Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 15/11/2005 12:13, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> ...
> 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. ...

I agree. But I also say "Poor readers!" of those who expect a 
translation to be understandable in their own language, and find 
something which is only a semi-translation using English etc lexical 
items but the syntax and semantics of Hebrew which they don't understand.

> ...
> Regarding Eccl. 1:4, it is my view that "time indefinite" is a neutral
> rendering, ...

Yes, it is neutral in the same way as "bhjiklnjkl" is neutral, because 
they are both meaningless.

> ... 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.
>
>  
I disagree that "for ever" is interpretive, it seems to me that this is 
the clear and correct meaning of the lexical item, in this context, and, 
as far as I can tell so far in the absence of any convincing evidence on 
this list, in every context. Why do you reject the clear meaning of the 
text here? Is it because you are incorporating into the text "the biases 
and theology of the translators", which may tell you that the earth does 
not actually last for ever?

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