Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Thank you for a balanced and well thought out response Peter. I also take 
objection 
to the translation of the word 'kurios' whose major usage was as a sign of 
courtesy 
much in the same way we would use 'sir' and 'Mr.'. It is clear that Jesus is 
divine 
according to the NT presentation of him and just to be clear I would never 
argue 
against that.

Also to make myself totally clear I do not hold either the NWT or any other 
translation 
to be the perfect translation otherwise why would I put so my time and effort 
into my 
translation machine. My defense of the NWT translation in this regard is not 
motivated 
by any feelings of loyalty to any particular organistaion but by the logical 
conclusion 
that Jesus would not have been victim to the doctrines and men and would be 
the one 
person in all the world who was holy enough to use his Father's name without 
retribution. I therefore find the assertion that he did not use it to be 
absolutely 
preposterous and if he hadn't used that would automatically disqualify him 
from being 
the true messiah in my mind.

Therefore, where the NT quotes directly from the OT where the name stands it 
is indisputable 
that yhwh has its rightful place in these occurences. The other places are of 
course 
debatable and this point I concede as graciously as I possibly can given the 
circumstaces.

I didn't think it was you Peter and I would never call you a hypocrite and 
your posts 
are always amongst the most enjoyable as they always show your objective 
spirit and how 
well thought out they are (not like my off the cuff instinctual posts).

@Schmuel. Sorry if I misportrayed you. I really thought it was you who had 
said it. 
I should have checked before writing. Getting back to OT discussion what are 
your 
opinions of consistent translation with regard to words such as nephesh and 
sheol?

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Fri 11/18/2005 11:01 PM
To: b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
 
On 18/11/2005 18:42, Schmuel wrote:

>Hi b-hebrew,
>
>  Wow. 
>  Even I am a bit surprised by the combination of confusion and venom. 
>
>Read, James C wrote:
>  
>
>>This happens to be the single most hypocritical piece of reasoning I have 
>>ever heard.
>>In the one breath you would insist tha nephesh be translated according to 
>>context where
>>it fits your dogma but in the other you would accuse the NWT for 
>>interpreting where kurios
>>means yhwh and where it means lord.
>>    
>>
>
>Schmuel
>Actually James, I never even discussed nephesh.  Perhaps you are confusing me
>with someone else.  You should at least have your facts accurate when you 
>write 
>things like "the single most hypocritical piece of reasoning".
>  
>

Perhaps James was confusing you with me. Well, for the record, I do hold 
that nephesh should be translated according to context, and I also hold 
that kurios should be translated according to context. At some points in 
the NT it is clearly some kind of divine title. At other places like 
John 20:15, where Mary thinks she is addressing a gardener (but is in 
fact addressing Jesus), that would be absurd. But the way to distinguish 
between what is right and what is wrong is that translation according to 
context avoids, or at least tries to avoid, incorporating theological 
presuppositions and frameworks, whereas translation according to 
theological presuppositions of course does not. It should be obvious 
that there is a difference between looking at the context within a book, 
to see e.g. whether the person being addresses as kurios is presented in 
the text as divine, and looking at theological presuppositions e.g. 
whether according to one's theology that person is divine.

For this reason I object to most English translations using "Lord" as an 
address when people address Jesus in the gospels, whereas exactly the 
same Greek word is usually translated "Sir" when others are addressed. 
For the characters in the gospels did not understand Jesus as divine (at 
least before his death), and so addressed him as an ordinary respected 
man. The use here of what is understood as a divine title, "Lord", is 
justified only by the theological understanding of Jesus' divinity. 
Although I personally have this understanding, I do not think it should 
be written back into Bible translations. On the other hand, there are 
places in the NT where the risen Jesus is addressed as kurios and the 
context suggests that he was understood as divine or at least far more 
than a regular human, e.g. John 20:28, Acts 9:5, and so the translation 
"Lord" is justified.

As for whether NWT has similarly objectionable practices, I will leave 
for others to judge, as I have said enough against that translation.

James, I hope this clarifies that my position is not hypocrtical but 
consistent. Sorry that I have to use NT examples, but the principles 
apply also to translation of the Hebrew Bible.

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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From peter AT qaya.org  Fri Nov 18 18:26:19 2005
Return-Path: <peter AT qaya.org>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail.link77.net (mail.kastanet.org [208.145.81.89])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3812C4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:26:19 -0500 
(EST)
X-ExternalMail: External
X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp
Received: from [213.162.124.237] (account peter_kirk AT kastanet.org HELO
        [10.0.0.1]) by mail.link77.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.8)
        with ESMTPSA id 94302694; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:26:18 -0500
Message-ID: <437E6327.6080207 AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:26:31 +0000
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Newman <rob AT designceramics.co.uk>
References: <20051118165408.484A74C005 AT lists.ibiblio.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051118165408.484A74C005 AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:26:19 -0000

On 18/11/2005 16:51, Robert Newman wrote:

>...
>
>Hi Peter,
>Chelmsford is just down the road, I even have a Chelmsford postcode CM13. ...
>

And last time I was in Brentwood they didn't speak very differently from
15 miles away in Chelmsford.

>... I partly agree with you as to what 'Soul' signals in English. My point 
>was that if an English Thessaurus is anything to go by "soul" is a broad 
>word, I do not claim it exactly fits nephesh such as would be the 
>requirement of an idiomatic translation, only that it covers much of 
>nephesh. To give examples;
>SOS 'save our souls' - "souls" signifies 'lives'
>
>

But this is a very non-standard idiomatic use which arose from an
attempt to reinterpret an arbitrary group of letters as an acronym. From
http://www.answers.com/sos&rg:

> This combination was established by the International Radiotelegraphic
> Convention at Berlin in 1906. The letters (SOS) do not refer to any
> words but were selected because they are easy to transmit.

> Although thought by some to be an abbreviation for "Save Our Souls",
> "Save Our Ship", or "Send Our Savior", in actuality the signal was
> agreed upon because it was easy enough for even an amateur to use or
> recognize, even with interference.


>"poor little soul" you may recognise this as refering to an unfortunate 
>child - soul here signals 'person'.
>
>

Another idiomatic use. Anyway, I never suggested that "the part of the
person which survives death" was the only current sense of "soul", only
that it was the one most likely to be understood by the ordinary person
in Essex, and probably throughout the English-speaking world outside
specifically religious contexts.

>If we take the NIV as an example, it principly  uses "soul" where reference 
>is to emotion and the inner person. Yet there are a couple of interesting 
>verses
>Pr 1:11 "let's waylay some harmless soul" where it signals -'person'
>Ps 26:1 "Do not take away my soul along with sinners", where it signals - 
>'life'
>In Pr 25:25 it may signal - 'body'
>
>

I do not want to defend how NIV uses "soul" either, except to say that
it is better than NWT for using it less. The word would be used hardly
at all in my ideal Bible translation.

>Peter you write
>they would probably
>think of the part of the human which survives death - which is
>definitely NOT a sense of Hebrew nephesh
>
>Response: I agree (though not everyone would), yet someone reading NIV, 
>could retain such a viewpoint. "Soul" is a theologically important term, I 
>believe and most would agree that theology should be based on scripture. The 
>approach of NWT enables the reader to learn the range of meaning of nephesh 
>and the concept as a whole. That is labeled "soul". Using this technique 
>when possible literal translations can enable readers to learn concepts 
>familiar to the ancients. Rather than defining meaning solely on the basis 
>of the Engish word 'soul', that word serves as a label for an ancient 
>concept one has to learn through context and explaination. Maybe the 
>translators could have transliterated it, that would have worked in a 
>similar way, though I think it would be harder on the reader, for the most 
>part "soul" communicates effortlessly.
>
>

I understand the method, which is legitimate for certain audiences. But,
I would consider a meaningless word or a transliteration more
appropriate than a word whose core meaning has components which are
quite inappropriate.


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