Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
| From: | Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, December 2, 2004, 11:58 |
|---|
On Dec 2, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Chris Bates wrote:
> that you have to be far truer to the original than normal. I sometimes
> think that the Muslims and Jews were wise to just have their bibles
> written in one language and not do translations at all.
I don't know about Muslims' relation to translation, but Jews have had
translations of the Tanakh - from Unqelos/Onkelos's and Yonatan ben
`Uziel's Aramaic translations (c.100-400? CE), and R' Sa`adya Gaon's
Arabic (c.900 CE), to medieval Judeo-Arabic, -German (Yiddish) and
-Spanish (Ladino), to the contemporary JPS translations into English.
Maybe the difference isn't the existence of translations, but the
attitude towards translation? Jews see translations as helpful but
essentially flawed intermediaries to the original text, which should
ideally be read, learned and studied in the original language(s). At
least some Christians seem to hold translations up to the same level as
the original texts.
-Stephen (Steg)
"the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
i do not share it with anyone'."
~ andrew nowicki
Replies