Hello George:
Sounds good to me, putting this thread, to bed.
Just for future reference, (merely as a procedural question; and not for
substantive discussion now), does the shem tov manuscript fit within the
boundaries of posting at this forum?
http://www.torahresource.com/Dutillet.html
Or does the masoretic text form the general course and scope of discussion
here?
Regards,
fred burlingame
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:
Fred, you are entitled to your opinion, though I suspect that many will_______________________________________________
disagree with you about language being unable to capture cultural
conceptuality. Yes, there is always some loss, but this is not complete
loss. It seems you are implying wholesale change of meaning when translation
occurs, perhaps because you are equating culture with language directly.
This may be the way Islam views translation of the Qur’an, but it does so on
the basis of a belief in the divine origin and unalterability of the words,
syllables, and sounds as delivered directly to Muhammad. While Second Temple
Judaism viewed the biblical texts as divine in origin, they evidently had no
insuperable objection to translating them (perhaps because their concept of
divine inspiration was not identical to the way Islam later viewed
inspiration of the Qur’an).
I’m not sure this thread is going to deal with Biblical Hebrew in any
significant way. Let’s give it to the end of Monday and then leave it there.
GEORGE ATHAS
Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew
(Sydney, Australia)
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.