Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Eccl 1:4 was Re: Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eccl 1:4 was Re: Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)
  • Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:41:41 -0000

Dear Dave,

Your words below are your interpretation, and it is your privilege to make one. I would let the reader make his or her interpretation, and therefore I find "time indefinite" fitting.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:16 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Eccl 1:4 was Re: Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)


On Monday 14 November 2005 10:25, Rolf Furuli wrote:
Dear Peter,

[snip]
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?
[snip]

Actually, this is the wrong question. A more important and pertinent question
is context: is this a theological statement at all? The answer is a
resounding "no." The whole book repeatedly uses statements like "as I have
seen," "man under the sun," and so forth. Neither the author nor the
narrator is making any kind of theological statement in this verse. He's
saying "From what I've seen, nothing ever changes. Generations rise and
fall, the earth is always there." From this kind of POV, and in such a
context, "forever" is a much better rendering because it conveys the
perspective of the observer making the statement. Whether it is
theologically in accord with the rest of the Hebrew Bible is irrelevant,
because that's not where this narrator is coming from. From his earthly,
somewhat despairing viewpoint, the earth does indeed continue forever. So if
we're going to be true to the intent of the text, this is how we ought to
render it.

--
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page