Posts by Vidqun

9

To be "literal" or not in Bible translation

by Wonderment in

some participants in this forum often bring up their criticisms of bible versions of not sticking to the original scriptures.

a few individuals have claimed that a word-for-word translation is absolutely necessary.

the answer is not that simple.

Vidqun

Thanks for the examples, Wonderment. These demonstrate the problem quite well. I personally go for FE translations with lots of footnotes so that I can form a personalized opinion of the text. DE translations often incorporate the understanding of the translator, who might not always be impartial. The following is a short discussion of FE and DE translation, for those who are interested in the subject.

Formal-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the original text say? Against DE Translation, we have the accurate, word-for-word translation called Formal Equivalence translation, abbreviated as FET, FE for short. A literal or FE translation would closely follow the original language and could be viewed as scientifically accurate and correct. This type of translation would be adapted to the language of the original text. FE Translations (e.g.,, Aquila) could be used to establish the original text as well as pronunciation. [i]

FE translation attempts to retain the language forms of the original in the translation, regardless of whether or not they are the most natural way to express the original meaning. Sometimes when original forms are retained, the original meaning is not preserved. When people speak of some versions of the Bible being literal, they are referring to ones which have been translated with FE approach.

FE translation is essentially the same as word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translation is the lay term, while formal equivalence translation the technical term. Although FE translations have weaknesses in terms of readability, overall preservation of original meaning, and impact, they are useful for helping one understand HOW meaning was expressed in the original text. They can help us see the beauty of original idioms, rhetorical patterns, such as Hebrew poetic parallelism, and how individual authors used certain vocabulary terms uniquely. It is not so easy to appreciate these factors from reading idiomatic translations, because these factors are related to form and idiomatic translations are willing to lose original form to maximize preservation and understandability of original meaning.

R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the Theodotion (or proto-Theodotian) version of Daniel is mainly a FE translation. In the modern era, the literal interlinear translation is classified as a pure FE translation. To a lesser extent The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), 1990 edition, would qualify as a FE translation. The translators of such a translation would work on the premise: ‘As literal as possible, as free as necessary’. They would used paraphrase or explanatory notes only in exceptional cases, for example to elaborate on the feminine third person singular pronoun.[ii]

Admittedly this type of translation could cause ambiguity. Footnotes can be used to clear this up. This is the case with the NRSV. Here the translators used footnotes to list different meanings or translation possibilities.

Dynamic-Equivalence Translation: Question: What did the author mean? Language experts aptly apply the word ‘dynamic’ to the receptor language – that the receptor language is flexible and dynamic and in no way have to duplicate the original language. This mode of translation applies what is translated to the translator’s vernacular. Archaic words, phrases, and idioms are modernized by replacing them with similar words, phrases, and idioms or by explaining them.

DE translation is free, idiomatic translation, by nature figurative and speculative. Word order and sentence structure of the original text are changed and adapted to the receptor language. Either additional words and phrases are repeated without indicating it by means of cursive script (to warn the reader) or they are completely ignored. Mostly such a translation would be an invaluable help at interpreting the original text, but would be unable to assist in determining the original text (cf. Aramaic Targums and LXX).

The LXX and Aramaic Targums are classical examples of DE translations. Both are viewed as barometers of the religious climate of their time. They are typical DE translations because of their explanatory nature. R. Timothy McLay, translator of NETS Daniel, suggests that the OG version of Daniel is mainly a DE (or Functional Equivalence translation) translation. G. Bertram puts the problem in perspective by saying: “The Septuagint belongs to the history of Old Testament interpretation rather than to the history of the Old Testament text. It can be used as a textual witness only after its own understanding of the Old Testament text has been made clear.” [Cursive script added.][iii]

The New Testament in Modern English of J.B. Phillips, The Living Bible of Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor, the New Living Translation, and Today's English Version are modern examples of DE translation.

[i] John R. Kohlenberger III, Words About the Word, Regency Reference Library, 1992 edition, pp. 62, 63.

[ii] The New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, The New Revised Standard Version, New Testament Introduction, p. xiii, 1990 edition.

[iii] E. Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, p. 66. See also S. Ortlepp, Introduction to the Interlinear Bible, pp. 37, 54, 55.

29

A Seal Ring bearing King Hezekiah's found in Jerusalem excavation, with ankh symbol and winged sun

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

from a story in the jewish press:.

quote: "the city of david excavations of the jerusalem hebrew university on mount ophel, at the foot of the southern wall of the temple mount compound, have yielded a sensational discovery: a seal (bulla) with the name of king hezekiah (727-698 bce).".

"king hezekiahs bulla was discovered in a garbage heap that was dumped during or shortly after hezekiahs time, from a royal building that was used to store food.

Vidqun

Crazyguy, that's why Hess's book is called "Israelite Religions." There were many, similar to our day. Because the worship of Yahweh became the state religion, all others were supressed and/or eclipsed. The Israelites probably borrowed the name Beth-Shemesh from On. You might be referring to Jeremiah's prophecy (43:10-13) where he prophesizes that Nebuchadrezzar would overrun Egypt and "break to pieces the pillars of Beth-shemesh, which is in the land of Egypt." That would be the original Beth-Shemesh. This is what Day (and Hess) has to say concerning Beth-Shemesh of Palestine:

Day (2000, 152) identifies this site (Josh. 15:10) with Ir-Shemesh (Josh. 19:41) and Har-heres (Judg. 1:35). Day also notes En-Shemesh (Josh. 15:7; 18:17) in Judah and Timnath-serah (Josh. 19:50; 24:30) in Ephraim. He also notes Shamash-Edom in Thutmose III's fifteenth-century BC Palestinian town list.

29

A Seal Ring bearing King Hezekiah's found in Jerusalem excavation, with ankh symbol and winged sun

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

from a story in the jewish press:.

quote: "the city of david excavations of the jerusalem hebrew university on mount ophel, at the foot of the southern wall of the temple mount compound, have yielded a sensational discovery: a seal (bulla) with the name of king hezekiah (727-698 bce).".

"king hezekiahs bulla was discovered in a garbage heap that was dumped during or shortly after hezekiahs time, from a royal building that was used to store food.

Vidqun

Fulltimestudent, thanks for the interesting article. Concerning sun worship in ancient Israel, this is what an archaeologist, Richard Hess, had to say on the subject:

The sun deity was subsumed by Yahweh, who took on its characteristics. The actual symbol of the sun in the form of a winged sun disk became a later symbol of the Judean monarchy.

The divine sun appears in names such as Samson and Beth-Shemesh. It is personified in Psalm 19:6 [Heb. 7]. Samson may be a solar hero. His name is derived from the Hebrew word for sun and he is associated with places such as Beth-Shemesh. There is also the association of the sun with a strong man in Psalm 19:4-5 [Heb. 5-6], and the contrast with Delilah, whose name sounds like the Hebrew word for night (laylâ).

Elsewhere, sun worship may be identified with Yahweh in texts such as 1 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 23:5, 11; and Ezek. 8:16. The latter references are noted by Day (2000, 156) as placing sun worship in the Jerusalem temple.[1] Job 38:7 identifies the sun as part of the host of heaven or of the sons of God. These texts are supported by the identification of sun imagery with Yahweh in personal names, by pictures of the sun in iconography of the Judean kingdom, and by artistic representations from in and around Palestine… the collective data presents a significant case for some sort of relationship between Yahweh and sun imagery.[2]

[1] John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 265 (2000). Sheffield Academic Press.

[2] See Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey, pp. 76, 243 n. 121.

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

Vidqun

Yes, Listener, you've got a point. Are they perhaps lending their ear to "the angel of light"? In their commentary on Rev. 4:4 in the Revelation Climax-book (p. 77), they reason that the 24 elders are those of the anointed that had been resurrected to heaven, i.e., their brothers. Yet they insist the first resurrection had started in 1919. But not only were the 24 elders already present in heaven before that date, but one of them spoke to John (ca. 100 CE).

23

Anointed Directing the Anointed?

by compound complex in

[.

] resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today.

revelation: its grand climax at hand!, pages, 124, 125, paragraph 17..

Vidqun

The fact that "elders," in the vicinity of God's throne, is mentioned as early as Is. 24:23 would not support their assumption. And how is it that John addresses the elder as "lord" if he was his brother?

A well known dictionary had the following comment: As early as Is. 24:23 “elders” are mentioned in connection with God’s enthronement. The fact that these are not depicted in a judicial capacity does not rule out their judicial function. One of the elders would act as godly spokesman and interpreter, while as a group they would glorify God and proclaim His judgments (cf. Rev. 5:5; 7:13; 11:16-18):

The two passages Ex. 24 and Nu. 11 exerted considerable influence on other parts of the Bible and on Jewish exegesis. In obvious dependence on Ex. 24:9 f. the late apc. in Is., depicting world judgment and the manifestation of the coming kingdom of Yahweh on Zion and in Jerusalem, closes with the words: “And before his elders is glory,” Is. 24:23. The passage is a first example of the way in which apocalyptic likes to base its eschatological visions on sacred texts, so that it is itself to a large extent exegesis. In relation to Is. 24:23, Rev. 4 follows the same pattern in its vision of the 24 elders before the throne of God, → 668, 9 ff.

The 24 πρεσβύτεροι in Revelation. Special problems are raised by the passages in Rev. in which, in the visions of the divine, 24 elders surround the throne of God in heaven along with the four beasts, 4:4, 10; 5:6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4. The thrones on which they sit (4:4; 11:16), the white robes and the crowns which adorn them (4:4), show that they are heavenly beings, and the title πρεσβύτεροι suggests that they are God’s council of elders (cf. Dan. 7:10). Yet there is no mention of God sitting in council with them nor do they seem to discharge a judicial office, cf. 20:4. Their function is not the exercising of their own dominion; it is simply adoration of the majesty of Him who sits on the throne (4:10; 19:4) and of the exalted Lamb (5:8–10) → θρόνος, III, 165, 21 ff. They sink to the ground, offer worship, and cast down their crowns before the throne of the eternal and omnipotent God (4:10) with songs of praise (4:11; 5:9 f.; 11:17 f.; 19:4 etc.). According to 5:8 they offer priestly ministry for the earthly community with harps and golden vials. Their divine service in heaven accompanies the events of redemption and judgment on earth, which the elders inaugurate and conclude with gesture and song. [1]

There is no suggestion that these elders are redeemed and transfigured men. They are plainly differentiated from the transfigured, 7 and 14. They are also distinguished from the angelic hosts (5:11; 7:11) which surround the throne and the four beasts. But they are so only as a higher class of angels which is closer to the throne of God than the others and which is entrusted in a peculiar way with His secrets. “One of the elders” functions as angelus interpres (5:5; 7:13) and the seer addresses him by the title of majesty, κύριος, 7:14.

[1] See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, pp. 656, 668.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Remember the three h's. For one to accept the facts one needs to be hungry (for truth), honest, and humble. Seems me that amongst the leadership of religious institutions all these qualities are sorely lacking. Anyway, if they had those they would lose money. Their survival would be at stake. So, yes, that's not going to change anytime soon.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Slimboyfat, think how different the landscape would have been: 1) If they had encouraged secular education; 2) If they encouraged input from the brothers and sisters by reviewing their books in the Watchtower, inviting comments from the brothers. I know for a fact their chronology would have changed for the better with the help of Carl O. Jonson; 3) Having had a department at Bethel, filled with highly qualified, young and men and women, analyzing advancements in scholarship and Bible translation, and assimilating the input of the brothers. Yes, here even Rolf Furuli, with his unusual ideas on language and linguistics, would have given valuable input. If only... Yes, I know, farfetched indeed, but one is allowed to dream here on the outside, without the theocratic shackles of the demigods.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Yes, Wonderment, that was the anecdote I was referring to. So, I don't doubt the fact that Franz was quite knowledgeable and had a good grasp of languages. But the Society leaned heavily on his expertise since N. H. Knorr. After his death in the nineties, things went downhill fast. If they would only have encouraged secular study, they might have been able to groom a successor or a group of successors to continue the Franz tradition. Now their theology is driven by seven simpletons that have no clue.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Slimboyfat, I agree, Franz was a brilliant linguist with some original ideas. But unfortunately for him, the field of linguistics would keep on growing and expanding. Cook alluded to this in his criticism of Furuli. Comparative linguistics, especially where Semitic languages are concerned, has opened up the field like never before. The Watchtower did not/could not keep up with the new information, because specialized scholars are needed, and we know there’s none amongst the Witnesses. The few that were there, were kicked out. A while back I read a piece by Barbara of Silent Lambs fame, reporting that she had asked a Jewish colleague (involved with the Society’s translation work in Israel) whether Franz’s Hebrew was up to standard. The woman confirmed that his Hebrew was accurate, and that she had high praise for the man.

Here’s the second part of Cook’s criticism, even more damning than the first:

“Aside from the unsubstantiated claim that (viewpoint) aspect in Hebrew differs from the modern linguistic universal and that elements of metaphor for understanding viewpoint aspect in Hebrew are open to criticism (see Cook 2010), Furuli’s approach to aspect is fundamentally flawed and contradictory. First, although he claims that modern views should not be foisted on a dead language such as ancient Hebrew, he admits that his own analysis is based on English translations (Furuli 2006:417). Although by this statement he intends simply to underscore the lack of native-speaker knowledge for a dead language, it seems all too apparent that his English translations (some quite wrong) determine his analysis of the Hebrew verbal forms.

Second, his discussion of discourse linguistics is quite illuminating when immediately followed by his alternative semantic analysis. Having examined several passages in which the context (adverbial phrases, etc.) affects the aspectual interpretation of the verb form, Furuli (2006: 186) concludes “that it is impossible to know the semantic meaning of most verbs in the Tanakh by analyzing the clauses and contexts in which they occur.” On the following page (2006: 187), he continues his argument, stating that “[O]ur only hope is to find situations where no other factors than the verb conjugation can cause a particular characteristic.” As an example he offers his analysis of wayyîbên (a wayyiqtol form) in 1 Kgs 6:1, which he translates ‘he began to build’: “The verb is durative and dynamic, the verb phrase is telic, and the adverbial fixes the time. But it seems that the small part of the progressive action that is made visible is caused by the verb form alone, because the only other information apart from the verb form that is needed is a knowledge of the world (that it took more than one year to build the temple)” (Furuli 2006: 187). In other words, Furuli’s analysis of aspect has little to do with the linguistic portrayal of events; instead, it relates to his preconceived ideas of the character of the events themselves in the Bible.”

I certainly do not agree with Furuli’s portrayal of the Masoretes. They would never have changed or corrected the verbal forms. This one can see from a comparison of the Masoretic Text with the DSS. A growing number of scholars are starting to view the MT as an authentic tradition with a long history behind it. Morag insists that ‘as a source of historical information, the vocalisation should be accorded serious consideration.’[i] Barr concludes that the Masoretes were ‘in essence phonetic conservators rather than interpretative innovators.’[ii]

What sealed it for me, in that there are serious shortcomings with Furuli’s theory, is the work of Penner (Penner and Furuli do not see eye to eye). Cook goes on to explain:

“Besides the fact that Penner’s theory partakes of the weaknesses of Joosten’s and other relative-tense-and-modality theories, as described above, his empirical method is suspect when compared with Furuli’s contemporary study (based on a broader database that includes Qumran Hebrew), which arrives at very different conclusions: both Furuli and Penner attempt an empirical, statistical analysis of the verb forms in “context” (Furuli 2006: 186-87; Penner 2006: 101-2) and arrive at contradictory results, Furuli positing some unique form of aspect for Hebrew (with just two main conjugations-prefix and suffix), and Penner proposing tense-prominence in Qumran Hebrew (Furuli 2006: 462-64; Penner 2006: 212-13). It appears prima facie that both Furuli and Penner have found what they were looking for; that is, their interpretation of the data was guided by what they expected a priori to find, which accounts for their divergent results based on overlapping data sets.”

Penner, Ken

2006 Verb Form Semantics in Qumran Hebrew Texts: Tense, Aspect, and Modality between the Bible and the Mishnah. Ph.D dissertation, McMaster University.

[i] S. Morag, ‘On the Historical Validity of the Vocalisation of the Hebrew Bible’, p. 315, cf. S. Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew, p. 17.

[ii] J. Barr, ‘The Nature of Linguistic Evidence in the Text of the Bible’, p. 40; cf. Comparative Philology, pp. 195, 196.

63

Why does the Watchtower leadership slap its own defenders in the face?

by slimboyfat in

take the case of rolf furuli.

i don't think there has been a specific thread on the hebrew verbs u-turn in the nwt, and how the society has responded to the work of perhaps their brightest and ablest defender in their history.

so here goes.. rolf furuli has defended jws on multiple fronts in many different settings, on issues ranging from chronology, mental health, doctrines, bible translation and the blood issue.

Vidqun

Slimboyfat, my impression of Rolf Furuli is that he attempted to defend the indefensible, by propping up the Titanic, so to speak, and for that reason he would sink with it. He was not very honest either, never admitting in his books that he was a Witness or that he self-published. He would stick with Franz’s explanation of the Hebrew Verbal System (HVS) to his detriment.

Allow me to quote criticism of his work by John Cook in his treatise, “Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew.” Cook discusses most modern theories of the HVS. It is interesting to note what he had to say about Furuli's thesis. Furuli believed that there is no difference between the waw-prefixed forms and their formal non-waw-prefixed counterparts, and I quote:

“The most recent permutation of this type of theory comes from Furuli (2006), who claims based on his examination of all the verb forms in the Hebrew Bible, Ben Sira, and the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were only two conjugations: a perfective suffix conjugation (qatal and wĕqatal) and an imperfective prefix conjugation (yiqtol and wayyiqtol; Furuli 2006:4) He concludes that a diachronic approach is problematic and unnecessary, since (1) there is no evidence of a prefix preterite in Northwest Semitic or Akkadian, and (2) there is no evidence in his corpus of any semantic change in the Hebrew verbal forms (Furuli 2006: 147).

Furul’s approach is based on two premises that he claims are not taken into account by any earlier theories. This first is a systematic distinction between past time reference and past tense. Although it is a sound principle, Furuli uses this premise to dismiss out of hand any and every tense explanation of Hebrew and Semitic (e.g., Furuli 2006: 32, 98). Furuli claims that context “can fix the temporal reference of a verb” and then refuses to acknowledge any other possible means of fixing temporal reference – that is, tense (Furuli 2006:100).

His second principle is that aspect (viewpoint aspect, in particular) in Hebrew is of a different sort than English aspect, which he claims informs most previous understandings. Unfortunately it is unclear to me the basis for his claim because the only explanation he offers is, “because aspect is a kind of viewpoint, it is not obvious that it has the same nature in the different aspectual languages of the world” (Furuli 2006: 49).

A full survey of Furuli’s work would take too long and yield too little of value (see the reviews of Kummerow 2007 and Cook 2010). Here I mention the two fundamental difficulties with his theory that are most germane to this discussion: his treatment of wayyiqtol and his analysis of aspect. A major if not central focus of Furuli’s work is to show that wayyiqtol is not a distinct prefix form from yiqtol (and wĕyiqtol) but is an invention of the Masoretes. He recognizes that a major obstacle to his argument is that 93.1% (according to his analysis) of wayyiqtols in the Bible refer to past events, which accounts for the majority view that the form has developed from a Semitic prefixed preterite form. He argues, however, that, “because of the problem of induction, confirmatory examples can never confirm a hypothesis, but contradictory ones can even falsify it” (Furuli 2006:73). Thus Furuli admits that he allows 6.9% of the evidence to drive his semantic theory of wayyiqtol! The obvious protest to this is that Hebrew is an ancient language, attested only in composite and redacted texts that has been vocalized (which is the distinguishing factor between wayyiqtol and wĕyiqtol) only hundreds of years after the stabilization of the text. But this point aside, Sapir’s dictum that “grammar leak” certainly applies here. Further, Furuli’s argument that the Masoretes created the wayyiqtol form and that they made mistakes in writing the form appears prima facie to cancel out the significance of his 6.9% of counterexamples: these data are simply “errors" introduced by the Masoretes; but even so, if the form is simply a Masoretic invention, how can any of the examples be deemed either erroneous or representative of the actual language of the texts? In addition, Furuli (2006:459) admits that his theory is completely at odds with the typological data on TAM but dismisses those findings, stating that: “we should not force modern views upon a dead language.” This comment betrays a lack of understanding of not only typology but the nature of languages and language universal!”

Furuli, Rolf J.

2006 A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew: An Attempt to Distinguish between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. Oslo: Awatu.

There’s more but that’s enough for the time being. The above allows one a general impression of his work. Cook could not understand his reasoning, but we can. By sticking to Frederick Franz’s theory on the Hebrew Verbal System, he would build an elaborate hypothesis, only to be shot down by his peers.