Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy
  • Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:49:06 +0000

On 17/11/2005 13:26, Rolf Furuli wrote:

...

When I studied applied linguistics, the following book was a part of the
curriculum: P: Newmark (1988). "A Textbook of translation". This book was
awarded the British Association of Applied LinguiticsĀ“prize in 1988. For
the benefit of the list I quote Newmark, p. 36 (you have seen this quote
before on another list):

"Many translators say you should never translate words, you translate
sentences or ideas or messages. I think they are fooling themselves. The SL
texts consists of words, that is all that is there, on the page." Newmark
shows that translation is done on different levels of the text, but he
stresses that to deny the importance of the word is to fool oneself.


Newmark is entitled to his opinion. And it is not a bad one. It is true that "The SL texts consists [sic, I presume the grammatical error is your retyping here] of words, that is all that is there, on the page." It is also true that the text consists of letters, that is all that is there, on the page. Also that the text consists of sentences (some possibly incomplete), that is all that is there, on the page. And I could set up other levels, from paragraphs or larger, down through clauses, phrases, morphemes, graphical elements of letters, right down to the molecules of ink. It is a fallacy to arbitrarily pick one of these levels, the word, and insist that this level is the fundamental one.

I assume that you accept that the word is the basic translation unit in
technical translation (e.g., a description of an engine). If you do that,
then you accept that the word *can* be the basic translation unit - but you
deny this as regards Bible translation. So your judgement is your personal
viewpoint regarding the translation of the text of the Bible, and not based upon translation theory. It is your privilege to have this viewpoint, but you do not recommend yourself as a balanced scholar when you deny that other approaches (e.g. a literal approach) is possible as well.


I assume nothing of the sort. Please don't put words into my mouth. I do not see any fundamental difference between biblical and technical translation. All translation needs to respect words as well as higher and lower level entities. Certain technical words and phrases, both in technical documents and in the Bible, need to be translated in slightly different ways from other parts of the text, but never in a blindly concordant way as even in technical documents words are used in multiple senses.

I do not deny the validity of your approach for the very particular audience which you have in mind - although I do claim that even for that audience "to time indefinite" is a bad rendering of `olam. But for a general audience a very different approach is needed.

When Newmark speaks of the basic function of the word, and I do the same, we
do not opt for an interlinear translation. Neither do we insist that most
Hebrew words should be rendered by one English word. It simply means that we
realize that each Hebrew word has a mening without a context, and to
ascertain as much as possible of the meaning of each word is the first step
in the translation process. I would guess that the NWT translators had about
the same view.


Well, why did the NWT translators always render nephesh and `olam for example with the same English word, when these Hebrew words have a wide range of meaning?

...

Of course you struggle. For this is the fundamental falllacy of the
literal translation method used in NWT, the presumption that there is a
single English word, or even a short phrase, which corresponds even
approximately to the full range of meaning of a Hebrew word. In general
there is no one word in language B which corresponds to all the senses
of a word in language A; language simply does not work like that.


Wrong again! I have at least two times pointed out that the NWT uses the word Sheol. Did the translators think that this is an English word corresponding to "the full range meaning of a Hebrew word"? Not at all! And that proves your words above to be wrong, at least in this case. ...


Well, I am glad that for once they got something relatively correct, but that does not excuse them for their failure to realise that there is the same problem with nephesh and countless other Hebrew words which have been translated concordantly but misleadingly.

... I am also quite sure that the translators did not view "time indefinite" as "a short phrase, which corresponds...approximately to the full range of meaning of " (WLM. Here you show your ignorance of the basic principles of literal translation. The point is that "time indefinite" is an English phrase that can be used to represent the core of the concept signaled by the Hebrew word (WLM. In a way "time indefinite" is a catalyst that Bible students can use to expand their understanding of the *concept* signaled by (WLM, when they look at the contexts in which "time indefinite" occur. So even though the word is the fundamental translation unit, the literal translation does not attempt not convey words but to conveys concepts.


Well, my response here is twofold:

1) The English phrase "time indefinite" cannot "be used to represent the core of the concept signaled by the Hebrew word (WLM", unless such representation does not depend on any correspondence in meaning, because the meaning of "time indefinite" is quite different from "the core of the concept signaled by the Hebrew word (WLM" which relates to eternity.

2) It is inaccurate translation to use an English word which represents the core of the concept signalled by a Hebrew word to translate an occurrence of that Hebrew word which has a meaning greatly divergent from that core.

For me, the three fundamentals of Bible translation for a general audience are clarity, accuracy and naturalness. I have long realised that literal translations like NWT lack clarity and naturalness. I now realise that they lack accuracy as well. Therefore in my judgment they have no merit as translations, at least outside a very small and specific target group.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page