Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Sunday 05 February 2006 01:07, Rolf Furuli wrote:
> Dear Gene and Dave,
>
> See my comments below.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 12:2
>
> On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:31, Gene Gardner wrote:
> >                     Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
> > Sat Feb 4 19:14:40 EST 2006
> >   stated:
> >
> >
> > What else would it be?  Gene:
> >  I was just looking for a different perspective, after reading the NWT
> > translation of Daniel 12:2:
> >
> >
> >   2 And there will be many of those asleep in the ground of dust who will
> > wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches [and]
> > to indefinitely lasting abhorrence.
> >
> >
> >   Here is their translation of Gen 21:
> >
> >
> >   33 After that he planted a tamarisk tree at Be´er-she´ba and called
> > there
> > upon the name of Jehovah the indefinitely lasting God.
> >
> >GG:
> >  Maybe it is a theological bias.
>
> DW:
> There's no "maybe" about it.
>
> RF:
> You should not be so quick to question the motives of Bible translators.
> Which theological view would lead translators to use "indefinitely lasting
> life" rather than "everlasting life"?
>
> In my view there are linguistic rather than theological reasons behind
> "indefinitely lasting life". I can see three possible reasons for the
> choice of the NWT translators:
>
> 1) A careful study of the lexical meaning of (LM and its use in the OT.

We've been over this ground many times.  "Lexical meaning" may or may not 
have 
any bearing on usage, and in practice this approach comes very close to 
Carson's "root fallacy."  All we have to go on is usage, and usage 
overwhelmingly favors the idea of "eternal" when it's used as an adjective, 
as in this verse.

> 2) The principle of concordance, i.e., the use of one English word for each
> Hebrew word whenever possible.

As you already know, I do not agree with this principle.  You're welcome to, 
but it is hardly an established rule of linguistics or translation theory. 

> 3) The principle that the readers should have a part in the translation
> process whenever possible.

Frankly, I find this more or less meaningless.  What is meant by "a part"?  
Does it mean, as you seem to suggest below, that a translation should be as 
vague as possible so a reader can't really know what the translator (much 
less the original author) had in mind?  That seems like a disservice to the 
reader, especially in a case like this one where the meaning seems quite 
clear unless a translator has a theological predisposition against it.

> As for 1), there is no doubt that the reference of (LM in many instances is
> to unending time, but that is not true in all cases. Translators should
> differenciate between the lexical meaning of a word, which is the concept
> in the mind of native speakers that is signalled by the word, and its
> reference. The core of the concept signalled by the verb (LM is "hide,
> hidden," and the same may be the case with the noun. The time whose length
> is hidden may be rather short or it may be everlasting.

This is still the root fallacy.  That "core concept," assuming there really 
is 
such a one, may or may not be present in any particular usage.  It does not 
have to be, and in fact there is no solid way to prove that "hidden" is 
actually a "core concept" in the word at all.  Context is all we really have 
to go on, and in Dan 12:2 it's pretty clear.

> As for 2), the translators use the same words or similar words, e.g., "time
> indefinite" when the noun (LM is found. The advantage of this is that the
> readers can know when the same Hebrew word is used in differeent English
> passages.

Gene already pointed out a counter-example above.  Does the description of 
Jehovah as "indefinitely lasting" mean He could croak 5 minutes from now?  
"Time indefinite" does not convey what the writer of Daniel 12 intended.  
That's what translation should be doing.

> As for 3), the words "indifinitely lasting" and "time indefinite" are more
> ambiguous than "everlasting". The translating process begins when the
> author writes the words, and it ends when the reader grasps the message. By
> using an English term that both can be interpreted as everlasting and not
> everlasting, the final interpretation of the word is left to the individual
> reader.

See above.  This kind of ambiguity is not a service to the reader, it is a 
hindrance to communication.  In both Daniel 12:2 and Genesis 23:33, "eternal" 
or "everlasting" makes much more sense and appears to convey the mind of the 
author.  There is no good reason not to use it unless, as I said, there is 
some kind of theological predilection against the idea.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."