Thu Jan 16 05:42:38 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 05:42:38 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id FAA25668; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:41:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:37:23 -0500 (EST)
From: ANDREW SMITH 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is         God` 
In-Reply-To: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1040


On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote:

> ...the role played by theology 
> and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely 
> dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it 
> possible to make a translation where the reader who does not 
> know the original languages may have a part in the 
> translation process?

*********************

The translator must make certain linguistic choices which have
theological/spiritual consequences. In English, for example, one
capitalizes nouns and pronouns which refer to God.

Perhaps more to the point, there arise the occasional ambiguous pronouns
in Hebrew which have more than one possible antecedent. It being difficult
or impossible to replicate this ambiguity in English, the translator must
decided between:

"This is the day which the Lord has made, and we will rejoice and be glad
in Him."

OR

".....in it."

The completely "objective" translation is very elusive. To even come
close, one would need a large critical apparatus to list alternatives.

Andrew C. Smith

Back