Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Mark,

My week is often very busy, giving lectures about four different languages.
I started to answer your post 3 weeks ago but did not come to an end. I
continue today.

This is a very fine post, and believe it or not, I agree in most of your
examples of the problems with a strictly literal translation. One
expression of yours which adds to this argument, is your use of the epithet
"Arian". The view today among Church historians is that Arius just had a
marginal influence at Nicaea, and as far as I know, there are no sects or
denominations today which accept all the views of Arius. So in this case
would a dynamic equivalent rendition be much better for all target groups
than the use of an adjective ("Arian") based on a semi-transcription of his
name.

Already in my study of applied linguistics several years ago, I bacame
interested in the readers and their interests, because the curriculum
contained much information related to the author and her language, to the
three stages of translation  (understanding, transmission, and
formulation), but little was said about the interests of the readers. True,
the most basic question which time and again was repeated was: Who is the
target group?. A translation ought to be different for different target
groups. But the following question  of mine had never been asked before:
"Is it possible that the reader may have a part in the very process of
translation?" (The premise is that this process starts when the text is
written and ends when the reader understands it correctly.) Related to
this, is also the question of power. Is it necessary that the translators
have all the power and can manipulate the readers at will (read:theology),
or is it possible to transfer some of the power to the readers, to the
effect that they to a certain extent can make informed choices as to the
meaning of the text?

While your examples below are fine and to the point, the frame of your
discussion is poor, because you decide beforhand which target groups are
*acceptable* for a translation, and this does not include the target group
for a strictly literal translation. Without taking the particular target
group into account (in this case the target group of the NWT), your
criticism overshoots the mark.
>
>I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "literal translation,"
>or to be more precise, the only literal translation is an interlinear.
>When Jehovah's Witnesses state that the NWT is the most literal version,
>I might agree only in the restricted sense that it may possibly be true
>that it most nearly approaches being an interlinear. I, however, would
>consider that to be nothing more than a sign of a particularly poor
>translation (much as the NASB, done by evangelical Christians, is a poor
>translation), *even without* considerations of theological bias, as I
>hope to show.

Translation is communication, and the interlinear Bibles communicate almost
nothing, they just substitute words. While interlinear bibles are fine
tools for Bible study, they are not translations in the normal sense of the
word. When I speak of strictly literal translations, I think of those
translations that use the sentence structure of the original languages, and
as much as possible use one English word for each "important" word in the
original text. I agree that any literal translation must be a compromise,
because of the differences between the languages that you outline. But
while the very principle of the idiomatic translation is NOT to use the
same English word(s) for each original word, this is what is sought in the
literal translation (Before you criticize a particular translation for its
literalness you should read its principles of translation).

>In short, I believe these "literal" translations to be poor because they
>betray a lack of understanding of the nature of different languages. The
>wider point (details follow) is that, with a few exceptions such as
>concrete nouns (e.g., hippopotamus, telephone), the meaning of terms in
>one language does not completely overlap with the meaning of terms in
>another language, the quantitative difference being lesser (between two
>languages in the same family) or greater (between two languages in
>different families). The attempt, therefore, always to translate a given
>term in the original by the same word in the receptor language, rather
>than giving the reader a chance to see how the word is used in the
>original language, actually takes him *away* from the meaning, not only
>of the text as a whole, but even from the meaning of the words
>themselves. The promised details (some of which have already been
>mentioned by others; all of these arguments against "literal" translation
>can and should be taken as arguments in favor of a dynamic equivalence
>translation):

This paragraph shows that you have no experience with the target group of a
strictly literal translation. We agree that words in different languages
which are thought to be equivalent have different ranges of meaning.  But
the point with using a particular English word as a translation of a
particular Hebrew word, is not that both words are equivalent, but rather
that both are signals of something. What you overlook is that a literal
translation is e semi-finished product where the reader must do the last
part of the translation, and this reduces the problem of the different
ranges of, say NP$ in Hebrew and "soul" in English. When the one English
word "soul" is used, the point is that the reader (of the particular target
group) by reading some or all the passages where this word occurs, can
adjust her English view of the meaning of NP$/soul. (Your argument of the
problems of using one word "soul" is valid in all other target groups
except the one for which literal translations are made, but see below.)



>Now, if I understand correctly, Dr. Furuli's main point in his criticism
>of Nida's translation theory has been (pardon me if I don't word it
>precisely) that "a word brings to mind one specific concept in the mind
>of a native speaker, from which all the related meanings of the word
>derive."  Dr. Furuli's words were:
>
>>A word, in
>>my view, is void of meaning, but it is a semantic signal of a concept in
>>the minds of those speaking the same language and having the same
>>presupposition pool. This concept usually has a quite clear core of meaning
>>elements but becomes more fuzzy when the edges are approached.
>
>About Nida et. al. he adds:
>
>>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. (J de Waard, E.A. Nida)
>
>>A central principle for "semantic domain" is thus expressed: "a word does
>>not have a meaning without a context, it only has possibilities of
>>meaning." J. P. Louw
>
>Pardon my brusqueness, but for all his linguistic acumen, Dr. Furuli is
>simply wrong. He may be very close in the case of concrete nouns (except
>for the metaphorical overtones of grandeur, the word "lion" pretty much
>means the same thing to all English speakers), and perhaps not too far
>off with less concrete nouns and verbs referring to more or less specific
>actions, but the idea fails completely with a verb of indefinitely wide
>range (the most famous English example is "get") or with abstract
>nouns--I assure you that the word "love" signals quite different concepts
>in the minds of different native English speakers! The idea that NEPE$
>signals one specific concept to the Biblical Hebrew speaking person may
>or may not be true (I suspect it's not; the word "run" certainly doesn't
>signal one specific concept to an English speaker), but even if it were
>true, that does *not* imply that it should always be translated by the
>same word in English, any more than the word "run" in an English book
>should always be translated by the same word in a translation into
>Norwegian.

It seems to me that none of those who has participated in this thread has
had any personal experience with a strictly literal translation; i.e. has
studied its communicative  power, its weaknesses and strengths. I therefore
would like to illustrate how the literal translation helps the reader to
have a part in the very process of translation by using  two examples from
"Today's English Version" which often is closer to being a paraphrase than
an idiomatic translation.

(1) AGAPH (You comment on "love" above.)
The concept signalled by this word encompasses so much that it cannot be
defined, it must be described. How is this word translated by TEV? In 96
per cent of its occurrences the word "love" is used! This means that just
as the Greeks used AGAPH as a semantic signal of a particular concept,
similarly TEV uses "love" as a semantic signal, and the readers must
interprete its sense in each case. I think that "love" signals only one
concept (the word used in a psycholinguistic sense) in the English
presupposition pool, but this concept is wider than most other concepts.
Those wanting to have a part in "translating" the Bible will study how
AGAPH is used and readjust their own view of "love" in light of what they
find.

(2)  KOSMOS (Probably in only one instance is the reference "the universe".
In most instances is the reference "the human family", "the human family
ouside the Christian church", "the environment in which the human family
lives"; and in one instance is the reference "adornment". These
senses/references are very different, yet TEV uses the one English word
"world" in 92 per cent of the occurrences of KOSMOS.
In the Greek presupposition pool, KOSMOS signalled *one* concept which
included senses such as "the universe", different senses connected with
"the human family", and "adornment" (cf the senses of KOSMEW).  In the
English presupposition pool, the core of the concept signalled by KOSMOS
relates to "the earth with everything on it" and "the universe". Also "the
human family" may be a part of this concept, due to the influence of the
Bible, but "adornment" is definitely not included in this English concept.
Because KOSMOS signals one concept in Greek but what this concept contains
is connected with two concepts in English, even strictly literal
translations use another word than "world" 1 Peter 3:3.

TEV's extensive  use of "world" may be problematic for those who want their
food chewed by others, but the translators of this very free translation
evidently reasoned that regarding KOSMOS, the readers must do the
interpretaion ("translation"). And this is the crux of the matter. Even
though the English concept "world" may be different from the concept
KOSMOS, one signal (word) is used in each case. And then it is up to the
readers to find the meaning of this signal and readjust the concept in
their mind.  Because languages are so different, as you yourself has shown
with many fine examples, it is not possible even for a literal translation
to use one word for one word, but such a translation strives to to that as
much as possible.

I will once again stress that I do not defend literal translations against
idiomatic ones. My view is that for most target groups a strictly literal
translation will not do, but for the target group of those wanting to have
a part in the translation process, such translations are very fine.



>    (b2) Multiple meanings of the same word. "Soul" (in English) is a
>perfect example. To dichotomists, it is the immaterial part of man,
>everything that isn't body, and synonymous with "spirit." To
>trichotomists it means part of the immaterial part of man--often defined
>as that which contains the emotions, volition and intellect, or the part
>that makes me me, and not someone else. To some it conjures up the idea
>of the immortality of the soul, to others a perishable entity, to
>materialists it's at most a symbol (though they'd probably say it's just
>a function of brain chemistry), to some it is a tangible object that can
>be captured or controlled. Now, *even if* NEPE$ has a unitary meaning in
>Hebrew, what is the literal translation into English that will convey the
>true Hebraic content of the word without distorting it for an English
>speaker? Is it not obvious that a one-word-for-one-word translation is
>actually *farther* from the meaning of the text than a dynamic
>equivalence translation in which each usage of NEPE$ has been analyzed in
>its context, and been given the English gloss which most nearly
>represents its meaning in the particular passage in which it is used?
>
>My overall point with respect to the idea that a word can have multiple
>meanings is simply that in light of this fact, a "literal" translation
>can only distort the meaning both of the words and the sense of the text.
>This should be obvious from both synonymy and polysemy. A text without a
>context is still a pretext.
>
>
>All of what I've written is obvious to anyone who speakes more than one
>language which, I presume, is everyone on this list, and I apologize for
>the pedantic nature of the post. So, why did I spend a considerable chunk
>of time writing it? Because in reading the thread entitled "Translations
>and Arian bias" I get the feeling that I'm trying to hit a moving target
>in trying to understand what the Arian/JW/NWT side means by a "literal"
>translation. The NWT is *not* a stupidly wooden translation. It has its
>literary faults, but it is readable. But something is very wrong with a
>theory that insists that every occurence of NEPE$ be translated by the
>English word "soul," that demands that Greek proskunew be translated
>"worship" when the object is God, but "do obeisance" when Christ is the
>object, that translates HFLAK idiomatically and in different ways--"go"
>in Gen. 14:24, "travel" in Gen. 19:2, "come" in Gen. 26:26, "get" in Gen.
>32:2 (Eng. v. 1), "walk" in Ex. 14:29, "go away" in Num. 24:1, etc., and
>then calls itself a "literal" translation. These three examples "just
>happen" to line up with Arian theology. Do Arians have a specific concept
>of the nature of the soul? Yes. Do they wish to draw a distinction
>between God and Christ such that God is divine and Christ is not? Yes. Do
>they have a settled theological conviction concerning the action of
>walking? No. Hence theologically motivated and linguistically
>indefensible "literal" translations of the words NEPE$ and proskunew, but
>an idiomatic rendering of HFLAK. Back to the three idioms that I
>mentioned near the beginning of this post, "slow to anger" in Ex. 34:6,
>"sparks" in Job 5:7 (for B.:N"Y-RE$EP) and "houses of the soul", in
>quotation marks, in Is. 3:20 (for B.FT"Y-HAN.EPE$). Again, the only one
>of these three phrases translated literally is Is. 3:20
>(B.FT"Y-HAN.EPE$). Is it possible that this is not due to linguistic
>considerations, but rather to the fact that Arian/JW theology has an
>important and well-defined role for NEPE$ (and hence it gets translated
>"literally" as "soul"), but none for "long," "nose/anger," "son," or
>"Resheph," and hence feels free to translate them idiomatically? Yes, I'd
>say that's possible. In other words, do I think that the NWT is smuggling
>Arian theology into the Bible under the guise of a seemingly
>sophisticated sounding but thoroughly indefensible linguistic theory, and
>then trying to impress the unknowing with a claim of literalness which
>does not stand up under scrutiny?
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>Mark Joseph
>

Your comments above are theological rather than linguistic and quite
onesided. I suggest that you read my book about Bible translation where I
use more than 300 pages discussion theology and bias in Bible translation.
My conclusion is that *any* Bible translation *is* and *must be* influenced
by theology, but *bias* (defined in relation to language and not to
theology) should not be allowed.



Regards
Rolf



Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo