Re: OT my only reply (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically) & Re: OT, and religeous)

On Dec 3, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 12:10 , Steg Belsky wrote:
>> 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.
> Indeed so - and the Septuagint, a translation of the scriptures the
> made
> by the Jews of Alexandria in the 3rd BCE.
Ooops, forgot that one ;) .
Oh wait, i mean, no, i didn't forget it, i just thought it was so
obvious it didn't need mentioning!
Yeah, that's it... :P

> Also I was under the impression that the original Jewish scriptures
> were
> not all the same language either. Many of them are in Hebrew obviously,
> but are not some of the scriptures, such Daniel, in Aramaic?
Yup, that's why i wrote "language(s)" later on in my post.
Much of Daniel is in Aramaic, as are a few words and phrases scattered
in the rest of the Tanakh, as well as sections of Ezra-Nehemia.
What's cool about Daniel (besides the fact that it's just so *weird* in
general) is that it switches from Hebrew to Aramaic in the middle of a
narrative, in Daniel 2:4 - "And so the Chaldeans spoke to the king in
Aramaic...", after which point the rest of the book up until the end of
chapter 7, are all in Aramaic - long after the Chaldeans' Aramaic
statement to the king has been long finished.


-Stephen (Steg)
  "verbing weirds language"
      ~ calvin (& hobbes)