Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Gene Gardner <g_gardner1234 AT yahoo.com>]

                    Greetings b-Hebrew,
 
 
 I have a multi-part question that I would like to ask the forum. Is there 
any electronic version of the Aleppo codex available online? I would also 
like to know if anyone has a count on how many times YHWH appears in the 
Aleppo codex pointed as Y:HOWFH. I have access to a facsimile online that is 
only a partial version of the Aleppo without the restored pages from the 
Leningrad, but I imagine that an electronic version would be much easier to 
search. If anyone on the forum has a count of the various pointings used in 
the Aleppo codex, I would also greatly appreciate you posting them.
  

                
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.  
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Sun Nov 13 20:49:18 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (unknown [63.240.77.83])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A004C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:49:18 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from smailcenter66.comcast.net ([204.127.205.166])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
        id <20051114014857013003e6dhe>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:48:57 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by smailcenter66.comcast.net;
        Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:48:57 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:48:57 +0000
Message-Id: 
<111420050148.14424.4377ED08000D7133000038582207021053C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:49:18 -0000

Hey Dr.Furuli, this post was too big so I am sending it in parts.
 
Dr.Furuli:> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> Thank you for your fine response where you deal with the issues in a 
> balanced way. Allow me a few comments. 

Response: No problem, this is pretty interesting.
--------------------------------
Dr.Fufuli:> You have understood the terms "sign" and "concept," but a few 
words are needed regarding "reference". This term does not refer to the 
glosses in 
> English lexicons, although such a gloss sometimes (or often) comes close to 
> the actual references. If you are interested in the subject, you should 
> read 
> some psycholinguistics in order to understand the way words (yes, I say 
> "words") are stored in the mind as concepts. 

Response: Sure, I re-read what you wrote earlier, and I think I get it, see 
if this is accurate. So for say for instance NABIY'(prophet) that is our 
word.  The concept I'd imagine would be "one who is preaching" the reference 
would be something like Isaiah.

But for WLM (sign) the concept would be(I know concept is hard to define but 
I am going to try anyway) "duration of time" it seems to me that the only way 
to determine reference is by looking at the immediate context.  Am I correct?
----------------------------------------

Dr.Fufuli: As already mentioned, a concept can hardly be defined, it must be 
known  (this is achieved on the  basis of all the input a person receives 
from childhood until adulthood). 
> Therefore, a Hebrew concept cannot be transferred directly from Hebrew to 
> English. In 
> order to translate in spite of this immense problem there are two basic 
> approaches, the concordant and the idiomatic approach. And both are 
> valuable! 

Response:  But there has to be some Hebrew concepts that can transfer 
directly into English, otherwise we would not be able to accurately translate 
at all.  Every culture has concepts and there would have to be some sort of 
overlap to some degree otherwise we could never truly communicate.  Now I am 
aware that there are somethings that cannot be directly translated into 
English and would require some sort of idiom to communicate what the basic 
idea is.  However, I also think that while there may not be a total "one to 
one" correspondance with the English, there are still ways to communicate the 
basic idea.

------------------------------------------
 
Dr.Furuli:> Those making the concordant translation try to find an English 
word that  represent the core of a Hebrew concept (represented by one Hebrew 
word) as  they understand this core. This English word is used consistently 
throughout 
the English translation to represent the Hebrew word and its concept. The 
> target group can look up the occurrences of one particular English word, 
> and 
> on the basis of its context one can get rid of unwanted English baggage, 
> and 
> the readers come closer to the Hebrew concept that the word signals. From 
> one point of view one can say that a literal transltion is a 
> semi-translation, because the readers have a part in the very translation 
> process as described above. 

Response: That makes sense, however, I think that is good with regard to 
single words, I'd imagine that one would run into problems when dealing with 
actual phrases.  Because if you always translate phrases literally one can 
come up with  "expressions" that were never meant to be expressed by a native 
Hebrew or Greek speaker.  Like God of WLM, no native english speaker would 
say "God of eternalty" they would just say "eternal God."  

And that is what I would argue is what the Greek or Hebrew author meant.  Or 
if we take "time indefinite" no one would say "God of time indefinite."  God 
may be God forever or just a couple of minutes.

So I think when dealing with actual phrases, if one is too literal you can 
come up with expressions that were never meant to be communicated in that 
manner.  The concept of the word would not make much sense if translated 
literally inside of an actual phrase.

Another problem is of coures ambiguity.  Something in Greek and Hebrew might 
be totally clear to the audience might not make much sense at all in English. 
 Fee & Stuart use the example KATA SARKA(according to the flesh), which if 
translated literally does not make much sense to us today.
------------------------------------------
> Those making the idiomatic translation (there are many different models 
> here, from the rather literal idiomatic translation to the paraphrase), are 
> more interested in the references and uses of the Hebrew words than in 
> their 
> concepts. This means that they ask how the word is used in this clause and 
> in this context. Therefore they use many different English words for each 
> Hebrew one. This is a fine method as well, but the readers have no part in 
> the translation process, because the decisions are taken by the 
> translators. 

Response:  Well that is true, however, I'd imagine with a literal translation 
the reader might become totally confused with regard to some phrases because 
something that is so clear to the Hebrew or Greek reader makes no sense in 
English, so I would think that it is up to the translator to come with the 
proper expression to clarify what is meant.  Otherwise, one can pour all 
sorts of theological ideology into a phrase.
-----------------------------------------------
 



--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> Thank you for your fine response where you deal with the issues in a 
> balanced way. Allow me a few comments. 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 11:34 PM 
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) 
> 
> > 
> > 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? 
> 
> You have understood the terms "sign" and "concept," but a few words are 
> needed regarding "reference". This term does not refer to the glosses in 
> English lexicons, although such a gloss sometimes (or often) comes close to 
> the actual references. If you are interested in the subject, you should 
> read 
> some psycholinguistics in order to understand the way words (yes, I say 
> "words") are stored in the mind as concepts. 
> 
> As already mentioned, a concept can hardly be defined, it must be known 
> (this is achieved on the 
> basis of all the input a person receives from childhood until adulthood). 
> Therefore, a Hebrew concept cannot be transferred directly from Hebrew to 
> English. In 
> order to translate in spite of this immense problem there are two basic 
> approaches, the concordant and the idiomatic approach. And both are 
> valuable! 
> 
> Those making the concordant translation try to find an English word that 
> represent the core of a Hebrew concept (represented by one Hebrew word) as 
> they understand this core. This English word is used consistently 
> throughout 
> the English translation to represent the Hebrew word and its concept. The 
> target group can look up the occurrences of one particular English word, 
> and 
> on the basis of its context one can get rid of unwanted English baggage, 
> and 
> the readers come closer to the Hebrew concept that the word signals. From 
> one point of view one can say that a literal transltion is a 
> semi-translation, because the readers have a part in the very translation 
> process as described above. 
> 
> Those making the idiomatic translation (there are many different models 
> here, from the rather literal idiomatic translation to the paraphrase), are 
> more interested in the references and uses of the Hebrew words than in 
> their 
> concepts. This means that they ask how the word is used in this clause and 
> in this context. Therefore they use many different English words for each 
> Hebrew one. This is a fine method as well, but the readers have no part in 
> the translation process, because the decisions are taken by the 
> translators. 
> 
> The noun NP$ can illustrate the case. Concepts cannot be defined, but it is 
> often possible to say something about the core of a concept. In this case 
> the core meaning comes close to "a living creature". This core sense is 
> even 
> found in the cognate Akkadian word NAPI$TU, even though Akkadian writings 
> speak about life in the Nether world, something that is absent from the 
> Hebrew Bible. Now, the NWT uses consistently the English word "soul" to 
> translate NP$. One drawback with this is the baggage of "soul," for example 
> the view of an "immortal soul". But the advantage is that the readers can 
> know where the Hebrew NP$ is found in the OT, and by looking up some of its 
> occurrences they can purge "soul" from its unwanted baggage. 
> 
> A concept is a rather broad mental image; it has a core but it becomes more 
> fuzzy towards the edges. The ancient Hebrews had the concept NP$ in their 
> minds and they knew its meaning. Communication means to make a part of each 
> concept visible for the audience, and this is achieved by the context (the 
> combination of words, gammar, and syntax). In one context NP$ makes visible 
> animals (living creatures) and in other cases humans. Often the focus is on 
> the life of a creature or even on the creature´s right to live. Even a dead 
> corpse or a carcass (a previously living creature) can be referred to. 
> These 
> are not different "meanings" of NP$, but they show what is made visible of 
> the concept in different contexts. 
> 
> The translators of idiomatic translations are concerned with what is made 
> visible in each situation, and therefore they render NP$ by different 
> words, 
> such as: "animal; everyone; means of preparing food to stay alive; corpse; 
> creatures; life: (they) wanted; appetite; mercy; people; breadth; person; 
> you; are willing; mind" to mention some. Sometimes the word is even 
> translated "soul". The 
> food is chewed, and the readers only have to open their mouth. When one is 
> not interested in the original concept of NP$ and the deeper meaning of the 
> text, idiomatic translations serve the purpose. 
> 
> So, glosses in Hebrew-English lexicons sometimes represent the references 
> of 
> a Hebrew word, but this is not always the case. 
> 
> As for (WLM, it has a concept, and the NWT translators tried to find an 
> English word or word combination for that, and they ended up with "time 
> indefinite". The word "indefinite" has a baggage, or different 
> applications, 
> if you will. But from the point of view of the concordant method, when one 
> or two words need to be used for each original concept, no one has so far 
> come up with a better alternative. And "eternal" as the word representing 
> the concept definitely is wrong. And again, the readers who read the text 
> and look at the context where "time indefinite" is used will understand its 
> use and come closer to the original concept that (WLM signalled. 
> 
> 
> snip 
> 
> > 
> > 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? 
> 
> As already mentioned, induction can be tricky, but that is the only thing 
> we have. If you look at the use of the verb (LM, the core concept is close 
> to "hide/hidden". You can fine good discussions of this in lexicons and 
> articles. As far back as we have writings of the Hebrew sages, we find the 
> same views regarding this verb. When I look at the occurrences of the noun 
> (WLM in the Hebrew Bible, the common denominator (which may be 
> close to the original concept) I see is "time with a hidden length". In 
> some 
> instances the modern word "eternal" will naturally be used in an idiomatic 
> translation (but this word is philosophically speaking very problematic). 
> In 
> many other instances a "long time" is implied by the use of (WLM. But a 
> common denominator should include *all* the uses of the word, perhaps even 
> glance at the root concept, and the narrowest term I find that includes 
> everything is "time with an undisclosed or hidden length". 
> 
> By way of conclusion I would like to stress that to understand the logic 
> and 
> practicality of using one English word for one Hebrew word one has to 
> detatch oneself from one´s traditional translation model and target group 
> and study the 
> principles behind the concordant method. The concordant translation conveys 
> concepts; the idiomatic translation coveys the uses of the concepts as the 
> translators understand these uses. 
> 
> When I have translated works in different Semitic languages into Norwegian, 
> I have used the idiomatic method, though the rather literal variant of this 
> method. So, I see the need for both literal and idiomatic Bible 
> translations. 
> 
> 
> 
> snip 
> > -- 
> > Kelton Graham 
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> > 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> Rolf Furuli 
> University of Oslo 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Sun Nov 13 20:49:50 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc14.comcast.net (sccrmhc14.comcast.net [63.240.77.84])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B6D4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:49:49 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from smailcenter66.comcast.net ([204.127.205.166])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with SMTP
        id <2005111401494301400lruv2e>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:49:43 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by smailcenter66.comcast.net;
        Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:49:42 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:49:42 +0000
Message-Id: 
<111420050149.15465.4377ED35000E807E00003C692207021053C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:49:50 -0000


Dr.Furuli:> The noun NP$ can illustrate the case. Concepts cannot be defined, 
but it is often possible to say something about the core of a concept. In 
this case 
> the core meaning comes close to "a living creature". This core sense is 
> even 
> found in the cognate Akkadian word NAPI$TU, even though Akkadian writings 
> speak about life in the Nether world, something that is absent from the 
> Hebrew Bible. Now, the NWT uses consistently the English word "soul" to 
> translate NP$. One drawback with this is the baggage of "soul," for example 
> the view of an "immortal soul". But the advantage is that the readers can 
> know where the Hebrew NP$ is found in the OT, and by looking up some of     
> its  occurrences they can purge "soul" from its unwanted baggage. 

Response:  That is interesting, but I think if one looks at the various uses 
of how the NWT translates NP$, in some cases it makes sense in others it does 
not.

Job 41:21(NWT) 41:13 (BHS)
His NAP:$W sets coal ablazed.  If translated literally as the NWT, you'd get 
"his soul sets coal ablazed."  The question I would have is "how could a soul 
set coal ablazed?"  What does that mean?

But upon looking at context and realizing this is a description of a mighty 
beast, and the author is trying to describe it's greatness, I think it would 
be better to say

"it's breath sets coal ablazed."  Then the reader can understand how mighty 
this creature really is.

Another odd one would be Psalm 69:1.

Save me O God for the waters have come as far as my neck. (NAPE$) Signifying 
that David here has troubles that have overcome him. If you translate it 
"soul" I think the sentence makes no sense.  

That seems to be the problem I see with the NWT, translating it "soul" in 
every single situation even though it may be the core intent.
--------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:> A concept is a rather broad mental image; it has a core but it 
becomes more 
> fuzzy towards the edges. The ancient Hebrews had the concept NP$ in their 
> minds and they knew its meaning. Communication means to make a part of each 
> concept visible for the audience, and this is achieved by the context (the 
> combination of words, gammar, and syntax). In one context NP$ makes visible 
> animals (living creatures) and in other cases humans. Often the focus is on 
> the life of a creature or even on the creature´s right to live. Even a dead 
> corpse or a carcass (a previously living creature) can be referred to. 
> These 
> are not different "meanings" of NP$, but they show what is made visible of 
> the concept in different contexts. 

Response: Correct, but I would argue to keep translating NP$ as "soul" in 
each of those instances like the NWT does, would be inaccurate.  It would 
cause the reader to make too many assumptions about what a word may or may 
not mean. 

---------------------------------------


Dr.Furuli:> The translators of idiomatic translations are concerned with what 
is made 
> visible in each situation, and therefore they render NP$ by different 
> words, 
> such as: "animal; everyone; means of preparing food to stay alive; corpse; 
> creatures; life: (they) wanted; appetite; mercy; people; breadth; person; 
> you; are willing; mind" to mention some. Sometimes the word is even 
> translated "soul". The 
> food is chewed, and the readers only have to open their mouth. When one is 
> not interested in the original concept of NP$ and the deeper meaning of the 
> text, idiomatic translations serve the purpose. 

Response:  That is an interesting way of looking at it.  It's almost like you 
want the reader to do some homework.  While I understand your point however I 
think one should not always worry about the original concept of a word perse, 
but rather the concept of the entire clause.  Because that is how we 
communicate, we don't communicate in one word expressions.

If one were to have the reader try to figure out the original concept of NP$ 
the reader might be prone to what I call "finessing the text."  Trying to 
make things fit when they don't.  And if as you say concept cannot be 
defined, then we might screw up trying to communicate a words concept.
----------------------------------------
Dr.Furuli:> So, glosses in Hebrew-English lexicons sometimes represent the 
references of 
> a Hebrew word, but this is not always the case. 
> 
> As for (WLM, it has a concept, and the NWT translators tried to find an 
> English word or word combination for that, and they ended up with "time 
> indefinite". The word "indefinite" has a baggage, or different 
> applications, 
> if you will. But from the point of view of the concordant method, when one 
> or two words need to be used for each original concept, no one has so far 
> come up with a better alternative. And "eternal" as the word representing 
> the concept definitely is wrong. And again, the readers who read the text 
> and look at the context where "time indefinite" is used will understand its 
> use and come closer to the original concept that (WLM signalled. 

Response: I don't know about that one.  Because, again it seems like they are 
only focusing on the word itself as opposed to how it relates to other words. 
 Which I would argue is how we communicate.

Secondly, if you are trying to use concord, I don't see how one comes up with 
time- indefinite.  Especially, in light of Jer 10:10 WMELEK `WLM = eternal 
king.  This signifies that God is king forever. If God is king to "time 
indefinite" as the NWT renders it, God may not be king for long.  He might be 
king for only five minutes.  So I would argue that the "concept" is found in 
not only the word itself but the entire phrase.
-------------------------------
Dr.Furuli:> As already mentioned, induction can be tricky, but that is the 
only thing  we have. If you look at the use of the verb (LM, the core concept 
is close 
> to "hide/hidden". You can fine good discussions of this in lexicons and 
> articles. As far back as we have writings of the Hebrew sages, we find the 
> same views regarding this verb. When I look at the occurrences of the noun 
> (WLM in the Hebrew Bible, the common denominator (which may be 
> close to the original concept) I see is "time with a hidden length". In 
> some 
> instances the modern word "eternal" will naturally be used in an idiomatic 
> translation (but this word is philosophically speaking very problematic). 
> In 
> many other instances a "long time" is implied by the use of (WLM. But a 
> common denominator should include *all* the uses of the word, perhaps even 
> glance at the root concept, and the narrowest term I find that includes 
> everything is "time with an undisclosed or hidden length". 

Response:  I see what you are saying, however, I don't know if it is possible 
to have a common denominator for each and every instance of the word.  As a 
matter of fact I don't know if you can do that for any word in any context 
and still have the word make sense.
------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:> By way of conclusion I would like to stress that to understand 
the logic and 
> practicality of using one English word for one Hebrew word one has to 
> detatch oneself from one´s traditional translation model and target group 
> and study the 
> principles behind the concordant method. The concordant translation conveys 
> concepts; the idiomatic translation coveys the uses of the concepts as the 
> translators understand these uses. 
> 
> When I have translated works in different Semitic languages into Norwegian, 
> I have used the idiomatic method, though the rather literal variant of this 
> method. So, I see the need for both literal and idiomatic Bible 
> translations.

Response:  Thanks, for this conversation, this is really an eyeopener.  I 
apologize in advance if I misread or misrepresented your arguments.  They are 
pretty complicated.  But I think I got the basic idea.
 

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> Thank you for your fine response where you deal with the issues in a 
> balanced way. Allow me a few comments. 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 11:34 PM 
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) 
> 
> > 
> > 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? 
> 
> You have understood the terms "sign" and "concept," but a few words are 
> needed regarding "reference". This term does not refer to the glosses in 
> English lexicons, although such a gloss sometimes (or often) comes close to 
> the actual references. If you are interested in the subject, you should 
> read 
> some psycholinguistics in order to understand the way words (yes, I say 
> "words") are stored in the mind as concepts. 
> 
> As already mentioned, a concept can hardly be defined, it must be known 
> (this is achieved on the 
> basis of all the input a person receives from childhood until adulthood). 
> Therefore, a Hebrew concept cannot be transferred directly from Hebrew to 
> English. In 
> order to translate in spite of this immense problem there are two basic 
> approaches, the concordant and the idiomatic approach. And both are 
> valuable! 
> 
> Those making the concordant translation try to find an English word that 
> represent the core of a Hebrew concept (represented by one Hebrew word) as 
> they understand this core. This English word is used consistently 
> throughout 
> the English translation to represent the Hebrew word and its concept. The 
> target group can look up the occurrences of one particular English word, 
> and 
> on the basis of its context one can get rid of unwanted English baggage, 
> and 
> the readers come closer to the Hebrew concept that the word signals. From 
> one point of view one can say that a literal transltion is a 
> semi-translation, because the readers have a part in the very translation 
> process as described above. 
> 
> Those making the idiomatic translation (there are many different models 
> here, from the rather literal idiomatic translation to the paraphrase), are 
> more interested in the references and uses of the Hebrew words than in 
> their 
> concepts. This means that they ask how the word is used in this clause and 
> in this context. Therefore they use many different English words for each 
> Hebrew one. This is a fine method as well, but the readers have no part in 
> the translation process, because the decisions are taken by the 
> translators. 
> 
> The noun NP$ can illustrate the case. Concepts cannot be defined, but it is 
> often possible to say something about the core of a concept. In this case 
> the core meaning comes close to "a living creature". This core sense is 
> even 
> found in the cognate Akkadian word NAPI$TU, even though Akkadian writings 
> speak about life in the Nether world, something that is absent from the 
> Hebrew Bible. Now, the NWT uses consistently the English word "soul" to 
> translate NP$. One drawback with this is the baggage of "soul," for example 
> the view of an "immortal soul". But the advantage is that the readers can 
> know where the Hebrew NP$ is found in the OT, and by looking up some of its 
> occurrences they can purge "soul" from its unwanted baggage. 
> 
> A concept is a rather broad mental image; it has a core but it becomes more 
> fuzzy towards the edges. The ancient Hebrews had the concept NP$ in their 
> minds and they knew its meaning. Communication means to make a part of each 
> concept visible for the audience, and this is achieved by the context (the 
> combination of words, gammar, and syntax). In one context NP$ makes visible 
> animals (living creatures) and in other cases humans. Often the focus is on 
> the life of a creature or even on the creature´s right to live. Even a dead 
> corpse or a carcass (a previously living creature) can be referred to. 
> These 
> are not different "meanings" of NP$, but they show what is made visible of 
> the concept in different contexts. 
> 
> The translators of idiomatic translations are concerned with what is made 
> visible in each situation, and therefore they render NP$ by different 
> words, 
> such as: "animal; everyone; means of preparing food to stay alive; corpse; 
> creatures; life: (they) wanted; appetite; mercy; people; breadth; person; 
> you; are willing; mind" to mention some. Sometimes the word is even 
> translated "soul". The 
> food is chewed, and the readers only have to open their mouth. When one is 
> not interested in the original concept of NP$ and the deeper meaning of the 
> text, idiomatic translations serve the purpose. 
> 
> So, glosses in Hebrew-English lexicons sometimes represent the references 
> of 
> a Hebrew word, but this is not always the case. 
> 
> As for (WLM, it has a concept, and the NWT translators tried to find an 
> English word or word combination for that, and they ended up with "time 
> indefinite". The word "indefinite" has a baggage, or different 
> applications, 
> if you will. But from the point of view of the concordant method, when one 
> or two words need to be used for each original concept, no one has so far 
> come up with a better alternative. And "eternal" as the word representing 
> the concept definitely is wrong. And again, the readers who read the text 
> and look at the context where "time indefinite" is used will understand its 
> use and come closer to the original concept that (WLM signalled. 
> 
> 
> snip 
> 
> > 
> > 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? 
> 
> As already mentioned, induction can be tricky, but that is the only thing 
> we have. If you look at the use of the verb (LM, the core concept is close 
> to "hide/hidden". You can fine good discussions of this in lexicons and 
> articles. As far back as we have writings of the Hebrew sages, we find the 
> same views regarding this verb. When I look at the occurrences of the noun 
> (WLM in the Hebrew Bible, the common denominator (which may be 
> close to the original concept) I see is "time with a hidden length". In 
> some 
> instances the modern word "eternal" will naturally be used in an idiomatic 
> translation (but this word is philosophically speaking very problematic). 
> In 
> many other instances a "long time" is implied by the use of (WLM. But a 
> common denominator should include *all* the uses of the word, perhaps even 
> glance at the root concept, and the narrowest term I find that includes 
> everything is "time with an undisclosed or hidden length". 
> 
> By way of conclusion I would like to stress that to understand the logic 
> and 
> practicality of using one English word for one Hebrew word one has to 
> detatch oneself from one´s traditional translation model and target group 
> and study the 
> principles behind the concordant method. The concordant translation conveys 
> concepts; the idiomatic translation coveys the uses of the concepts as the 
> translators understand these uses. 
> 
> When I have translated works in different Semitic languages into Norwegian, 
> I have used the idiomatic method, though the rather literal variant of this 
> method. So, I see the need for both literal and idiomatic Bible 
> translations. 
> 
> 
> 
> snip 
> > -- 
> > Kelton Graham 
> > KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net 
> > 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> Rolf Furuli 
> University of Oslo 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From veiros AT yahoo.com  Mon Nov 14 02:26:16 2005
Return-Path: <veiros AT yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from web61021.mail.yahoo.com (web61021.mail.yahoo.com
        [209.73.179.15])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A0B74C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:26:16 -0500 
(EST)
Received: (qmail 10312 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Nov 2005 07:26:15 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
        
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
        
b=qsPYfIiseOErXj1O/8WigtpKnuT8HG7EYLWhEo1BbdIlyQzQbAFKnaEP1uzFQJ09OYOyjHssXQWewG7zh5BECdu5V2nq1IV4ovyxnxIJP3OPdym+Yc9fIoh4pqkYLF7388GswJ2YkahRR8YOQM1pFYi4pOeAtMCJv18vQEpNM6Y=
        ; 
Message-ID: <20051114072615.10310.qmail AT web61021.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [66.68.118.227] by web61021.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
        Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:26:14 PST
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:26:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Veiros <veiros AT yahoo.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
In-Reply-To: <20051113213141.73885.qmail AT web33912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH in the Aleppo Codex
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 07:26:16 -0000

Greetings,
I am somewhat new here, and am also in search for
answers to divers questions in regards to the Hebrew
texts. Here's what I know about the Aleppo codex:
There is an eletronic version at:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0.htm
This source does not render Y:HOWFH
although has about:
Y:HWFH 5702 times (ex. Ps. 80:20, Pr. 3:19)
Y:HWIH 304 times (ex. Ezek. 13:9, 47:23)

Also there is a facsimile available for download at:
http://bibles.org.uk/
And a browser version here:
http://aleppocodex.org



--- Gene Gardner <g_gardner1234 AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>                     Greetings b-Hebrew,
>  
>  
>  I have a multi-part question that I would like to
> ask the forum. Is there any electronic version of
> the Aleppo codex available online? I would also like
> to know if anyone has a count on how many times YHWH
> appears in the Aleppo codex pointed as Y:HOWFH. I
> have access to a facsimile online that is only a
> partial version of the Aleppo without the restored
> pages from the Leningrad, but I imagine that an
> electronic version would be much easier to search.
> If anyone on the forum has a count of the various
> pointings used in the Aleppo codex, I would also
> greatly appreciate you posting them.
>   
> 
>               
> ---------------------------------
>  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.  
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com