Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Polycarp66 AT aol.com]

In a message dated 1/26/2003 7:49:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au writes:

> Trevor, I don't think I would agree with you here, speaking from the
> viewpoint of a translator. Your analogy is misplaced: translators and
> exegetes are not doctors charged with healing the text, but scholars
> charged with understanding and translating what we have. We can
> speculate that what we have is not exactly what was originally written,
> but in most cases that is speculation and any reconstruction of the
> original is even more speculative. If we start to translate such
> reconstructions, we start on a very slippery slope towards translating
> what some "doctor" thinks that the author ought to have written rather
> than the text we have in front of us.
> 
> When we have an apparently corrupt text in front of us, what should we
> do? One thing we should note is that this text has generally been read,
> used, translated and copied for centuries as it stands, which suggests
> that someone has been able to make sense of it, a sense which is
> probably reflected in older commentaries and translations, if for now we
> ignore those which seem to be based on a different text. Another key
> point is that the text may not be saying what we expect it to say, and
> may not follow regular syntax, especially in older poetic passages like
> this one. I have also noted that scholars proposing emendations often
> display a serious lack of imagination in considering how the text as it
> stands might be understood, although their imagination runs riot in
> proposing emended texts.
> 
> So I would suggest that we ought to exegete and translate the text as it
> stands, wherever possible, even if we do have reason to suspect that it
> might have been corrupted at some time. And we should beware of assuming
> such corruptions when some sense can be made of the text as it stands.
> 
In a message dated 1/26/2003 7:49:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
peterkirk AT ozemail.com.au writes:

> Trevor, I don't think I would agree with you here, speaking from the
> viewpoint of a translator. Your analogy is misplaced: translators and
> exegetes are not doctors charged with healing the text, but scholars
> charged with understanding and translating what we have. We can
> speculate that what we have is not exactly what was originally written,
> but in most cases that is speculation and any reconstruction of the
> original is even more speculative. If we start to translate such
> reconstructions, we start on a very slippery slope towards translating
> what some "doctor" thinks that the author ought to have written rather
> than the text we have in front of us.
> 
> When we have an apparently corrupt text in front of us, what should we
> do? One thing we should note is that this text has generally been read,
> used, translated and copied for centuries as it stands, which suggests
> that someone has been able to make sense of it, a sense which is
> probably reflected in older commentaries and translations, if for now we
> ignore those which seem to be based on a different text. Another key
> point is that the text may not be saying what we expect it to say, and
> may not follow regular syntax, especially in older poetic passages like
> this one. I have also noted that scholars proposing emendations often
> display a serious lack of imagination in considering how the text as it
> stands might be understood, although their imagination runs riot in
> proposing emended texts.
> 
> So I would suggest that we ought to exegete and translate the text as it
> stands, wherever possible, even if we do have reason to suspect that it
> might have been corrupted at some time. And we should beware of assuming
> such corruptions when some sense can be made of the text as it stands.
> 

What one sometimes finds in old commentaries on the text (meaning here the 
MT) is that the older Jewish commentaries understood it no better than we do 
today.  We also find that the versions, notably the LXX, likewise did not 
understand it and made their own emendations or, in some cases, followed a 
differing text of which we find some remnants in the DSS.  Dahood made an 
attempt to understand the text as it stands based upon Ugaritic materials and 
probably went a bit too far.  When we undertake to translate a passage, no 
matter whether we are translating for a language group which as yet has no 
Bible in its tongue or whether we are producing a translation for our own 
use, we are obliged to make sense out of the text.  It is no sign of piety or 
scholarship to simply repeat what were apparently guesses on the part of some 
scholar simply because his understanding happens to have the patina of age.

gfsomsel
>From brocine AT twcny.rr.com  Sun Jan 26 22:38:19 2003
Return-Path: <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com
        [24.92.226.49])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C649020095
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:38:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brocine (syr-66-67-64-11.twcny.rr.com [66.67.64.11])
        h0R3d9xF012048  for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:39:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <00c201c2c5b5$ad94ae70$0302a8c0@brocine>
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: <20030126170016.57A0E201A6 AT happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu>
        <3E343CC3.8090805 AT appstate.edu>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: Grammar Texts Question
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:39:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 03:38:19 -0000

Hi Rodney.  It's been awhile, eh?  Thanks for your kind comments.

I would like to continue on one point you
have brought up.  It has significance for teaching/learning BH beyond
choosing a
first year grammar.  You wrote:

>
>  3) Rocine's approach is to provide the "sense" of the Hebrew and not
> smooth translations into English.  I actually think that is a strength,
> but some students get a little frustrated and find it helpful to be
> prompted to reflect on how to render the sense in to smooth English
> idiom.  They learn about the problems of translating and the need for
> commentary.

I think translation is over-emphasized in second language learning to the
detriment of comprehension and appreciation of the language. For instance,
many of my students, because of their previous experiences in secpond
language acquisition,  begin with the assumption that success is producing,
from a given passage in BH, an English version that matches their favorite
English tranlsation.  A student's favorite "bookstore" translation becomes
the answer key.  Until they get used to a different way, the question is
usually whether the translation is *correct*.  I tell my students that if
that's what they want out of the course, they would be better off buying
more different English translations and good Bible study software rather
than expend the great effort required to learn Hebrew.

I guess students' obsession with translating is also because we think of the
translations we buy off the shelf as authoritive, as if we can't do any
better.  Given their audiences and purposes, I would agree that we would be
hard-pressed to produce better translations than NIV, JPS, Fox's, etc.  But
it is very unlikely that any of my students will produce yet another
translation on the bookstore shelf, so why make that the goal?  Is that type
of smooth translation really the ultimate, let alone most practical goal?

To me, translation actrivities are discussion exercises in dead language
acquisition.  In my course, we allow stretching English to its limits and
discuss whether we have produced a better or worse equivalence for the
Hebrew in terms of discourse.  Discourse analysis is the study of the
linguistic signs a writer/speaker uses to guide his reader/listener through
a text. I think we would rather, while learning BH, appreciate and discuss
these signs than produce yet another smooth-sounding translation suitable
for the general public.  We can always do the bookstore version later if we
care to.

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766