Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Paul,

When the accident first has happened, I appreciate your comments,
particularly since you are a competent Bible translator. I also appreciate
that you understood that it was a work in progress where both the
language/style and the arguments would be "brushed up".


>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?

I wonder why Peter, who is also a competent Bible translator, and yourself
draw the conclusion that
the literal translation I discuss, is for people who know Greek and Hebrew.
Here in Oslo I know scores of people, young and old who want to understand
the meaning of the details in the Bible, but who do not know the original
languages. I am sure there are many similar people all over the world.

An illustration cannot catch everything in the real world. The aim of my
illustration was to show the concentration of power: "dynamic equivalence"
- all power to the translators as in the case of the physicians as surgeons
30 years ago, "concordant translation" - more power is given to the
readers. When a concordant translation is sought, the readers can find all
the passages where one important word is used, and by help of the context
of each passage, they can learn more about the original concept signalled
by the word. I agree that commentaries, interlinear Bibles, and other tools
will help the reader to make informed choices. The point that Jonathan
repeatedly has made, is also important, namely to use different
translations. Any translation, including literal ones, will loose some of
the original thought because of the differences between the languages.
Different translations catch different sides of this original thought.


>
>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.

I do not want to be unfair and I will carefully choose the right words in
the final work.  I attend the meetings of the Norwegian Forum for Bible
Translation, and have discussed the work of several Bible translators (last
meeting we had a demonstration by a SIL member working in Indonesia of the
CDs in use). The Norwegian Church Bible of 1978/85 is made on the basis of
dynamic equivalence, but it is also quite literal, and the translators did
not actually work with "kernels" at all, so your point is correct.
>
>Just my thoughts,
>

Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo