Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Translations and Arian bias

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: mjoseph <mjoseph AT terminal.cz>
  • To: "b-Hebrew Digest" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Translations and Arian bias
  • Date: Sat, 8 May 99 18:37:38 +0100


Dear Rolf:

Thank you for your response; I really appreciate your input, and know how
busy you must be. As I suspect that no one beside you and I is interested
in this (after all, no one responded to my post but you; no one has
responded to your post so far but me), I will keep my comments very
brief, especially as I think we may be speaking past each other.

>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 believe this needs no comment.

>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.

This is not something qualitatively different; it it just a point in a
different place on the line from "interlinear" to "modern paraphrase."

>>In short, I believe these "literal" translations to be poor because they
>>betray a lack of understanding of the nature of different languages. (snip)

>This paragraph shows that you have no experience with the target group of a
>strictly literal translation.

Mea maxima culpa.

>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.

Life is short. I was addressing issues of language, not what one
particular group might happen to want.

(Rolf's point about number of concepts represented by one word snipped)

>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.

As the only comment I can make here is theological and polemical at once,
I refrain, according to stated principles of the list.

(three long paragraphs of my linguistic analysis snipped)

>Your comments above are theological rather than linguistic and quite
>onesided.

Well, I snipped the three long paragraphs of my linguistic analysis in
the interest of other's bandwidth. I'd only say that they somewhat belie
what you just said.

Mark Joseph




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page