596547 at ican.net
Mon Jul 13 08:50:42 EDT 1998
At 12:41 AM 7/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On 8 Jul 98, at 13:45, B Rocine wrote:
>> LEST you think I am arguing that we should honor etymology over context
>> our translation, let me explain. My thoughts on _Paroket_ prefer
>> etymology nor context. The etymology(to be harsh, severe) is consistent
>> with the context(a barrier between people and the Lord). In fact, the
>> context *implies* the etymology. I believe it is good translatyion and
>> exegesis carry etymology and context together, and there is no reason
>> can't with _Paroket_.
>I'd be curious to know what evidence there is that the root means "to be
>harsh, severe" other than the rather enigmatic use of the word "b'pharekh"
>describe the labor imposed on the Israelites.
Eze 34:4, Lev 25:53 are pretty clear.
>> LEST you think I am merely arguing for a more literal translation than
>> "veil," let me explain that, too. There is nothing more or less literal
>> either "veil" or "barrier." "Barrier" is more precise, not more
>Since "barrier" in English connotes something solid rather than a fabric,
>seems to me rather less accurate than, say, "curtain".
It is indeed inadvisable to impose theology upon the translation of a
particular word, a crime for which I am not admitting guilt, at least in
this case. ;-) On the other hand, to translate _ParoKet_ as "veil" or
"curtain" merely because we know that it was made of fabric obscures the
distinct use of the root PRK.
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208
More information about the b-hebrew