b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
- To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:50:27 +0200
Actually, Karl, MH is much closer to BH than modern Greek is to classical Greek. The reason is simple: Greek has evolved "naturally" over the centuries. Hebrew has not. To a very great extent, Hebrew stopped being used as a spoken language sometime around the begining of the CE. And while it was used and did develop over the centuries, users of Hebrew have always considered the Bible as the fundamental text of the language. So much so that when MH was "invented" during the late 19th century, the founders usually prefered using BH over Mishnaic, Talmudic or medieval Hebrew.
Israelis "not understanding" Tanakh is much more a social issue than a linguistic one. As is non-Israeli Bible scholars being able to get away with not reading scholarship in MH. Could you imagine a scholar of medieval French literature not reading modern French?
Yigal
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation
Yigal:
Though I have not been to Israel, I have met modern
Israelis here on business trips: I have asked a few
if they read Tanakh, whereupon they answered that
they don't because they don't understand it.
Now these were adults, not children.
I didn't get a chance to go into detail by what
they meant, but I suspect that it is similar as
when I try to read Elizabethan English: parts that
are clearly archaic are quaint but understandable,
words that have dropped out of use I can look up,
but it is the words that have changed their
meanings that lead to misunderstanding, even
gibberish, if, as is usually the case, I don't know
which words have changed meaning and what the
meanings were back in Elizabethan days. The
differences between BH and MH appear to be greater
than that between between Elizabethan and modern
English, but few translations made because it is
held that those are just different versions of the
same language.
Like Herman, I find it curious that there have been
no translations of Tanakh from BH to MH, unlike the
New Testament which has been translated to modern
Greek.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
> Dear members
>
> For example, why is there no translation of the Hebrew Bible into
> modern Hebrew? I think modern Hebrew is about the only language left
> the Bible has not been translated to!
> (But I may well have missed the latest developments in modern Hebrew
> bible scholarship)
> Fascinating, isn't it? And b-Hebrew and modern Hebrew most certainly
> are two different languages.
Dear Herman,
The reason that no-one has undertaken to translate the Bible into modern
Hebrew, is that biblical and modern Hebrew are most definately NOT two
different languages. Of course they are not identical, and represent
different stages in the development of the language, but modern Hebrew is
very much based on BH. Yes, MH has thousands of words that BH is lacking;
its syntax is closer to that of modern European languages and it has adopted
modern European punctuation. There are also many words and expressions in BH
that are not usually used in MH, and many more words that have been given a
diferent meaning. However, this is only natural. The Bible remains one of
the classical sources of MH. It is much easier for native speakers of MH to
understand BH than it is for native English speakers to understand
Shakespeare, for example. I do. So do my grade-school aged children. Of
course, children have difficulty with a lot of the concepts in the Bible,
and the language is "high literary" language, not what is spoken on TV. But
it is still the same language.
And of course, there are renderings of Bible stories in easy MH, meant for
children. But they soon grow out of needing them. Try seeing the Hebrew
version of the animated film "Prince of Egypt". You'll be amazed at the
amount of direct quotes of BH used in the dialogue. And I have yet to hear
an Israeli child claim that he can't understand it.
Yigal
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
-
[b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Tna Swg, 02/24/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Herman Meester, 02/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation, Yigal Levin, 02/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation, Peter Kirk, 02/28/2006
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Karl Randolph, 02/25/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Yigal Levin, 02/25/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation, Herman Meester, 02/26/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Yigal Levin, 02/25/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Oun Kwon, 02/26/2006
- Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation, Herman Meester, 02/28/2006
-
Re: [b-hebrew] translation v. interpretation,
Herman Meester, 02/25/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.