Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Nir:

Thanks for your comments.

I generally agree.

I do think פנו דרך literally means "turn way;" and figuratively means "clear
way."

And I do agree with your other comments about the utility of the three sets
of manuscripts; greek, hebrew, and aramaic. All of these
manuscripts resulted from a political and religious context, rather than a
vacuum. Hence, all three deserve examination in an attempt to approach
the original text.

But ... will the current manuscript factual record disclose the accurate and
complete, word for word, text of the book referenced in deuteronomy
31:24-26; and joshua 8:30-34? The answer to that question is simply: no.

I liken the problem of understanding the ancient hebrew language, to the
clouds in the sky. When I step back and look at the clouds, I have a fairly
clear sense of what the clouds are all about. But when I try to grasp or
bottle the clouds, while standing on a mountain, .... it all slips away.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Nir cohen - Prof. Mat.
<nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>wrote:

> dear fred,
> re: PNH=turn
>
> PANU (piel, not kal) DEREKH is an expression meaning literally
> "clear the way", equivalent to "pave the way", hence "prepare". in
> this sense the greek translation is literal.
>
> ---
>
> dear paul,
> re: translation vs interpretation:
>
> some may consider the hebrew text as the ultimate fact, and everything
> else as translation/interpretation of it. this is legitimate.
>
> i prefer to consider Fact as the ultimate fact, and everything else as
> interpretation. in this sense i see nothing wrong in comparing the hebrew
> canonized and greek translated versions, both representing interpretations
> on
> the facts, different political/religious agendas, and possibly different
> sources of oral tradition.
>
> one example: following the discussion on the king sacrificing his sun
> during
> the war in midyan i noticed that the targum makes a reference to AKEDAT
> IZCHAK
> missing in the original. one possible interpretation is that this text had
> been there originally, but was censured in the hebrew version, for equating
> the two sacrifices, one considered sacred, the other profane.
>
> nir cohen
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>