Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

Dr.Furuli:> Dear Kelton, 
 
> We all have different "horizons of understanding," which consciously and 
> unconsciously influence our decisions and even our logic. We also have 
> different backgrounds in linguistics, translation theory, and theology. 
> This 
> will influence each one of us as well. 

Response: Hey Dr. Furuli, thanks for writting me back. I agree our different 
backgrounds and theology and even our presuppositions do influence our 
translations as well.

Dr:Furuli:> When I teach my students how to translate words (I mean "words," 
because 
> that is all that is on the page) from one language to another, I often use 
> Ogden`s triangle of signification, with "sign," "concept," and "reference" 
> at the three corners. It is of utmost importance to differentiate between 
> the 
> "concept" (=meaning in the minds of persons with the same presupposition 
> pool) and the "reference" (=the thing in the world denoted by the word). 

Response: Let me see if I am following you, the sign is the actual word 
itself 'OLAM, the concept is what existed in the mind of the Hebrew writters, 
the reference in basically what we define in the dictionary or what we use 
today in English to convey that idea?

Dr: Furuli:> When you say, "Halot has the meaning," this may be a confusion 
between 
> "concept" (=meaning) and "reference"(=what is denoted). Such a confusion is 
> common in lexicons and word books, and one reason is that Hebrew-English 
> lexicons do not give the "meaning" of Hebrew words, they only give English 
> glosses (i.e., the most common ways to translate particular Hebrew words 
> into English). Word meanings exist in the minds of living people and not in 
> lexicons! 

Response: Well the obvious problem however is that those people are dead (not 
trying to be funny here), so it seems best to try to understand concept based 
off of reference and context of the passage individually.

Dr.Furuli:> No one today has the same presupposition pool as the Hebrews in 
ancient 
> days, and concepts can seldom be defined, they must be known. So the 
> lexical 
> semantics of classical Hebrew 
> is based on induction, and includes all the weaknesses and uncertaintees of 
> this method. I think that the core of the cencept behind the root (LM is 
> something that is hidden (my thinking is also based upon induction). 
> Applied 
> to the nominal sphere with the form (WLM, I think the core meaning is 
> "hidden time" with an indifference regarding the length or nature of the 
> hidden time. In other words, the concept "long" is not a part of the 
> *meaning* of (WLAM. Nonetheless, in most cases the reference of (WLM is a 
> "long time", even "eternity". But beware of confusing "meaning" with 
> "reference"! 

Response:  Ok, but how did you come up with this core meaning of "hidden 
time?"  Did you base it off of context or did you do something special.  Not 
arguing that you are wrong or right I just don't follow your train of thought 
here.

I understand (well I think I do) your distinction between meaning and 
reference, but how did you conclude that the meaning of 'OLAM is "hidden 
time?"

For instance when it says God of OLAM, do you think it means that God is the 
God of unknown time?  Or God of eternalty?


Dr.Furuli:> One problem facing those who make a literal translation is that 
classical > Hebrew concepts do not exactly match modern English ones. 
Therefore, when 
> one English word is sought for each Hebrew word (a consistent application 
> of 
> this is possible in less than 10% of all cases), there may be connotations 
> connected with the English words that were absent in Hebrew, and the ranges 
> of meaning may be somewhat different as well. Translators of idiomatic 
> translations use many different words and expressions for each Hebrew word, 
> and the problem is that so much interpretative material is forced upon the 
> readers (and often the translators make wrong decisions). Translators of 
> literal translations try to use one English word per Hebrew word, and 
> therefore they force upon the readers English connotations and nuances that 
> are connected with the English words but were absent from Hebrew. However, 
> this target group is better off than those using idiomatic translations, 
> because they can look up the contexts of one particular English word in the 
> Bible and 
> learn something about its meaning and references. This is the very reason 
> for the existence of literal translations. So it is good to use both 
> idiomatic and literal translations in one´s study, since they may 
> complement 
> each other. 

Response: Well, I would agree that it is good if you cannot translate it 
yourself to use both a literal and an idiomatic translation in your study.  
And I understand your argument about translating.

Dr.Furuli:> As for (WLM, I see two possible choices in English that can 
convey the core 
> of the concept, namely "concealed time" and "time indefinite". On the basis 
> of my arguments above I would 
> prefer the latter. To disagree with this choice is your privilege, but it 
> is 
> unfair to criticize literal translations on the basis of the methods and 
> goals of idiomatic translations (i.e., smooth renderings where the meaning 
> of the source language is rendered with good idiomatic expressions in the 
> target language). And conversely, it is unfair to criticise idiomatic 
> translations on the basis of the methods and goals of literal translations 
> (i.e. to use one word in the target language for one word in the source 
> language as far as possible, and to be closer to the style of the SL than 
> the style on the TL). 

Response:  Actually, I was not trying to criticize anyone, unless you were 
just speaking in a general sense referring to anyone trying to criticize.  My 
point was that indefinite usually means "undefined, unclear etc."  And as far 
as I know that does not fit with what I know about OLAM.  

Dr.Furuli:> NWT has the following rendering in Deuteronomy 15:17, "and he 
must become your slave to time indefinite". If you will construe this as, 
"and he will 
> be your servant for an unclear amount of time," I would suggest a synonym 
> for "unclear". Given the purpose behind the literal translation and its use 
> by the target group, the words should be taken in the sense, "and he will 
> be your servant for an undisclosed amount of time". The reference of (WLM 
> in the case of the freed slave could be one hour, one day, or forty years, 

Response: Yeah, but wasn't the point of the bond servant getting his/her ear 
pierced to denote "lifelong" loyalty to his creditor?  Because in the 
previous verse it is discussing the slave desiring to stay in the household.
> Best regards, 
> 
> Rolf Furuli 
> University of Oslo 

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net



> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Sat Nov 12 18:41:23 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6734C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        692E8180023E
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:41:22 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.55)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 12 Nov 2005 23:41:22 -0000
Received: by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id 4D85A101DE; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:41:22 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500
Received: from [69.107.24.234] by ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:41:22 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.107.24.234
X-Originating-Server: ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20051112234122.4D85A101DE AT ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Joseph: Israel - Hyksos - Egypt
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/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/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:41:23 -0000

Jack:

> ... I find it highly doubtful
> that any reader / listener in ancient or modern times would
> have, with a plain text reading, have taken the Egyptian
> king as anything other than an indigenous Egyptian.

How many people know about the Hyksos? Even=20
educated people? Of those who have heard about them,=20
how many have analyzed the situation as presented in the=20
plain text reading? When one starts with a conclusion, is it=20
not hard to look at a situation with new eyes?

For those of us who were reared in religious homes, both=20
Jewish and Christian, all we have heard since youth is=20
that the pharaoh was Egyptian. Hence we take it for=20
granted. That hypothesis is so deep in our society that=20
even secular people take it for granted. The only reason I=20
questioned it was because certain things just didn't seem=20
to fit a native Egyptian pharaoh explanation.

> .... Your hypothesis
> would see the the Hyksos conquer Egypt and then fear both
> the native Egyptians and immigrant Israelite (Asiatic)
> populations.   However the Hyksos fear the Israelites more
> than the Egyptians and enslave only the Israelites and
> attempt to control only the Israelite population.

No, the text just doesn't mention the native Egyptian=20
population. Historical records indicate that the native=20
population was oppressed as well.=20

>  From a purely historical perspective, the Israelites and
> Hyksos seem natural allies in conquered Egypt before the
> New Kingdom, if such a situation actually existed.

Why?

> ....    The text as written makes clear that the
> Egyptian king in the story is an indigenous Egyptian.

No, the text doesn't say.

> There is no indication that the King is afraid of the
> Egyptians

Again, the text just doesn't say, though it does mention the=20
many who hate him, which could include oppressed native=20
Egyptians.

>   .... or that there is any sense of a possible alliance
> between the Israelites and the native Egyptians (in Ex 2
> the general Egyptian population seems at best neutral or
> even hostile to the Israelites).=20=20

Would an enslaved and oppressed Egyptian population=20
have much say in the issue? It is my understanding from=20
the histories that I read that the Hyksos had driven out the=20
Egyptian population that they didn't enslave.

> However, the real issue for the discussion here is not
> history but the Hebrew text of the OT.=20

This is the bottom line, where the rubber meets the road.

The text just does not include details that modern=20
historians consider vital for a historical record. But while=20
I consider it an accurate historical account, it is not a=20
modern one. Further, it includes only those details that=20
advance its ideological message. As a result, all I say is=20
that the pattern of details that the account does include=20
fits the Hyksos better than any other group that I know,=20
a conclusion open to disagreement. The text is just too=20
vague for certainty.

Karl W. Randolph.



--=20
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/