Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Translation theory and hebrew verb forms

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translation theory and hebrew verb forms
  • Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:29:43 +0100

Hi Rolf,

thanks for your reply. I can see your reasons for the three different layers of translation. I was more concerned with your views of general translation for the general public than anything else. But you got there in the end.

Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:

Dear James,

I appreciate your questions; they are important. I have written two
books on Bible translation, so translation issues are close to my
heart.

One of the first things I learned when I started with applied
linguistics, was that different translation methods should be used
for different target groups. I have for example translated the
Ethiopic Enoch, Kebra Nagast, and several Ugaritic, Akkadian,
Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hebrew documents into Norwegian, and while I
have tried to be as literal as possible, I have basically followed
the idiomatic method. I have also translated several of the Dead Sea
scrolls from Aramaic and Hebrew, and here I have to a greater degree
followed the concordant method, trying to use one Norwegian word for
each Hebrew and Aramaic word, when that was possible (it is rarely
possible in all instances). The reason for this was that I felt that
the details were more important for the target group in these texts
than in the other texts.

The lexical meaning and Aktionsart of the verbs are more important
than the aspects, because these generate meaning, and the same is
true with the Hebrew stems. As I have written previously, I view
aspects as mere peepholes that do not generate any meaning on their
own. But still, these peepholes in combination with other linguistic
factors may give particular signals that should influence the
translator. This is more easily seen in Greek than in Hebrew (I view
the Greek aspects as similar to the Hebrew aspects and different from
the English ones). I will give a few examples:

Matthew 7:7 NIV: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find"

Matthew 7:7 RF : "Continue to ask, and it will be given you; continue
to seek, and you will find."

Here we find two examples of present active imperative, and what is
made visible, as I see it, is continuous action and not just one
single act. The NIV completely lacks the force I find in the original.



1 John 2:1 RSV: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that
you may not sin; but if any one does sin (AORIST), we have an
advocate with the father, Jesus Christ, the righteous."

1 John 3:6 RSV: "No one who abides in him sins (PRESENT IND); no one
who sins (PRESENT PART) has either seen him nor known him."

1 John 2:1 NIV: "My dear children, I write this to you so that you
will not sin. But if anybody does sin (AORIST), we have one who
speaks to the father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the righteous
one."


1 John 3:6 NIV: "No one who lives in him keeps on sinning (PRESENT
IND): No one who continues to sin (PRESENT PART) has either seen him
or known him."

The renderings of the RSV are contradictory because they show that
"one who abides in him" both sins and does not sin. The NIV has taken
the aspects into consideration and differentiates between "to sin"
(aorist) and "to keep on sinning" (present). In this translation
there is no contradiction.


Thanks. That's a good example where the aspect makes a difference. I'm not sure there are many more contexts where it does make such a big difference though.

In Hebew, the aspects may also give different signals. For example,
the writer of Hebrews 4:1-10 interprets the verbs used in Genesis
2:2-3 and the context as indicating the 7th day, the rest day of God
were not terminated when the creation was completed, but that it
still held in the days of this writer.
The following Hebrew example suggests that the translator should
carefully note the interplay of stem and aspect. Regarding the
creation of the universe with its celestial bodies we read:

Psalm 148:5, 6 NIV:

(5)"Let them place the name of the LORD, for he commanded (QATAL) and
they were created (WEQATAL).
(6) He set them in place (WAYYIQTOL) in place for ever and ever; he
gave (QATAL) the decree that they will never pass away (YIQTOL)."

There is something that seems to be wrong with the translation of v.
6, namely, the past tense. The words "for ever and ever" refer to a
never ending future (reference time comes after the deictic center).
But in the clause, "He set them in place," reference time comes
before the deictic center. Thus, there is a lack of temporal
correspondence, because it is difficult to combine a particular point
in the past with the remote future. If the imperfective nature of
the WAYYIQTOL is accepted, we see a good and forceful solution. The
combination of the Hiphil stem and the imperfective aspect may
suggest one of the following translations:

"And he keeps them standing for ever."

or

"And he will cause them to stand for ever."

What we learn from these translations is not only that God created
the universe, but that he actively maintains or upholds it as well.

Then I come to Bible translation and your questions. In my view, the
ideal situation would be to have three kinds of Bible "translations".

First, I would like to have an Interlinear Bible, which hardly is a
translation at all. The advantage of this would be for the interested
reader to get an idea of which words were used in the source
language, and to some extent get an idea of the inflexions.

Second, I would like to have a translation like Youngs literal
translation and the New World Translation that are very literal
(together with Wuest's Expanded translation). A strictly literal
translation is in a way a semi-translation. For example, when the NWT
consistently uses the one English word "soul" as a translation of
NP$, the readers must on the basis of the context find the references
of "soul". Therefore, the readers have a part in the very process of
translation.The advantage of a literal translation is that the
readers may come as close as possible to the original text through
their mother tongue. But this can of course be a real challenge. One
other advantage of such a translation, is that the readers can see
where other modern translations for different reasons have broken
fundamental translation rules and in effect has lead their readers
astray.

Third, I would like to have an idiomatic translation that is as
literal as possible, but not is a semi-translation. This means that
more than one word is used for NP$, but much fewer than the 30 or
more words that are used in modern translations, Footnotes with
alternative readings and alternative translation possibilities would
also be appreciated. When a person who does not know the original
languages works to get an understanding of Biblical passages, he or
she will learn a lot by comparing different translations. It is
impossible to transfer the whole original meaning of the verbs and
clauses from the source language to the target language-a part, great
or small, is lost in the process, and a part, great or small, is
added. Different translations may stress different sides of the
original meaning, and therefore it is an advantage to use several
translations.

If I was asked to make a Bible translation with the general public
(the average Bible readers) as target group, I would probably make a
translation similar to the third one above. In my translations from
different Semitic languages, the importance of the aspects have
differed. In Ugaritic, Akkadian and Phoenician the aspects only have
played a minor role. But in texts that I have translated from Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Ethiopic, they have played a major role. This does not
mean that I in the majority of verbal clauses have tried to account
for the source aspect in the target language. To the contrary, in
most cases I have not done that, for the simple reason that few
important nuances are lost by using the verb system of Norwegian
without particular additions to mark the original aspects. However, I
have carefully weighted the importance of the original aspects as
markers or signals of particular nuances (as in Psalm 148:5 above).
And in these cases I have taken great pains to convey these nuances
in the target language. For example, in Genesis 41:1-3 (and 4-7) we
do not have a terse narrative style where one action follows the
previous one in consecution. But we have a vivid tableau where we se
one part follow the previous one, while the previous one still is
there, and then a third in a similar way, until the tableau is
complete and Pharao is impressed. So both in a literal
semi-translation and in a translation for the general public I would
have translated the verses exactly as I did in a previous post.


The quality of the LXX is uneven. Several different translators
worked on the different books, and there is not a one to one
similarity between the Hebrew aspects and the Greek ones in the LXX.
Moreover, as in the case with the Hebrew aspects, there are different
opinions today regarding the meaning of the Greek aspects. For
example, I would say that Greek imperfect is a combination of past
tense and the imperfective aspect, and many would agree with that.
But when I say that the aorist is only the perfective aspect and is
not combined with past tense, and that present is only the
imperfective aspect not combined with any tense, many people would
disagree. In any case, we should analyze the Hebrew aspects in their
own right, and not comparing them to the Greek tenses and aspects.


I can see what you are saying about the LXX. The reason I asked is on the following assumption. Early Christian writers, I assume, were more familiar with the meaning of the Hebrew texts than any of us on this list and would have been in a better position to choose good translations. I've often wondered if an analysis of the style of translation of early christian writers could help produce superior quality translations for the general public. Any thoughts?

James Christian


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




Hi Rolf,

I've been meaning to ask you this for some time but never got round to it.

This question is more to do with translation theory than with your
study of the verb forms although there is some limited connection. I
was wondering what bearing your conclusions have on how we ought to
translate the texts of the various Hebrew writings. Do you believe
that the 'imperfective' and 'perfective' aspects of the verbs are so
important that we should try to express them in some way in every
verbal instance (like the NWT does) or do you think we should opt
for a translation style that better reflects natural language in the
target language (without overstepping the boundaries and going into
super paraphrase mode, of course)?

The translators of the so called LXX didn't seem to follow any such
rigid translation scheme. Also, the quotations of Hebrew scriptures
found in Greek scriptures seemed to give more emphasis to basic
meaning rather than any rigid adherence to grammatical influences.
What are your feelings about these kind of translation issues?

James Christian

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page