Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)
  • Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:48:47 +0000

On 13/11/2005 08:20, Rolf Furuli wrote:

... 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.


Thank you for this interesting description. I can agree with you that a concordant translation is a semi-translation. The translators have done the easy part of the task, replacing each Hebrew word form with a string of English letters found in an English dictionary (or similarly of course for any other target language). But they seem to have done so with little regard for the actual meaning of the Hebrew or English words, which very often correspond only very approximately. But the translators have ducked out of the main part of their job, which is to render the text in proper meaningful English etc. In fact a computer could easily have produced this semi-translation, but the more difficult part which the translators have ducked out of is well beyond any computer, illustrating that the job is in fact less than half done.

I agree with you that for some readers it is helpful to use such a semi-translation or halfway house between the original text and a translation, just as for some it is helpful to read the original Hebrew text. But the great majority of non-specialised readers need a properly completed translation.

...

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. ...


But what are the criteria on which an alternative might be judged to be better? As far as I can see, since there is no requirement for the Hebrew and English meanings to coincide, there is no reason to say that one rendering is better than another.

Elsewhere you mentioned the NWT's use of Sheol, a transliteration. It might actually be more helpful to English readers who prefer concordant translations, because less misleading, if this was done for other theologically controversial terms, such as nephesh and olam. After all, these readers are unlikely to understand NWT's "soul" and "time indefinite" properly without reading explanatory notes about Hebrew nephesh and olam.

... 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.


I am still waiting for any evidence that "eternal" is not a reasonably good translation of `olam, i.e.meaning that there will be no end to the time period, at least subjectively for the experiencer such that "lifelong" is sometimes more appropriate. Can anyone give me any counter-examples?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page