Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Dave,

In connection with my intermediate exam in Hebrew many years ago, I was 
assigned
Ecclesiastes as a book for special study, linguistically, philologically,
historically, and theologically. After that I have kept an eye on this
book and the different viewpoints regarding it that have been presented.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "not making a theological statement,"
but your short description represent one view of the book, and other
scholars have other views. Be that as it may. The point here is what the
translator conveys to the reader and what s/he should convey.

You appeal to "the genre... and to the immediate and wider context " of the 
book, and that should
of course be taken into account by the one interpreting its text (which in 
my view basically should be the reader).  But what about the sayings of the 
book itself?  In 1:1 it is said that the author of
the book is "son of David, king in Jerusalem," and that can only refer to
Solomon. This means that the claim of the book is that the material comes
from the start of the fist millennium BCE. Few scholars would accept such an
early date for the book, but is it the duty of the translators to force
scholarly consensus upon the readers?  Such a concencus can be wrong, as has
been shown over and over again.

Your words regarding Qohelet seem to contradict the claim of 1:1. I am not
arguing in favor of the authorship of Solomon in this post; neither am I
arguing against it.  It is extremely difficult to date biblical books on
linguistic grounds, and the language of Qohelet is quite different from many
other books and makes it even more difficult. Attempts to show examples of 
Rabbinic Hebrew in the book (e.g. the relative conjunction) have turned out 
to be unfounded. Frankly speaking,
I am not aware of a single datum, linguistic or otherwise, that definitely
would rule out that Qohelet was written in the first part of the first
millennium BCE.

And here is the dilemma for Bible translators: How much interpretative
material should they include in the translation?  Modern Bible translations
include huge amonuts of the biases and theology of the translators, because
they think it is their duty to do the interpretation in behalf of the 
readers.
This leaves the readers at the mercy of the translators, and I often am
tempted to say: "Poor readers!"  Because of this, it is my view that even
those making an idiomatic translation should strive to be as neutral as
possible to the text. In connection with Qohelet this means that their
translations should neither be influenced by their view of Eccl. 1:1 nor by
the views that you present.  Such a neutrality is of course much easier to
excercise in connection with a strictly literal translation, and therefore
such translations are valuable.

Regarding Eccl. 1:4, it is my view that "time indefinite" is a neutral
rendering, since the readers must decide whether this refers to eternality
or to a limited time, while "for ever" is interpretative, and the readers
cannot do anything but accept the views of the translator.


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 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Eccl 1:4 was Re: Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)


> 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."