The Bible Translator: Volume 70, Issue 2

This study is a comparative analysis of the strategies employed in the translation of geographically specific flora and fauna terminology in the first complete Hebrew Bible translations into North Sámi (1895) and West Greenlandic (1900). These two contemporaneous translations lend themselves to fruitful comparison because both North Sámi and Greenlandic are spoken in the Arctic by indigenous communities that share a similar history of colonization by Lutheran Scandinavians. Despite this common background, our study reveals a striking difference in translation methods: the North Sámi translation exhibits a systematic foreignizing, formally equivalent approach using loan words from Scandinavian languages (e.g., šakkalak “jackals” from Norwegian sjakaler, granatæbel “pomegranate” from Norwegian granateple), whereas the Greenlandic translation typically creates descriptive neologisms (e.g., milakulâĸ “the spotted one” for “leopard”) or utilizes culturally specific domesticating, dynamically equivalent Arctic terms (e.g., kingmernarssuaĸ “big lingonberry” for “pomegranate”). The article assesses the reasons behind these different translation approaches. View Less

This article is the first in a three-part survey of the various vocative forms used in direct discourse in the Gospels, and the similarities and differences among the forms used. Some of the problems associated with finding terms appropriate to each context in English and other languages are raised, and attention is drawn to the complexity of the issues. View Less

In this paper, the translation of the Biblical Hebrew word nephesh is discussed in light of new research. The starting point for the paper is a 1976 article in The Bible Translator that discusses the translation of nephesh based on the idea that it is a monistic entity referring to human beings as such. It is shown that this view was most representative for the exegetical consensus of the time of the article. However, a fair amount of new research points out new directions for interpreting nephesh as an entity or essence that was perceived as being separable from the body. This is also confirmed by research on cognate ancient Near Eastern concepts. It is argued that this should affect our way of translating the word nephesh. View Less

Expressing source language (SL) presuppositions as presuppositions in the receptor language (RL) is sometimes impossible, due to linguistic differences between the languages. In other cases it can cause problems of comprehension or naturalness for RL readers, especially when the “presupposition” constitutes new information to the reader. The most common solution to such problems is to express the presupposed content as a separate assertion. This strategy preserves the propositional content of the original but distorts the information packaging. Another strategy that may be useful in such cases is to render the problematic SL presupposition as a conventional implicature, preserving the “backgrounded” status of the presupposed information without triggering an inference that this information is already known to the addressee. View Less

The mediating interference left by the translator of the Peshitta is an important source of information for the history of interpretation and for textual criticism. This study, based on terminology and methodology from the discipline of translation studies, is a comprehensive description of the translator’s tendencies in the book of Ruth. The study concludes with a discussion of potential textual variants preserved in the Peshitta and an overall characterization of the translation. View Less

In Psalm 102 semantic contrasts abound, as is widely acknowledged in biblical scholarship. However, the contrasts on the syntactic level and on the level of the represented viewpoint have remained unnoticed, resulting in serious consequences for the translation of the tenses. The present analysis of the syntactic and narratological components of vv. 13-23 demonstrates that they express qualifications rather than actions. YHWH’s sovereignty presented in v. 13 and the syntactic arrangements in vv. 14-16 identify YHWH’s unique qualities: He is the one who feels compassion for Zion and his people, who rebuilds their city, and whose glory becomes perceptible for its inhabitants. The syntactic analysis also explains the uniqueness of Zion’s inhabitants for him, for they are set apart from the other nations in order to praise him (v. 19). Thus the linguistic structure confirms and reinforces the psalm’s understanding of a world divided into opposing realms. View Less