Idioms

[Rippon]

The principle provides the best way to handle idioms. Examples are found in the NASB, LEB and NET.
They all three follow the principle.

Ha, Ha, Ha.

 

[Van]

Ha, Ha, Ha.

Trying to discuss translation philosophy and illustrate where improvement is possible seems a topic some desire to derail.

A very basic principle, that everyone should embrace, has now been ridiculed for three pages. But has any verse been cited where the principle would not work? Nope. Why not?

 

[Rippon]

In post #21, three verses were referenced where the NASB footnoted the literal translation, and presented what was thought to be better way to express the thought in the modern era. The NASB contains lots numbered footnotes that read " Lit. the literal rendition, for example do You lift up my soul."

I completely agree, therefore the ole' Van-principle is dead-in-the-water. ;-)

 

[rsr]

I don't think you can have such a hard and fast rule. Sure, giving the literal in the text and footnoting possible meanings produces a Bible of some value, but only if you're the kind of person (OK, I'm one) who loves reading footnotes.

What of the person who just wants a translator to tell him what the texts say and not make him take a multiple choice test?

So, if you're translating a text, which would make more sense: the apple of the eye, the little man of the eye, or pupil (a Latin term which is itself an idiom)?

When you get into euphemisms and dysphemisms, the safest thing, of course, is just to translate it literally. But does that really do justice to the text?

 

[rsr]

Now, to put another spin on it: The KJV translators often decided not to attempt to resolve ambiguities in the text; children of wrath is an example. The Anglican church was, in fact, a compromise between the high church adherants and the Protestant settlement, and to a lesser extent, Puritanism. Thus it had to make room for divergent views, including Calvinism/Arminianism, and ambiguity served a purpose.

The kicker, of course, is that the Anglican magisterium controlled how those ambiguities would be resolved in the homilies presented to the vast majority of the parishes through the local priests or the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Van]

Thanks RSR for your on topic posts! I am willing to concede there might be exceptions, but then why has no one cited one? Are we supposed to just read scripture or study it? In the case where the principle is followed, the translator is telling the reader what the text says.

Lets consider the idea that the figures of speech are so outdated in the original, that a literal translation would make the message indiscernible. I think not, especially in the absence of examples.

Turning to ambiguities, to the extent the meanings are in doubt, i.e. some faction says John 6:29 says the work God requires of you, and another faction says the work God does for you, leaving it as the "work of God" seems the safest course of action. However if study and learning has revealed which side of the dispute is most probably valid, then putting that in the main text, and footnoting the alternate seems sound.

 

[Rippon]

I am willing to concede there might be exceptions, but then why has no one cited one?

RSR just gave you one. You do not believe that using "the little man of the eye" should be in the text --do you? I have cited three other examples in post 21. "Why has no one cited one?" Really now. Thou shalt not prevaricate Van.

 

[Van]

Which verse reads "the little man of the eye." The principle works for all three verses cited in post 21. Just put the literal reading in the main text, and footnote the meaning or meanings. This would work for John 10:24, Mark 1:32, and 1 Samuel 10:9.

But lets address "apple (or little man) of his eye." This refers to the pupil of our eye. Very precious, something we would protect thus our children can be referred to as the apple of our eyes.

Although I did not find a version that translated Deuteronomy 32:10 as "little man of his eye" but here is the NET footnote: Heb “the little man.” The term אִישׁוֹן (’ishon) means literally “little man,” perhaps because when one looks into another’s eyes he sees himself reflected there in miniature. Thus translating literally and footnoting the possible meaning works in every example cited!

 

[Rippon]

Which verse reads "the little man of the eye."

No translation, to the best of my knowledge. So you receive a minus here.

The principle works for all three verses cited in post 21.

No, your principle fails in all three cases. You get an additional three negative points Van.

Just put the literal reading in the main text, and footnote the meaning or meanings

But no translation does that in all three cases as I said..

This would work for John 10:24, Mark 1:32, and 1 Samuel 10:9.

John 10:24 literally : "until when will you take up our souls?"
No translation puts that into the text.
Mark 1:32 :"those having badly"
No translation puts that into the text.
1 Sam. 10:9
"God gave Saul another heart."
No translation gives that in the text to the best of my knowledge.

You can moo until the cows come home, but in a majority of cases the meaning needs to be put in the text. Footnote where possible. Get access to a Bible commentary (or see NET notes) if you want to.

Although I did not find a version that translated Deuteronomy 32:10 as "little man of his eye" but here is the NET footnote: Heb “the little man.” The term אִישׁוֹן (’ishon) means literally “little man,” perhaps because when one looks into another’s eyes he sees himself reflected there in miniature. Thus translating literally and footnoting the possible meaning works in every example cited!

You have no comprehension skills Van. You just said the literal was put in the footnote of the NET --not in the text. Thus, translating the meaning in the text and footnoting the "literal" is more practical than the other way around.

You are four negative points in the hole. You should get some more minus points for your completely illogical closing paragraph --but I will let it slide.

 

[Van]

More you, you, you violations and more absurdity. If the text, say Deuteronomy 32:10 reads "little man of the eye" that is how the text should be translated (i.e. accurately) and then the interpretation (pupils or that which is treasured and protected) put in the footnote.

Forum rule number 6: Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

 

[Rippon]

If the text,

You mean the Hebrew in this case.

say Deuteronomy 32:10 reads "little man of the eye" that is how the text

You mean a translation.

should be translated (i.e. accurately) and then the interpretation (pupils or that which is treasured and protected) put in the footnote.

Would you please tell me any translation that puts "little man of the eye" in the the text? You're right there is none. So, again, your principle is unreasonable.

Your understanding of the meaning of accuracy is in dire need of a session with Webster's. ;-)

 

[Van]

More disparaging the poster, more effort to change the subject and more absurdity. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings. The way forward is for the various translations to utilize this principle more consistently.

 

[Rippon]

Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

But your very last example of Deut. 32:10 proves that it is silly to do as you demand. Your favorite versions don't do what you profess to like. Many times those translations put the meaning in the text and footnote the 'literal' when possible.

The way forward is for the various translations to utilize this principle more consistently.

The way forward is for you to acknowlege your epic fail.

 

[Van]

Proof of a non-literal translation does not prove non-literal translation is valid, wise, or accurate. The way forward is for the various translations to utilize the principle more consistently.

Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

 

[Rippon]

Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

But they don't many times --including your favorites. And I applaud them for it. Your principle is dead-in-the-water.

 

[Van]

Is the issue that not every idiom is treated that way, literal translation and footnote of idiomatic meaning? Nope. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

 

[InTheLight]

Van and Rippon--we get it. We understand your positions. How many more times are you going to repeat the same posts?

 

[Rippon]

Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

Are you in a trance? Have you been hynotized? You keep repeating things. Are you afraid you'll forget?

 

[Van]

Two posts in a row, violating the forum rules, addressing posters rather than the topic. Translations should literally present what the text (in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek) says, then footnote the possible idiomatic meaning or meanings.

Now if ITL wants to address the topic, then I could quote his comment and address the topic.

 

[InTheLight]

Now if ITL wants to address the topic...