Dr.Furuli:> Those making the concordant translation try to find an English word that represent the core of a Hebrew concept (represented by one Hebrew word) as they understand this core. This English word is used consistently throughout
the English translation to represent the Hebrew word and its concept. The
target group can look up the occurrences of one particular English word, and
on the basis of its context one can get rid of unwanted English baggage, and
the readers come closer to the Hebrew concept that the word signals. From
one point of view one can say that a literal transltion is a
semi-translation, because the readers have a part in the very translation
process as described above.
Response: That makes sense, however, I think that is good with regard to single words, I'd imagine that one would run into problems when dealing with actual phrases. Because if you always translate phrases literally one can come up with "expressions" that were never meant to be expressed by a native Hebrew or Greek speaker. Like God of WLM, no native english speaker would say "God of eternalty" they would just say "eternal God."
And that is what I would argue is what the Greek or Hebrew author meant. Or if we take "time indefinite" no one would say "God of time indefinite." God may be God forever or just a couple of minutes.
So I think when dealing with actual phrases, if one is too literal you can come up with expressions that were never meant to be communicated in that manner. The concept of the word would not make much sense if translated literally inside of an actual phrase.
Another problem is of coures ambiguity. Something in Greek and Hebrew might be totally clear to the audience might not make much sense at all in English. Fee & Stuart use the example KATA SARKA(according to the flesh), which if translated literally does not make much sense to us today.
------------------------------------------
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.