Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 7 Oct 2009 at 15:12, Gerry Folbre wrote:

> dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:
> > On 7 Oct 2009 at 12:43, Gerry Folbre wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Karl wrote:
> >>
> >> "You did not make a word for word translation; you just made a
> >> list of words
> >>
> >> and your interpretation of their meanings without making them
> into
> >> a
> >>
> >> meaningful sentence that we can follow. Further, not all of us
> agree
> >> with
> >>
> >> your interpretations. It looks as if you have just taken ideas
> from
> >> your
> >>
> >> class and plugged them into your answer, some of us even
> question
> >> what you
> >>
> >> were taught in your classes."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> With all due respect, the BHS Masoretic Hebrew Text of Pr. 5:6 is
> >> composed precisely as I presented it, and I translated each word
> and
> >> bound morpheme precisely according to Gesenius´ Hebrew Grammar,
> >> Brown,
> >> Driver & Briggs Heb./Eng. Lexicon of the Old Testament, and The
> >> Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon.  If that is not a
> word-for-word
> >> translation, I do not know what is.
> >>
> >
> > I would say that's a fair assessment of the situation; you really
> don't.  What you made is an
> > interlinear, not a translation.  An actual translation would put
> the clauses into a form that's
> > comprehensible in the receptor language, in this case English.
> Note the rest of Karl's
> > sentence: "without making them into a meaningful sentence that we
> can follow."  I concur
> > with that evaluation, and I am among those who question what you
> were taught in your
> > classes.
> >
> > Dave Washburn
> >
> > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> > _______________________________________________
> Dave:  An "interlinear" is an "interpres translation."  By supplying
> an
> "interlinear and/or interpres translation" the Source Text becomes
> the
> focal point in stead of the individual's exposition and/or exegesis
> {critical interpretation}of that text.  Having the BHS Hebrew Text
> rendered directly into English in an "interlinear" and/or
> "interpres"
> fashion enables us to separate our personal inclinations from what
> the
> Hebrew author originally composed.  Once our personal inclinations
> are
> set aside we then have the opportunity to expound upon the Source
> Text
> and together arrive at a consensus regarding  how best to present
> the
> Hebrew Text in an English exposition and/or critical
> interpretation.

I'm sure somebody told you that, but in practice it doesn't work.  
Unintelligible English
doesn't do anything for translation or interpretation.  And personal 
inclinations have just as
much effect on renderings of individual words as the do on anything else, so 
your approach
is untenable.

> You are among those who question what I was taught in my classes.
> The
> article by Sebastian Brock is one small (yet extremely important)
> example.
>
> Regarding Pr. 5:6, the places where the Hebrew presents the second
> person pronoun prefix, "you", that "you" would have to be referring
> to
> the "son" to whom the "father" is speaking.
>
> If you disagree on that point, please do so by showing how the
> Hebrew
> Source Text indicates your interpretation.

Truthfully, I can't see the point in doing so.  It's clear already that we 
won't get anywhere.

Dave Washburn

http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur