Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

>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.

I concur with the above.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Fri 11/18/2005 11:26 PM
To: Robert Newman
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NIV v' NWT translation policy
 
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&r=67:

> 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/

_______________________________________________
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 18:45:11 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 193E74C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:45:11 -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 94304381; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:45:10 -0500
Message-ID: <437E6793.5080004 AT qaya.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:45:23 +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: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
References: <20051118202914.C1FCE164281 AT ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051118202914.C1FCE164281 AT ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com>
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] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
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 23:45:11 -0000

On 18/11/2005 20:29, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
>Everyone's understanding is tinged by their experiences
>and presuppositions. Mine is such that when I think of
>"forever" or "eternity", I am thinking in cosmological terms,
>where (WLM can refer to a span of time that is finite within
>the age of the universe. However, it is an unspecified
>span of time with its limits often unknown. Because it
>is unspecified, (WLM can also refer to eternity in a
>cosmological sense as well according to context.
>
>

Well, Karl, at least you recognise your problem here. The Israelites
were not thinking in modern cosmological terms. They were thinking of a
universe which began with a creation, and which was probably expected to
end in some kind of final destruction. `Olam with past reference
referred to things which were thought to date back to the creation or at
least to the period immediately following it. `Olam with future
references referred to things which are expected to continue until that
final destruction, or which were at least in practice equivalent to that.

>Unless I misread you, you understand (WLM in reference
>to a person's life span, no more. Any span of time that
>extends beyond an individual's experience is thereby
>"eternal".
>
>

You misread me. For an individual, slavery until death was in effect
`olam because there was no possibility of freedom at the end. Or maybe
this is simply some kind of figure of speech or loose use of language,
just as in English we might use "for ever" of something which will in
fact be terminated by death - but we don't want to think about that. In
fact "for ever" could easily be used in an English account of someone's
lifelong slavery. But that does not mean that the English word "ever"
means only until the end of one's life span.

>The question is, which way did the ancients view its
>meaning: the cosmological or solipsistic? My reading
>is that they understood it according to the cosmological
>sense. And yours ...
>
>
>
I agree with you, if "cosmological" is understood according to the
ancient understanding.
...

>>You misunderstand me. To get away from the Christian idea of the
>>coming of Jesus, let us consider the rather similar Hebrew Bible
>>concept of the Day of the Lord.
>>
>>
>
>The "Day of the Lord" is a point time. (WLM refers to a
>span of time. I do not consider the terms similar.
>
>
>
The similarity I had in mind was between the second coming of Jesus and
the Day of the Lord.

>>....      That is also expected in the
>>future, but at a specific time, although probably not in the
>>lifetime of those who wrote about it. Is the period from the
>>present until the Day of the Lord referred to as `olam? I think
>>not, because `olam is not used for a time whose end is anticipated,
>>even if this is in the remote future. Rather, `olam is used of
>>periods which will continue beyond the Day of the Lord.
>>
>>
>>
>Here I agree with Rolf that you are making the meaning
>fallacy, that a word must have a certain meaning and so
>you force all understanding around it to fit that meaning.
>You already agreed that events in the past where it is
>known that they had a specific beginning, one that is
>unknown or unspecified by the context, are covered by
>(WLM not meaning eternity past, ...
>

No, I did not. I do not hold this. Past `olam refers to events which
were thought to go back to creation or the very earliest time after it.


>... therefore (WLM future
>cannot mean eternity future in the cosmological sense
>(if you want to be consistent) unless you limit it to
>the solipsistic view of an individual's life span.
>
>
>
But this is precisely the meaning fallacy that you just accused me of,
the refusal to accept that the word might have different meanings in
different contexts. In fact I don't think this particular word does have
seriously different meanings, but as I have said many times I am open to
any convincing evidence that it has a meaning other than what I have
described.
...

>>...
>>
>>I did not claim any New Testament perspective, I said that such
>>perspectives are irrelevant for understanding the Hebrew Bible.
>>
>>
>
>Ahhh, but your quote from 1 Peter is one of the proof
>passages used by Christian theologians as to why we
>ought to use the New Testament as a guide to understand
>Tanakh.
>
>

That is not how I used the passage. I am not responsible for how others
may have misused it.

>As for the New Testament use of "eon", it too is used for a
>limited but unknown length of time (e.g. Matthew 28:20) as
>well as eternity, just like (WLM.
>
>

So , Karl, do you consider that, according to this verse, there will be
a future time when Jesus is not with his people? I certainly don't, for
which I praise the Lord. So the rather strange mention here of "always,
to the close of the age" must be a reference to the final end of time.

... which will be on us all too soon if I keep posting on this subject.

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