Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/