Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Paying attention to things like genre, context and clear authorial intent 
hardly constitutes "interpretation." One of the most important questions we 
can ask in translation and exegesis is "what questions should I be asking?"  
This is true especially in a book like Ecclesiastes.  Both the immediate and 
wider context of the book make it quite clear that the author is not making a 
theological statement in 1:4, but a comment about what things *seem to be* 
from his limited (and somewhat despairing) perspective.  A translation that 
doesn't take such things into account is not giving the reader everything 
s/he needs in order to make an interpretation.

On Monday 14 November 2005 14:41, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> 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.
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."