Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: pastormattfbcrankin <pastormattfbcrankin AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key
  • Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:22:23 -0500

Hello Matt:

Thanks for your comments.

I accept the mainstream translations (nkjv, niv, nasb) of numbers 31:9,14 as
the best possible english translations. I probably would also accept as
excellent, any english translation that you or any other reasonable person
might propose. It doesn't matter which translation we choose. Why?

Because the english translation must select one english word for usage in
one verse ("goods") and another unrelated and disconnected english word
("army") in the other verse.

The hebrew language original however, employs the identical hebrew word חיל
in both locations. And this hebrew noun obviously, closely resembles
and relates to its parent hebrew verb חיל , meaning to twist or dance.

The consumer of the hebrew text twice experiences, three related meanings of
one hebrew word חיל . The consumer of the hebrew text further observes a
connexity between verses 9 and 14, due to repetitive usage of the word.

The consumer of the english text however, sees only independence, where the
hebrew reader instead observes relationship and pregnancy of meaning.

The chronic repetition of this circumstance across the masoretic text and
with other hebrew words, effectively locks the text to translation. Yes,
translation occurs frequently from the hebrew. But the hebrew original
resembles other language translation only as apples mirror oranges.

regards,

fred burlingame



On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, pastormattfbcrankin <
pastormattfbcrankin AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Fred,
>
> What exactly is the "richness of these connections" that you are referring
> to here? How is it that the Hebrew reader has a completely different
> understanding that the English or Greek reader? I'm afraid I don't follow,
> please enlighten me. Futhermore, how would you translate these verses that
> would differ so greatly from how it is currently translated?
>
> My Hebrew prof in college once said, "Every translation is a betrayal of
> the text." This is true to a degree, but that being said it doesn't mean
> that the language is locked i.e. indecipherable into another language. We
> will lose certain nuances, but I suspect you are trying to say that we lose
> far more than that.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> -Matt Williams
>
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:28 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
>
> > Hello Paul:
> >
> > I agree with your comments.
> >
> > I would observe however, that in this particular case, we have:
> >
> > a. a parent hebrew verb with a meaning to bore or pierce;
> >
> > b. a child hebrew noun with two alternate meanings of wealth/goods and
> army;
> >
> > c. and such two noun definitions used in two verses of close physical and
> > subject matter proximity.
> >
> > The richness of these connections gives the hebrew reading consumer of
> the
> > verses an entirely different understanding, than the disconnected english
> > words reveal to the english reading consumer.
> >
> > Much of the hebrew meaning survives translation, not. Hence, the hebrew
> > language appears locked to english or greek or any other language
> > translation.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > fred burlingame
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) has a good article
> >> explaining the relationships of the various usages of the word.
> Basically,
> >> both of the cases here would be considered idiomatic in the field of
> >> translation. When translating idioms, one needs to almost always find
> the
> >> underlying meaning behind the idiom as opposed to the actual words used
> and
> >> translate that concept. This is because a direct, literal translation
> of
> >> the idiom from one language to another yields either zero meaning or
> >> incorrect meaning.
> >>
> >> This is not just true in translating Hebrew to English--it is the case
> when
> >> you go from any language to another. It is especially true if the
> languages
> >> are not closely related.
> >>
> >> Paul Zellmer
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:
> >> b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 5:06 PM
> >> To: B-Hebrew
> >> Subject: [b-hebrew] lock without a key
> >>
> >> Hello all:
> >>
> >> a little arithmetic.
> >>
> >> 1 = 2; or 2 = 2
> >>
> >> Biblical hebrew ("BH") language enjoys a unique characteristic. The
> >> language
> >> frequently employs a single word, twice or more, in physical proximity.
> >> The single word however, denotes a different meaning in each location.
> >>
> >> Translations capture the different meanings of the single word, but lose
> >> the
> >> connexity of the verses, and the depth of the single hebrew word in the
> >> process. Witness: חיל :
> >>
> >> וישבו בני ישראל נשי מדין ואת טפם ואת כל בהמתם ואת כל מקנהם ואת כל חילם
> בזזו
> >>
> >> numbers 31:9
> >>
> >> ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל שרי האלפים ושרי המאות הבאים מצבא המלחמה
> >>
> >> numbers 31:14
> >>
> >> And so, the question arises. Does BH contained a lock that prevents
> >> translation?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> fred burlingame
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> b-hebrew mailing list
> >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page