Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dave,

Your personal opinions regarding lexical semantics and Bible translations 
are irrelevant in this discussion.
You claimed that there is no doubt that NWT rendering "indefinitely lasting 
life" in Dan 12.2 is a biased rendering. That is the issue! I reacted to 
that, because this is a typical example of the very opposite. When 
translators make idiomatic translations and choose different English glosses 
for the same Hebrew word, they are naturally led by their personal 
understanding of the text, and that may entail bias. But the NWT translators 
have not made choices on the part of the readers in connection with (LM, but 
have made a consistent translation giving the readers the opportunity to do 
the interpretation and decide whether the time reference is unending or not.

Another example of the same principle is the consistent rendering of NP$ as 
"soul" in all its 754 occurrences. This helps the readers to know where NP$ 
occurs in the Hebrew text, and in each case the readers must make the 
interpretation of "soul" and find its reference. In the appendix of the NWT 
edition with footnotes and references the translators discusses the Hebrew 
NP$ and show that the use of this word in the Tanakh is completely different 
from the use of similar words among the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, 
Greeks, and Romans. Nevertheless, the NWT has the following translation in 1 
Kings 17:21b-22:

"O Jehovah my God, please, cause the soul of this child to come back within 
him. Finally Jehovah listened to Elijah´s voice, so that the soul of the 
child came back within him and he came to life."

Because the translators suggest that the view of an immortal soul is not 
found in the Tanakh, this is a fine example of consistency and 
non-prejudice, since the most natural way to interpret the passage at first 
glance is that it indicates the existence of an immortal soul.

I see no purpose in discussing your claimed contra-example below and your 
other points. These show that you do not understand the principles of a 
concordant translation. The point in this discussion, however, is that the 
NWT rendering "indefinitely lasting life" in Dan 12:2 is linguistically 
legitimate and is not based on theology.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Univesity of Oslo


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