Product Description

In the natural sciences, a basic principle is to break everything down to the smallest possible units and then study each unit. In linguistics and in the study of the biblical languages, a similar principle was followed with the word as the basic unit, but from the middle of this century the view has developed that the smallest units which were meaningful for translation had to be the sentence or even the paragraph. The author believes that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and that it still is meaningful to work with the word as the fundamental unit of translation. The book therefore suggests that for a particular target group - those who, by the help of their mother tongue, want to come as close as possible to the original languages - a literal translation will be better than an idiomatic one. In the course of discussion it is shown that the principles on which such a translation is based accords fully with modern linguistic principles."

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1458313 in Books
• Published on: 1999-02-15
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 360 pages

About the Author
Rolf Furuli has worked with the biblical text for four decades. Since his first Greek lecture 24 years ago, his interest in translational questions, particularly in the finer nuances of the verbal systems of the biblical languages, has mushroomed, culminating in the publication of this book.

Rolf Furuli has earned his B.A. and mag.art (a degree between M.A. and Ph.D) from the University of Oslo, with an emphasis on Hebrew; he has also studied Accadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Greek, Latin, Middle Egyptian, Syriac and Ugaritic, and has done postgraduate studies in applied linguistics and semantics. At present he is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo, and is also working on a project where the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient inscriptions are studied with the goal of redefining the verbal system of classical Hebrew.

Customer Reviews

It changed my perspective
I never realized how much theology played in Bible translation. Mr. Furuli hilites this fact quite well and I now look at all Bible translations differently. I used to be critical of a number of translations of the Bible because in certain areas it seemed that they let their personal beliefs effect how they worded a verse. However, I now realize that even the NWT, which is my favorite translation, does the same thing. As Mr. Furuli points out, theology can't help but play a part in Bible translation. He shows for instance that if a verse can be grammatically and symatically translated two different ways, thus conveying two meanings that are totally opposite of each other, the deciding factor on how the translator translates the verse is then based off of his personal beliefs. Thus, grammatically Titus 2:13 can "legally" be translated to read that Jesus is The Great God or it can be translated to say that he is someone other than The Great God. The way one translates the verse is then based on how he feels it should read.

This book covers a number of verses that are controversial and shows how the translation can go a number of ways. One critic condemned Mr. Furuli for choosing the NWT but in my opinion there couldn't be a better translation to use as reference for the subject. The NWT translates a number of verses differently from how most bibles do, yet at the same time, a number of very popular Bibles read similar to the NWT in various verses. The end result is that nearly every Bible I have seen translates at least one controversial verse similar to the NWT or at least acknowledge that it is possible in their footnotes. Thus, Mr. Furuli's book is not just a defense for the NWT, it is a defense for nearly every Bible there is!

One critic condemns Mr. Furuli's book by supposedly pointing out a discrepency in his book where he condemns the TEV for interpreting a verse while at the same time saying that Bible translation is interpretation. What this critic forgot to mention in his review is that Mr. Furuli acknowledges that theology does play a part but at the same time, by use of footnotes to explain the other possible translations for a verse a Bible can allow the reader to make the last informed decision. He even criticizes the NWT at times for not doing this. Thus, this critics remarks are unwarranted.

My perspective has changed dramatically on Bible translations. I will no longer criticize Trinitarians for how the translate a verse (as long as it is legal among the rules of translation) since, in many instances, a verse can go several ways. What I do condemn though, is Trinitarians using their belief of the Trinity to justify which way to translate a verse and then turn a round and use their translation of the verse to justify the Trinity! Circular reasoning is not valid. The NWT does use the belief that Jesus is not God to sway them to translate certain verse to show that Jesus is not God. However, JW's do not then turn around and use that same verse to prove that Jesus is not God. We have literally hundreds of verses that show that Jesus is not God, and there is no question about how to translate them.

In conclussion, Mr. Furuli's book is a must for JW's and critics of JW's. Even if critics do not agree with the NWT, this book will help change their perspective and have more appreciation for all Bible translations. I could not give this book 5 stars because some things are too tachnical and I had to re-read several points twice before I could understand them. But again, that may just be the nature of the subject. I don't know if he could make it easier to read or not, but he may want to keep this in mind in his next revision.

Furuli's Learned Discussion of Translation Principles
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, who prefers using the NWT to any other translation. Yet, while what I'm about to say might be viewed as a biased favorable slant, I think I can somewhat objectively say that Rolf Furuli's book deserves five stars. Furuli skillfully introduces his readers to mental lexicon theory, two triangles of signification involving word, concept and reference, and he thoroughly explains what he means by "concept" and "bias".

Moreover, Furuli's book contains extended discussions on Jn 1:1c, 8:58, Col 1:15-17 and Philippians 2:6ff. He has a helpful section on the Tetragrammaton and Hebrew aspect in general. His work serves as a challenge to those who insist that Trinitarian explanations of Scripture are to be preferred to non-Trinitarian ones. Despite what some critics have unfairly charged, Furuli's comments are quite balanced and he often avoids resorting to dogmatism or assertion in _Theology and Bias in Bible Translation_. See pages 46-47 of his work.

Edgar Foster
Glasgow University

An excellent book for both anti-JW's and pro-JW's
As I read through the comments made by some I noticed that one of them was rather critical of Mr. Furuli's book. I have found the book to be quite interesting and it seems to be very well researched. Mr. Furuli makes good use of footnotes and quotes often from other sources. I would recomened this book to anyone. I give the book 5 stars because of it's great research and detail, but I would give it 4 1/2 stars if possible. The book get's very technical and many of the terms are not defined and it makes it hard for the average reader. Mr. Furuli does have little boxes that contain definitions of certain words, but when discusing deep grammatical subjects his technical words can cause a person to have to re-read that portion again. Mr. Furuli does a fine job of tracing the origins of the Trinity back to Middle and Neo Platonism, and also presents how the Ante-Nicene Fathers were originally subordiationist. He is not critical of the post Nicene Fathers who leaned on the philosphies of Plato and Philo to determine doctrine, but he is critical of how many transltors use the Trinity dogma as a basis for translation. But, he also shows that in some places ones theology must play a role in translation. When it comes to The holy spirit he shows that it is a matter of theology as to whether or not the translators will capitalize it, i.e. the Holy Spirit, or holy spirit. He shows that the Greek and Hebrew does not specify that The holy spirit should be capitalized or not, so it is based on the interpretation of the translator. I appreciate the long discusion of the "disputed text" in the NWT, and I believe that he does a good job of showing that "a god" is grammatically correct although not theologically. I like how he points out that the NWT would have been better if it had translated John 1:1 as "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was god" (little 'g') instead of "a god" or "divine" as the translation by Dr. James Moffat has it. All in all, Mr. Furuli's book is excellent and I would highly recomened it to anyone. Even if your anti-JW or pro-JW this book will benifit both groups. Peace with you, Mitchell