out because it is not necessary. If 1:15 is
translated literally as "the firstborn of all creation", we do not need
"other", just as in the clause "the fig and all trees" because we know that
the fig is a tree.
>
>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?

I do not find those making a litaral translation ignorant of linguistics,
but I agree in most of what you say above. A literal translation is an
atempt to help the readers come as close as possible to the original
languages by help of their mother tongue. A consistent rendition of np$ as
"soul" can illustrate the usefulness of the method. In other instances a
word must be translated with different words as you say.
>
>>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.

As my last post to Peter suggests, the theology of the big religions should
no more be a criterion for how a Bible should be translated than other
theologies. It is true that almost all religions, Christian and
non-Christian believe that vicked people will be tormented after death. But
as a linguist I am shivering when I see translators feeling free to abandon
the normal translation procedures for translating proper names, and force
upon the readers the word "hell", loaded with connotations definitely not
in the Greek word, rather than using Geenna. Is it not much better that the
*readers* themselves are helped to decide what happens after death than
brainwashing them through translation?  I know that "hell" has a long
tradition, but theology aside, are there any on the list who will defend
"hell" instead of Geenna on linguistic grounds?
>
>(some good stuff snipped)

>
>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?

Theology *must* be a part of Bible translation. You cannot translate words
you do not understand. But theology must be curtailed by linguistics and
translation rules. As you know, both proskunew and its Hebrew equivalent
xwh means "to bow down". A translator has two options, either to translate
the word as "bow down" in all instances, or use "worship" for God (because
there is no other reason for bowing down to God) and "bow down" in the
other instances. I would perhaps have chosen the first option in a literal
translation, but the second option is also legitimate, because
communication may in some cases be more important than literalness.

The list-owner is concerned about discussing particular translations, and I
would like to show him respect. I have answered your questions but I do not
want a furter discussion of the NWT.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo
>