Theological Basis for Translation Method?

[Logos1560]

I think that E. W. Bullinger's 1898 book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible could be helpful to Bible translators.

Bullinger maintained that a figure is "a departure from the natural and fixed laws of Grammar or Syntax; but it is a departure not arising from ignorance or accident" (p. xi).

Bullinger asserted: "From non-attention to these Figures, translators have made blunders as serious as they are foolish, Sometimes they have translated the figure literally, totally ignoring its existence" (p. xvi).

Concerning 2 Kings 25:3, Bullinger wrote: "The Hebrew reads, 'and on the ninth month.' But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6" (p. 20).

And on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Thank you. I must have been even more confused than usual when I wrote that.

That is correct. I am no great Greek scholar, but I know enough to know that a completely 'word-for-word' translation is not really compatible with readability. However, the aim of the translator should be to render the words of the text as accurately as possible and not to try to second-guess the Holy Spirit as to its meaning.

That is where the more dynamic versions can run into problems, as they are forced to bring into this more of their own commentary viewpoints on certain passages!

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry, I didn't see this. I think what you are saying here is the practice among verbatim translators of trying to preserve the ambiguity in the target text when there is ambiguity in the original text. This is not always possible, but desirable when we can do so.

That problem occurs more often i the OT, correct? As some parts of some books are either trying to piece together, or making "educated guesses?" that is translators searches all of thesource materials for those sections?

 

[John of Japan]

I think that E. W. Bullinger's 1898 book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible could be helpful to Bible translators.

Bullinger maintained that a figure is "a departure from the natural and fixed laws of Grammar or Syntax; but it is a departure not arising from ignorance or accident" (p. xi).

Bullinger asserted: "From non-attention to these Figures, translators have made blunders as serious as they are foolish, Sometimes they have translated the figure literally, totally ignoring its existence" (p. xvi).

Concerning 2 Kings 25:3, Bullinger wrote: "The Hebrew reads, 'and on the ninth month.' But the Ellipsis is correctly supplied from Jeremiah 52:6" (p. 20).

And on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed.

Thanks for the input. Bullinger, though hyper-dispensational, was a brilliant Hebrew scholar.

 

[John of Japan]

That problem occurs more often i the OT, correct? As some parts of some books are either trying to piece together, or making "educated guesses?" that is translators searches all of thesource materials for those sections?

Not having translated the OT much, I'm not sure my answer here would mean much.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the input. Bullinger, though hyper-dispensational, was a brilliant Hebrew scholar.

he did have a study bible, Emphasized or something?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not having translated the OT much, I'm not sure my answer here would mean much.

the NT books are pretty much complete to translate in the Greek from, correct? And is Luke the writer with the best Greek then?

 

[John of Japan]

he did have a study bible, Emphasized or something?

I think you're right, but I've never seen it.

 

[John of Japan]

the NT books are pretty much complete to translate in the Greek from, correct? And is Luke the writer with the best Greek then?

We are on the final draft of our Japanese translation.

Luke has wonderful Greek, but Hebrews may be better.

 

[TCassidy]

I think you're right, but I've never seen it.

The Companion Bible. I have one. Very thorough. Be aware he is both a gap theorist as well as being hyper dispensational. His Companion Bible is available on-line with full notes at:

http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/

 

[Logos1560]

he did have a study bible, Emphasized or something?

The Emphasized Bible was by Joseph Bryant Rotherham.

The study Bible said to be associated with Ethelbert W. Bullinger is entitled The Companion Bible. An edition of it was printed by Kregel Publications in 1990.

 

[Logos1560]

E. W. Bullinger wrote:
"Matthew 11:18--'John came neither eating nor drinking.'
Clearly there must be an Ellipsis here; for John, being human, could not live without food. The sense is clear in the Hebrew idiom, which requires the Ellipsis to be thus supplied in the English:--
'John came neither eating [with others] nor drinking [strong drink].' See Luke 1:15.
Or, observing the force of the Greek negative: 'John came [declining invitations] to eat and drink.'" (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 12)

 

[Yeshua1]

The Emphasized Bible was by Joseph Bryant Rotherham.

The study Bible said to be associated with Ethelbert W. Bullinger is entitled The Companion Bible. An edition of it was printed by Kregel Publications in 1990.

Thanks! Would you recommend either bible for use?

 

[Yeshua1]

We are on the final draft of our Japanese translation.

Luke has wonderful Greek, but Hebrews may be better.

Any idea as to who penned Hebrews, as think scholars pretty much think either barnabus or Apollos? Or Maybe even Luke recordong Pauline theology?

 

[Yeshua1]

The Companion Bible. I have one. Very thorough. Be aware he is both a gap theorist as well as being hyper dispensational. His Companion Bible is available on-line with full notes at:

http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/

He think that only paul Epistles for the church. correct?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

We are on the final draft of our Japanese translation.

Luke has wonderful Greek, but Hebrews may be better.

I've heard that some scholars assign Luke as the one who penned Hebrews, in part because of what you've noted, above.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've heard that some scholars assign Luke as the one who penned Hebrews, in part because of what you've noted, above.

Think whoever it was, he was assumed to have been given Apostolic authority behind Him, so all 3 would fit the bill!

 

[John of Japan]

I've heard that some scholars assign Luke as the one who penned Hebrews, in part because of what you've noted, above.

I think Luke is unlikely, since he uses medical terminology in Luke and Acts, and there is none in Hebrews.

 

[Logos1560]

Thanks! Would you recommend either bible for use?

The Companion Bible has some helpful information and appendixes.
The Companion Bible may have an unique edition of the KJV, which differs from most other KJV editions. The Companion Bible's KJV edition has "LORD" in 134 passages where many other present KJV editions have "Lord" in most of them.

Appendix 32 in The Companion Bible claimed: “Out of extreme (but mistaken) reverence for the ineffable Name ‘Jehovah,’ the ancient custodians of the Sacred Text substituted in many places ‘Adonai’” (p. 31). This appendix in The Companion Bible listed “The 134 passages where the Sopherim altered ‘Jehovah’ to ‘Adonai’” and asserted that these 134 passages were preserved and given in the Massorah.
Elias Levita (1468-1549) as translated by Christian D. Ginsburg referred to “the sacred name of the Lord, which is written [Adonai], and on which they [the Massorites] remark ’one hundred and thirty-four times’ (Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, p. 233). Levita asserted that the reason for this is that “the tetragammaton must not be read as it is written, for it must not be pronounced with the lips, but is to be read under the appellation [Adonai]” (p. 233).

 

[Yeshua1]

I think Luke is unlikely, since he uses medical terminology in Luke and Acts, and there is none in Hebrews.

How about Barnabas or Apollos?