Thu Jan 16 08:55:43 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 08:55:43 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA26428; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:55:09 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:24:42 GMT
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116082300.26bf70ac@mail.sunbelt.net>
X-Sender: jwest@mail.sunbelt.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Jim West 
Subject: Re: `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is        
  God`
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1349

An excellent discussion of the whole issue of translation can be found in
Pinchas Lapide's "Ist die Bibel richtig uebersetzt?"  2 vol.

Jim



At 05:37 AM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Petros TN

jwest@sunbelt.net

Back