Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

Please see below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)


> 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.

You should not press the term "semi-translation," since I qualify it by the
words "From one point of view one can say". I view the translation process
as starting when the translator for the first time starts to work with the
text, and it ends when the mind of the reader has grasped the meaning of the 
text.
Translators using the idiomatic method all the time make decisions in behalf
of the readers, and the readers have no part in the translation process.
Translators of the literal translation make as few decisions as possible in
behalf of the readers, and therefore the readers can have a part in the very
translation process.  This is one way to interpret the term
"semi-translation".

A good example is Ecclesiastes 1:4.
NIV: Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains for ever.
NWT: A generation is going and a generation is coming; but the earth is
standing even to time indefinite.

An important question here is: Who is going to decide whether the writer
implies that the earth may stand a long time and then be destroyed, or
whether the meaning is that the earth will continue to stand without an end?
The translator or the reader?  The NIV has decided the case, and the readers
are deprived the the freedom of interpretation. The NWT translators have 
left
the matter open, and the readers can have a part in the translation process.

Please do not judge the translators of a literal translation on the basis of
your translation theory. Their aim was not "to render their text into proper
meaningful English" as this is defined by idiomatic translation theory.
Their aim was to convey the concepts of Hebrew, and you must realize that
your view of good translation principles is not univesal. I will add
that both the NWT and Young´s literal translation are fully understandable
translations for English readers. They will not always be as easy to read as
an idiomatic translation, but in the NWT many nuances of verbs are given
that lack in most other translations, and because the style is close to the
original text a host of nuances regarding plays of words etc which lacks in
other translations are seen.

snip

> 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?

Solomon gave one example in his last post. Another example is "the 
everlasting priesthood" (ASV; JPS) of Ex 40:15, which was not "everlasting". 
Please keep in mind that my premise for claiming that "everlasting" is not a 
reasonable good translation of  )WLM, is that this does not fit *all* 
occurrences of the word. In your model, where you feel free to interpret the 
text in behalf of the readers, and use the rendering "for ever" when you 
believe that the reference is for ever, there is no problem with this word.


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

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo