b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie AT sagus.com>
- To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
- Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Translations and Arian Bias
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 10:31:43 -0500
At 11:58 AM 3/31/99 +0200, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>Since Louw and Nida have both influenced a great deal of influence on
>>modern linguistics, including lexicography, I assume they know how it's
>>done. You may disagree with their results, just as you may disagree with
>>certain translations of this passage.
>
>Your quotations above are excellent examples of how the "functional
>equivalence" model of Nida ( and de Waard) and the "semantic domain" model
>of Louw and Nida both allows and encourages Bible translators to read
>orthodox theology into the biblical text.
>
>Nida's two central principles were: (1) There is only one target group: the
>general readers (who do not want to work with the text themselves). (2) The
>individual words have little meaning, what is to be translated are not
>words, but "kernels", which are found by a semantic (interpretative)
>analysis. (See J de Waard, E.A. Nida, 1986," Functional Equivalence in
>Bible Translating From One Language to Another")
You say that a translation is biased if it contradicts lexica. I see that
Louw&Nida is not a lexicon you accept. BAGD is the other major NT lexicon,
and it also clearly states that PRWTOTOKOS is used in a variety of settings
where "it is uncertain whether the force of -TOKOS (born) is still felt at
all", and gives examples to show this. In a separate section of the
definition, it also cites an example where heretics are called the
firstborn of the devil. These are the two major New Testament lexicons,
especially Louw&Nida, and the translation of the NIV does not contradict
their definitions here.
The major classical lexicon, Liddel-Scott-Jones, suggests that PRWTOTOKOS
is used metaphorically in this passage.
So if the definition of bias you are working with is to contradict the
lexica, and the three major lexical allow a particular translation, then it
can't be accused of bias by your definition, can it?
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Robie
R&D Fellow, Software AG
jonathan.robie AT sagus.com
-
Re[3]: Translations and Arian Bias,
peter_kirk, 04/01/1999
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Translations and Arian Bias, John Ronning, 04/01/1999
- Re[4]: Translations and Arian Bias, peter_kirk, 04/01/1999
- Re[4]: Translations and Arian Bias, Ian Hutchesson, 04/01/1999
- Re[5]: Translations and Arian Bias, peter_kirk, 04/02/1999
-
Re: Translations and Arian Bias,
Jonathan Robie, 04/02/1999
- Re: Translations and Arian Bias, Rolf Furuli, 04/03/1999
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Translations and Arian Bias, Jonathan Robie, 04/03/1999
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
-
Message not available
- Re: Translations and Arian Bias, Ian Hutchesson, 04/02/1999
- Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias, peter_kirk, 04/03/1999
- Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias, dan-ake mattsson, 04/04/1999
- Re[3]: Translations and Arian Bias, peter_kirk, 04/05/1999
- Re: Re[2]: Translations and Arian Bias, dano, 04/06/1999
- Re: Translations and Arian bias, mjoseph, 04/07/1999
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.