Hebrew names

Started by Eltu Lefngap Makto, February 21, 2011, 02:36:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eltu Lefngap Makto

There is a version of the Torah that has really grabbed by attention lately.  It's by a non-believing Jewish scholar named Everett Fox.  I don't have it with me, but I will try to duplicated the effect here.

Genesis 32
28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be said as Supplanter, but Stives-with-God, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Then Supplanter asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. So Supplanter called the name of the place Face-of-God, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." The sun rose upon him as he passed Face-of-God, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Stives-with-God do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Supplanter's hip on the sinew of the thigh.


Jacob=Supplanter, Israel=Stives-with-God, Face-of-God=Penuel

A New Testament example might be

Matthew 1:21
She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name HE-Saves, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."

Jesus=HE(YHWH)-Saves

The point for us here is that the Na'vi have no history with the names Jacob, Israel, Penuel or Jesus.  Rather than transliterate the names from Greek and Hebrew, why not make names that impact in Na'vi the way they did in Hebrew or Greek?
'Ivong, Na'vi!

Tìmuiäyä'itan

Good idea, two thoughts:

1. Bible translations worked wel so far without translating the names. My grandma never knew what Jesus meant translated, never knrew the meaning of Pnuel and so forth. So it would probably give the reader more info, but it seems it is not necesary to do so in a bible translation. Plus: Some names are not clear how they would translate from Hebrew to modern languages.
2. The names are from a cultural background and they make sense within that. So the bible translation would have to give insight into the culture the names make sense in. What use would it be to write "the anointed" instead of Christ/Messiah, when anointment of kings isn't practised among the Na'vi? I wonder if there are other names that would need clarification. Another point on that: There are some names, especially when it comes to David's private army, that contain names of other gods. This could well be used to propagate tolerance of other religions, but we'd also need to be clear that those gods are false gods nonetheless. One example would be Baal-Hanan in 1. Chr 27, 28. In 1. Chr 14,7 a son of David's is named Baal-Yadah (Baal has recognized?). Also Solomon, the latter King of Israel and Judah, is named after the city god of Jerusalem.

So I think this could add some very deep insights into the bible, if we recognize all this throughout our translation. But it would as well mean a lot of work to do, translating all the names, and I guess even more work discussing what to do with names that refer to other gods.
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

#2
Its an interesting idea, especially with the kind of translation you are doing. It certainly does not change or obscure the meaning of the name. However, it could be a technical problem in that how do you know a name is really a name? Context will bear this out much of the time, but not always. And as Tìmuiäyä'itan points out, the name meaning may not make sense apart from the culture. Additionally, you would have to research the hundreds of names, especially in the OT, to find out what they mean. (1 Chronicles 1-10 should be a riot!) Nevertheless, this research might be very much worth your while, considering the way you are approaching the interpretation of Scripture.

As far as names of Deity go, they should be left as is. They are the major players in the Bible and they are properly addressed by their proper names.

And again as Tìmuiäyä'itan implicates, and I pointed out in a post I just posted in the Matthew 1:18 thread, the meanings of words in the two testaments don't always 'fit well'. The meaning of Greek words, for instance, should be interpreted in a Greek manner, not a Hebrew manner, unless context clearly dictates that this is the case (and there are a few places in the NT where I think this happens).

I suspect the translators of the LXX had the same kinds of problems we are having here, so some of the words they chose (like 'charis' in your Matthew 1:18 discussion) are not really good fits. This is why I would consider the LXX to be a secondary source for translation.

I was going to try some translation on Saturday, but we have major technical problems at work (3 hour power outage!), and I ended up being tied up with that.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Eltu Lefngap Makto

Thank you both for your excellent replies.  You are restoring my faith in this sub-forum!  :D

Tìmuiäyä'itan:
I certainly agree that people are saved without knowing Greek or Hebrew, even the meaning of names.  Scripture is always secondary to witness, as the history of the Church has shown.  Abraham was saved in Genesis 17 when there was no Scripture.  Acts 2 was written down after the events it describes, so indeed most people who were saved in the first century A.D. were saved apart from the Bible.  But like Hezekiah's rediscovery of Deuteronomy or the Reformation's republication of the original texts of Scripture, there are great benefits to be had from careful study and smart translation that go beyond initial salvation.
The second book of the New Testament, Mark, is named after a man who was named after the Roman god Mars.  Having a bad name is ignominious, but not hidden in the Bible.  As for anointing, there are many OT figures who were anointed but not king.  Given the whole talk of "second birth" associated with the ritual in the film, I would think we should be OK with "Painted Jesus" and "little painted ones" for us 'Christians'.

'Eylan Ayfalulukanä
I think the benefit of Capitalization and modern orthography are greatly to our advantage!  But you point out a real problem and one that the ancient Hebrews had to wrestle with!  Most of the time when you read "man" in the OT, the Hebrew underneath is "Adam", both a name of one man and the name for humanity in general!  Ba'al, scourge of the OT, was a god but also the word for "husband".  Both "Adam" and "Ba'al" are used as puns by Hosea.

Gentleman, I obviously have too much time on my hands and you all are very patient with me.  I hope we can produce -- someday -- an entire Bible in Na'vi which is both evangelical and devotional.  May we all be corrected by the Book which needs no correction!
'Ivong, Na'vi!

Tìmuiäyä'itan

I learned Ba'al would mean lord, but in a different way than adon... but anyways...

Ma Eltu, you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that we are saved withot knowing the meaning of the names (though I strongly agree with you ;D), my point was to bring into attention the whole lot of extra work this would mean for the translational process. Nothing ore, nothing less. I think if we could really get our translation so far, that it takes care of name meanings (and some do indeed bear meaning, like the sons of Noemi), this would be a wonderful thing. I just wonder if we would be able to do so, and if we decide to try, how to approach all this. There would be discussions on name meanings, as some are not secure (cf. Ba'al lord vs husband).

One other question if you speak of "painted Jesus": Would you say Jesus had a second birth?
srungìri ftära tsyokxìl ngeyä
ke ivomum futa pesuru
lu srung skiena tsyokxta ngeyä
ulte Jesus a nerìn ayfo pamlltxe
san sutehu lu keltsun
slä Yawähu frakem tsunslu sìk.

Eltu Lefngap Makto

Quote from: Tìmuiäyä'itan on February 21, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
I learned Ba'al would mean lord, but in a different way than adon... but anyways...

Ma Eltu, you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that we are saved withot knowing the meaning of the names (though I strongly agree with you ;D), my point was to bring into attention the whole lot of extra work this would mean for the translational process. Nothing ore, nothing less. I think if we could really get our translation so far, that it takes care of name meanings (and some do indeed bear meaning, like the sons of Noemi), this would be a wonderful thing. I just wonder if we would be able to do so, and if we decide to try, how to approach all this. There would be discussions on name meanings, as some are not secure (cf. Ba'al lord vs husband).

One other question if you speak of "painted Jesus": Would you say Jesus had a second birth?
Thanks again, ma Tìmuiäyä'itan.
I take your point and clarification.  I don't want to make more work for other.  Especially in Ruth, name translations are mostly given.  Perhaps even a majority of names don't need translation.  I suggest http://blueletterbible.org as an excellent resource.

As for Christ himself, I certainly hope I am not wandering off into heretical waters!  He was fully God and fully man throughout his incarnation and since.  However, Psalms 2 is very much in view at his baptism -- Today, you are my son -- and the Holy Spirit did anoint him for his ministry which was beginning.  Also, he referred to the Cross as his "baptism" on two occasions.  So, while he didn't have a second birth, there were definitely phases to his earthly life.
'Ivong, Na'vi!

Zefanaya

QuoteSo, while he didn't have a second birth, there were definitely phases to his earthly life.

I agree, Jesus (or the Painted One) was not
AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Eltu Lefngap Makto

Jesus was fully man (something we don't completely understand) and fully God (something we don't even begin to understand).  Take that together, and that he is 100% both, and you've got an enigma, wrapped in a paradox, shrouded in mystery!  :o
'Ivong, Na'vi!

Zefanaya

Indeed. So how would that relate in Na'vi culture. Humans have a thing. We like to try and make everything make sense. The Na'vi do not try to justify or understand what they are not meant to. They do not appear to ask, "what is Eywa, why is she here, and why do I listen to her". They simply accept that she is "god". So what does this mean for the translation. If you were asked by a Na'vi, "what is Jesus?" What would your answer be. If the Na'vi accept that Eywa is "god" with no questions, then would they question that Jesus is God? I don't think they would, unless you were trying to have them accept Him as the creator of all, and the Lord over them. Then they might question why He is God and not Eywa. Then it comes down to explaining that (and I'm switching to Eywa as lowercase eywa) eywa is their (theoretically) to guide their culture and help protect them. But God is the real Eywa who created everything, including your eywa. See where I'm going? So how would this play out in translation? The same might be asled for Hebrew names? In the Na'vi culture a name is almost the essence of who your are. A name is of extreme importance. So it seems to me, that we do not need to change the name. Instead fin the correlating meanings in Na'vi. At least that's how I understand this so far.

God be with Us.
AM 2012 - Uniting the Clans Planning Team
Zephaniah Washington - [email protected]

A Furry - FA: Tirey
AMERICANS FOR PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH

Eltu Lefngap Makto

I think I understand what you're getting at.  I think it is important for us to "go after" Eywa.  If she is a conscious entity with powers, that means we will get nowhere denying her existence.  However, she didn't make herself, gravity or space-time.  We need to assert that Yawä did and that Jesus is Yawä.  Let the Na'vi know we take Eywa seriously by ascribing to her the personal powers of earth/land, but God alone is owner, creator and master of the universe, morality and redemption.
'Ivong, Na'vi!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Eltu Lefngap Makto on March 08, 2011, 07:53:00 PM
I think I understand what you're getting at.  I think it is important for us to "go after" Eywa.  If she is a conscious entity with powers, that means we will get nowhere denying her existence.  However, she didn't make herself, gravity or space-time.  We need to assert that Yawä did and that Jesus is Yawä.  Let the Na'vi know we take Eywa seriously by ascribing to her the personal powers of earth/land, but God alone is owner, creator and master of the universe, morality and redemption.

I agree that this is a healthy of looking at Eywa.

There is no rule anywhere that limits God's creativity. We have Eywa on Pandora, and a very real 'WAN' that contains at least part of her. Then in Narnia, Yawey appears as a physical lion. And the use of magic is permitted. The most important thing to remember, and I think everyone here does is that Yawey is Lord!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Coyote

Personally, as a Hebrew-speaking Jew, I'd recommend leaving the names as they are. The Na'vi accept the name "Jakesully" without a problem, and I don't know if the names Mo'at, Neyteri, or Tsu'Tey had any "meaning" beyond the people they belonged to... foreign names don't seem to be a problem for them, but that's my 2 cents.

As for Eywa and the Christian side of things, obviously Jesus is a non-issue for Jews, but it could be said that Eywa takes the place of Jesus, at least culturally-- sort of an intermediary. If God made the universe, clearly God made Eywa, which would mean that Eywa is God's "child" and the Na'vi find community through Eywa (so, a sense of "communion" but not "salvation").

God sends people what they need: humans needed justice (the laws of Moses, from the Jewish perspective) and salvation from sin (Jesus, from the Christian perspective). But perhaps what the Na'vi needed was community. So God sent Eywa, to provide them that.

Again, just a personal perspective.
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!


VIDEO LOG DAY 8:
Attempted to pee on Viperwolf to test reaction. Please see attached medical file.
WARNING: Attached medical file exceeds gigabyte limit. System failure.

Eltu Lefngap Makto

Thank you for that perspective!  ;D

Don't you think something is lost, however, for English speakers when they read

Quote
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip.

instead of


Quote
ויקרא יעקב שם המקום פניאל כי־ראיתי אלהים פנים אל־פנים ותנצל נפשי׃ ויזרח־לו השמש כאשר עבר את־פנואל והוא צלע על־ירכו׃

Wouldn't it be better to name the place "Face-of-God"?
'Ivong, Na'vi!

Coyote

That's a choice of translation though; I would have said "Panei-Elohim" (perhaps) or something. It's not just the word being translated but the concept, while at the same time the concept is so "big" that it outstrips the ability of a single word to fully encompass what needs to be communicated. That's why the Bible is so rife with translation errors. Not because people were careless, sloppy, or trying to obfuscate (although actually some were sloppy or being obscure on purpose) but because it is hard to translate.

I mean, English came from Auld High Germanic, but there are concepts that exist in German that don't translate into English, despite our common roots. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Classical Greek are all languages full of metaphor and poetic license, talking about something beyond the comprehension of the original audience (Bronze-Age tribals). There will be some misbegots in there.  ;)
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!


VIDEO LOG DAY 8:
Attempted to pee on Viperwolf to test reaction. Please see attached medical file.
WARNING: Attached medical file exceeds gigabyte limit. System failure.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

So, Coyote, would you transliterate the Hebrew names, leave the original Hebrew in the Na'vi text, or present both the Hebrew and the Na'vi translaiteration? (The Hebrew could go in a footnote. Conversely, the Hebrew could be in the text, with the Na'vi transliteration in a footnote. Since most people here know English as well, putting the English equivalent in the footnote wouldn't hurt either.) Look at the Klingon Bible sometime. It is currently in both Klingon and English, as the translator chose not to alter the words that didn't translate well.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Coyote

I personally would transliterate the Hebrew names and be prepared to see some drift occur (ie, "Jacob" is originally "Yakov", since there is no "J" in Hebrew, and the "B" and "V" are the same letter in Hebrew but with a dot to make the distinction between them). You could add the footnote for the, um, "Director's Cut" so to speak, so that the truly scholarly Na'vi could see the origins of the word, but for the lay person it would be a distraction (or even an annoyance).

Obviously if you're doing a Bible translation for personal fun, to see what it would take, it is moot-- it is well-known enough across cultures that no explanations are needed. On the other hand, if you're doing this for a theoretical translation to present to actual Na'vi for an "in-universe" concept for "witnessing" to them, it's much harder because the cultural, sociological, and even geographical references aren't there. You'd have to spend as much time just transmitting the basic concept as the words themselves, which is a hurdle that would not have to be crossed for a human audience.
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!


VIDEO LOG DAY 8:
Attempted to pee on Viperwolf to test reaction. Please see attached medical file.
WARNING: Attached medical file exceeds gigabyte limit. System failure.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Coyote on January 05, 2012, 11:19:01 PM
Obviously if you're doing a Bible translation for personal fun, to see what it would take, it is moot-- it is well-known enough across cultures that no explanations are needed. On the other hand, if you're doing this for a theoretical translation to present to actual Na'vi for an "in-universe" concept for "witnessing" to them, it's much harder because the cultural, sociological, and even geographical references aren't there. You'd have to spend as much time just transmitting the basic concept as the words themselves, which is a hurdle that would not have to be crossed for a human audience.

My primary goal is a Na'vi bible one can use for personal devotion (for every one, not just me). I tend to use the more literal, scholarly English translations (NAS for instance) for my devotions, so footnotes with that kind of information are useful. In general, I think this is also the easier translation to do. Eltu Lefngap Makto, OTOH, is attempting to what you are describing here-- build a translation that can be used for witnessing to Na'vi. I think there is plenty of room for both of these kinds of translations. And comparing the differences between the two approaches makes for some interesting discussions!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Eltu Lefngap Makto

As far as "purpose of translation" goes, I find myself going on the same journey that the inventor of Dothraki describes in the history of conlang-ing

Quote
First, there were the philosophical language creators (guys who created languages in order to "perfect" human cognition). Next came the auxlangers: Idealists who created languages to facilitate international communication, and thereby realize world peace (this was primarily in the late 19th and early 20th century, though it's continued steadily into the 21st). After that came the solitary artists—those who created languages to embellish their fictional worlds (or created worlds where their languages could be spoken, as the case may be). Primary among them is, of course, J. R. R. Tolkien, but another big name that's oft ignored is M. A. R. Barker, whose work is just incredible. And then, with the advent of the internet, came the modern conlangers, and it's these I'd like to talk about.

I kind see the Na'vi Bible as

  • a chance to think more clearly about what the Bible says (grammatically)
  • a bridge to people who might not otherwise read it
  • a new perspective gained through attempting recontextualization
  • and a chance to participate in community.
'Ivong, Na'vi!

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Where do you think we are in this project in reference to David's progression?

Can you desctibe further what you mean by 'recontextulaization'? I think I know what you mean here, but am not sure.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Eltu Lefngap Makto

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on January 07, 2012, 10:33:18 PM
Where do you think we are in this project in reference to David's progression?
I think it's a journey.  Obviously, by my choice of verses and my subject lines, I enjoy rethinking words.  e.g. Without a trial form, we can leave Genesis 1:26 as 'us'.  However, we must be more clear in our thinking in Na'vi: is it God and the angels (as the Rabbis say) or is it the triune God (as many Christian say).
On the other hand, when you ask me "what's a Na'vi Bible for?", the first thing I think of is having a better lingua franca than English?  Of course, Na'vi was invented for a particular piece of art and has a certain bent and focus because of that.  I'm not the inventor and I'm not writing this off on my own, so we are the fourth type too - a community.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on January 07, 2012, 10:33:18 PM
Can you desctibe further what you mean by 'recontextulaization'? I think I know what you mean here, but am not sure.
The world of the Na'vi is very different from our.  Good translators don't just line up parallel words, they say things the way a native speaker would.  e.g.  When Nebuchadnezzar is sent away 'from' the company of humans and relegated to the realm of animals, that would be 'from up among/tafkip' because the Omatikaya live up in trees.
'Ivong, Na'vi!