Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf,

I know that you sent this item to the list by mistake, but since it did 
become part of
the record, there are a couple of items that I would like to comment on.  
These are
not critiques that should cause you to change your chapter.  Rather, they are 
thoughts
that struck me as I read your work-in-progress.

The comparison of literal translation to the informed consent of the medical 
practice
is *not* a point well taken.  That is because doctors, when presenting the 
findings to
a patient, actually give a bit of medical training to the patient so the 
patient can
know the pluses and minuses of the various options.  If this compares with 
anything in
the study of the biblical text, it would compare with a good, balanced 
commentary.
Translators--all translators--do not have the option to educate the target 
group so
that the members of the group can understand the potential significances of 
the
various forms.  A closer comparison would be if the doctor only gave the test 
results
and then told the patient, "You have all the facts that I have about your 
personal
situation.  Now *you* make the diagnosis and plan the treatment without my 
giving you
any hint as to what I learned in years of medical training and practice."  I 
wouldn't
want that from a doctor, and I'm not sure that I would want that from a 
translation.

I recognize that the "literal" translation you keep suggesting is not for the 
populus
in general.  Rather, it is for "those who want to work with the text on their 
own," as
you state.  But I have found that almost all who have the necessary tools to 
do this
already have the basic greek and hebrew skills.  So why put out a translation 
for
these?  And, if perchance there are those who have the understanding of 
hebrew and
greek idioms and grammar but who do not have the necessary vocabulary, would 
they not
much more likely go to lexicons than to a translation of limited usability?

The second response has to do with your definition of "dynamic equivalence."  
Now, I
understand that the use of interpretation *might* fall under the general 
heading of
dynamic equivalence, and that, in general, the "dynamic equivalent" approach 
looks
more at the overall "kernel" of meaning rather than the individual words.  
Yet, in
normal day-to-day work, the term actually applies to going from the idiomatic
structure of one language into the *idiomatic* structure of another.  In 
short, under
the normal practical usage of the term, when one finds the idiom "eat it 
down" in some
languages, it is *not* dynamic equivalence to translate it in English as "eat 
it
completely."  It *is* dynamic equivalence to translate it as "eat it up," 
because that
is doing more than just bringing out the concept.  It is instead changing the
idiomatic form to that of another language.  A translation which is not 
word-for-word
literal is not necessarily "dynamic equivalent."  And it is unfair to assume 
that all
translations being worked on today, even all those in the mission community, 
are
"dynamic equivalent."  Their goal is, however, to be true translations, which 
means
that the output must be understandable (even if not already predigested) by 
the target
audience.

Just my thoughts,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph