Key/biblical terms revisited

Bob, just because I make comments doesn't mean you have to pass them on! I agree completely with the main point you are making, and just want to comment slightly on the framework you have cast it in. You have presented it as a problem between "ancient and modern", which is correct because we are comparing ancient languages to modern ones. However, it is a problem that will unavoidably come up when comparing any two cultures and languages. It is possibly exacerbated by the time distance, but I am not certain that is always as great a factor as one might think, compared to other factors. It is indeed made more serious by the major language traditions, partly because any major languages that has been in use for some time started off with quite literal translations, picking some word in the language that was thought to match a word in the ancient language, and using it in all contexts. In some cases it may never be the best word to convey the original meaning, but even if it sometimes is, there will usually be other contexts where the meaning is badly off. This problem can be helped by providing guidance in the major languages for translators to follow. But consultants will still need to watch for places where the mismatch pops up between the major language and the language of the translation, even in cases where we have corrected the major language in such a way that the meaning is now correct for people who understand the major language. This is an extremely important issue in Bible translation, and any kind of help we can give is much needed. Note that this is one problem that dynamic translations can hardly help but deal with. That does not mean that any given dynamic translation will be a good model for every problem word. But any translator using a dynamic approach to meaning will face this issue constantly in the translation process. It goes back to what may be the basic principle of translation, even though it sounds so obvious that it could be taken as hardly worth saying: You cannot translate anything if you do not know what it means.

Great discussion! I totally agree that we two concepts and that one is too narrow and the other is too broad. I like the list that focuses on mismatches between ancient and modern, but we also need a category that helps us to be consistent on how we translated "chariot" or "linen" or "holocaust," etc. The point isn't exegetical in these cases, but consistency. This is especially the case with specialized terms where one may forget how that was translated elsewhere. I think Paratext can handle all of this, but there needs to be a special list that embodies some of these concepts. Perhaps a "theological list" and a "Biblical objects list," etc.

To be fair, the biblical terms tool in Paratext does have filtering on categories, and one of them ("realia," or human-made things) would probably narrow the search down to most of what you mean by a "Biblical objects list." And "holocaust" is under "rituals," another helpful category in the biblical terms tool in PT. A "theological list" is more problematic as a category for me, since different people might well construct quite different-looking lists based on their own theological convictions. But I still think a shorter list of those concepts and terms we can all agree are often problematic may be helpful.

Interesting, Bob. Categories for special attention for me would be - words potentially difficult to understand (in either original or source language), words potentially difficult to translate, polysemic and frequently used terms, especially those that carry some kind of thematic weight for the text under consideration, and of course, yours - words that can lead to a misunderstanding of the original concept.