Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Kaz <alethinon61 AT milwpc.com>]

> [Peter
> >>The trouble with this is that, even if we use accept  your model, there
> >>is minimal overlap between the fuzzy Hebrew concept of NEPE$ and average
> >>English speakers' even more fuzzy concept of soul.
> >>
> [Kaz]
> >Here you have a very good point, for the average modern English speaking
> >person has had his concept of "soul" tainted by centuries of extra-biblical
> >teaching that is based more on Platonic dualism than anything else.
> >However, this is, in fact, a compelling reason for accepting Rolf's model 
> >of
> >translation, for his model allows Bible students to decide for themselves
> >whether ancient Jewish beliefs were a foregleam of Plato, or not.
> >
> [Peter] Well, a few people will be capable of and motivated for study in
> sufficient depth to decide this for themselves, but most will tend to
> rely on their own understanding of the word in context, which is
> probably misleading. I think it would have been better to transliterate
> "nephesh" in an English text rather than use "soul", because that would
> force users to do their own research or refer to study notes rather than
> to insert their own probably inappropriate understanding of the word.

I just want to say that I think transliterating "nephesh" would be an 
_excellent_
idea, and I would very much like to see this approach adopted by Bible
translators.  I also think that using "soul" is a fine approach, as long as
appropriate footnotes and a detailed appendix is included to elaborate on the
Hebrew concept of "soul" (as opposed to the Greek concept [and, of course, 
such
an appendix would be required whether one chooses to employ "soul" our
"nephesh"]), but I really like the idea of transliterating the Hebrew NEPE$ as
"nephesh".  This would eliminate the problem of students reading preconceived
ideas back into the text, and would tend to force them to thoughtfully 
consider
what side of NEPE$ is in view in any given occurrence.

-Sean (a/k/a Kaz)