Quick comment on Scripture4All.org
I have a link to Scripture4All.org because it has two very intriguing documents. One is an interlinear for Hebrew and another is an interlinear for Greek. What makes each intriguing is the philosophy of the two interlinears. They are based on translations done by A.E. Knoch in a style that he calls "concordant versions."
The theory Knoch uses is that the Hebrew and Greek become significantly more approachable for non-linguists if every single word is consistently related to the same English word. He calls each of these consistent transliterations a "STANDARD" and it typically is represented in the interlinear in all caps.
But here's the problem that readers of the Salt Mill need to be aware of: Knoch is a unitarian/universalist and he pretty much denies the deity of Jesus and the one-ness between Jesus and God. So the interlinears have some potentially misleading translation work in them.
Why not just remove the links from the site?
Because in my Hebrew class at Southwestern, I developed a very strong appreciation for VERY literal transliterations. These transliterations do not give you the whole sense of a sentence, but it gives you an almost mathematical precision as a starting point for translation.
We tended to take Hebrew passages and diagram them in Hebrew and then do word-for-word transliterations when attempting a translation. From the transliteration we worked towards a sense of how to express it in English and then cross-checked our work against various English translations.
The word-for-word transliteration brings out many interesting language differences for both Hebrew to English and Greek to English renderings. For example, Hebrew verbs carry the subject gender, the subject plurality, the tense, the intensity, and sometimes the object gender and plurality. The subject typically is represented in English as a personal pronoun with an appositive to clarify the pronoun and provide the antecedent for it.
A good example of this is Genesis 1:1 which might be transliterated like this:
"In-the-beginning he--Elohim--created the-heavens and the-earth."
The verb "he created" is a single Hebrew particle which is a three-consonant stem with pointings in some Hebrew renderings (the pronunciation and the part of speech is apparent to the experienced reader of Hebrew without pointings--of which I am not one.) Elohim is represented in the appositive position qualifying the subject 'he'.
In-the-beginning is a single particle but has the prefix Bet which is a preposition meaning "in". The word "Elohim" and the word "heavens" are constructed as plurals. But the verb "he created" is constructed as a singular and the word "earth" is also singular. I show the two occurrences of the definite article "the" as connected to "heavens" and "earth" because the Hebrew definite article is "He-a" and is connected to the Hebrew particle like the preposition is.
The connecting of the prepositions and definite articles and the conjugation of verb forms can make Hebrew rather dense to take apart. So it is helpful to use an interlinear to assist in seeing the parts of speech.
Another interesting feature of Hebrew is that some of the verb tenses convey intensity. For example, the hithpael tense is rendered like this "you shall surely die". All of that is from a single Hebrew particle with NO helping verb (shall) or adverb (surely). In addition, the verb carries a reflexive sense meaning that the subject is both the cause and the object.
This is why the discussion between the serpent and Eve is very intense. She tells the serpent that if she touches or eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "shall surely die". The serpent responds "not to die, shall surely die."
God's phrasing focused on eating and not touching (of course), but God also used the more intense construction of the infinitive "to die" followed by the hithpael "you shall surely die." Eve repeats just the "you shall surely die", but the serpent uses the particle Lo (not) to claim the negative of the EXACT words that God used in instructing Adam.
The fact that the verb stem is repeated is a Hebrew technique that shows extremely strong intensity plus the use of the hithpael indicates absolute certainty (especially since spoken by God.) This leaves the reader with the cognitive dissonance between God absolutely claiming one thing and the serpent absolutely claiming the opposite. Thus we see the essence of the strong enmity between the serpent (Satan) and God. God says one thing. Satan claims the opposite. Only one can be true. The law of the excluded middle is presaged by exactly opposite claims very early in written history.
Anyway, while I might not have done the concept of direct transliteration justice, my examples hopefully demonstrate why--despite it's genesis--I would leave up the link to a transliteration done by someone that I theologically disagree with. Sometimes intellectual honesty causes us to borrow the work of the people that we disagree with in order to strengthen our own understanding.
But please be careful if you use these tools and please be extra careful with the resources at Scripture4All.org. Their theology is in some cases imposed on Scripture rather than based on Scripture. I still find much of the work they have there to be useful--as I've researched the Greek their, for instance, I'm starting to recognize the declension of various tenses and voices--but some of their choices, including the use of the word "eonian" to translate the Greek "aion", are fraught with destructive misunderstanding.
The theory Knoch uses is that the Hebrew and Greek become significantly more approachable for non-linguists if every single word is consistently related to the same English word. He calls each of these consistent transliterations a "STANDARD" and it typically is represented in the interlinear in all caps.
But here's the problem that readers of the Salt Mill need to be aware of: Knoch is a unitarian/universalist and he pretty much denies the deity of Jesus and the one-ness between Jesus and God. So the interlinears have some potentially misleading translation work in them.
Why not just remove the links from the site?
Because in my Hebrew class at Southwestern, I developed a very strong appreciation for VERY literal transliterations. These transliterations do not give you the whole sense of a sentence, but it gives you an almost mathematical precision as a starting point for translation.
We tended to take Hebrew passages and diagram them in Hebrew and then do word-for-word transliterations when attempting a translation. From the transliteration we worked towards a sense of how to express it in English and then cross-checked our work against various English translations.
The word-for-word transliteration brings out many interesting language differences for both Hebrew to English and Greek to English renderings. For example, Hebrew verbs carry the subject gender, the subject plurality, the tense, the intensity, and sometimes the object gender and plurality. The subject typically is represented in English as a personal pronoun with an appositive to clarify the pronoun and provide the antecedent for it.
A good example of this is Genesis 1:1 which might be transliterated like this:
"In-the-beginning he--Elohim--created the-heavens and the-earth."
The verb "he created" is a single Hebrew particle which is a three-consonant stem with pointings in some Hebrew renderings (the pronunciation and the part of speech is apparent to the experienced reader of Hebrew without pointings--of which I am not one.) Elohim is represented in the appositive position qualifying the subject 'he'.
In-the-beginning is a single particle but has the prefix Bet which is a preposition meaning "in". The word "Elohim" and the word "heavens" are constructed as plurals. But the verb "he created" is constructed as a singular and the word "earth" is also singular. I show the two occurrences of the definite article "the" as connected to "heavens" and "earth" because the Hebrew definite article is "He-a" and is connected to the Hebrew particle like the preposition is.
The connecting of the prepositions and definite articles and the conjugation of verb forms can make Hebrew rather dense to take apart. So it is helpful to use an interlinear to assist in seeing the parts of speech.
Another interesting feature of Hebrew is that some of the verb tenses convey intensity. For example, the hithpael tense is rendered like this "you shall surely die". All of that is from a single Hebrew particle with NO helping verb (shall) or adverb (surely). In addition, the verb carries a reflexive sense meaning that the subject is both the cause and the object.
This is why the discussion between the serpent and Eve is very intense. She tells the serpent that if she touches or eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "shall surely die". The serpent responds "not to die, shall surely die."
God's phrasing focused on eating and not touching (of course), but God also used the more intense construction of the infinitive "to die" followed by the hithpael "you shall surely die." Eve repeats just the "you shall surely die", but the serpent uses the particle Lo (not) to claim the negative of the EXACT words that God used in instructing Adam.
The fact that the verb stem is repeated is a Hebrew technique that shows extremely strong intensity plus the use of the hithpael indicates absolute certainty (especially since spoken by God.) This leaves the reader with the cognitive dissonance between God absolutely claiming one thing and the serpent absolutely claiming the opposite. Thus we see the essence of the strong enmity between the serpent (Satan) and God. God says one thing. Satan claims the opposite. Only one can be true. The law of the excluded middle is presaged by exactly opposite claims very early in written history.
Anyway, while I might not have done the concept of direct transliteration justice, my examples hopefully demonstrate why--despite it's genesis--I would leave up the link to a transliteration done by someone that I theologically disagree with. Sometimes intellectual honesty causes us to borrow the work of the people that we disagree with in order to strengthen our own understanding.
But please be careful if you use these tools and please be extra careful with the resources at Scripture4All.org. Their theology is in some cases imposed on Scripture rather than based on Scripture. I still find much of the work they have there to be useful--as I've researched the Greek their, for instance, I'm starting to recognize the declension of various tenses and voices--but some of their choices, including the use of the word "eonian" to translate the Greek "aion", are fraught with destructive misunderstanding.
posted by greg.w.h@6:00 AM link-to-post
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home