Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Robert Newman" <rob AT designceramics.co.uk>]

Peter wrote
But I don't 
believe that it is possible even in principle for translation to be free 
from such biases. It certainly is not true of NWT, which, as an example, 
biases the understanding of nephesh and `olam by its choice of the 
particular consistent renderings "soul" and "to time indefinite". (NWT 
has been accused of other kinds of bias, of course, but I don't want to 
get into such matters which chiefly concern the NT.)

Hello Peter,
I agree with your point that all translator's have biases. Your comment as 
respects "soul" for nephesh surprises me. Afterall the bias in this case is 
toward the source language. Ask someone very familiar with NWT what "soul" 
means and they will likely describe the range of meaning of nephesh. Ask a 
general Bible reader and they will likely give the principle English 
definition, they are only familiar with Bible texts where translators have 
judged it be the intended meaning. Is "soul" a bad English equivalent to 
nephesh? Take a look at the word in an English Thesaurus and you will see 
that its synonyms include most of the principle ways nephesh is usually 
translated such as life, person, being, body, creature. So 'soul' is broad 
enough in meaning to approximate much of nephesh and the reader can select 
the specific facet of meaning intended. However, in Kelton's earlier example, 
and in his very good judgement he distinguished 'breath' as the intended 
meaning of nephesh - this is not part of the English word "soul" and so his 
criticism stands with regard to where 'breath' is intended and "soul" is 
used. This is a welcome criticism. It should be noted though that readers of 
NWT may learn this meaning from its footnotes and come to the same conclusion.
Robert