07-08-2008, 04:27 PM
Shlama to you both...
Akhi Dawid, I think what Shamasha Paul is trying to say is that all of us in the Peshitta Primacist movement are of different religious backgrounds but that we have come together in agreement based on well established textual analysis principles. Looking at something like the Gowra Scenario should not have anything to do with one's religion for example. Seeing split words, poetry and other lines of evidence that shows early mistranslation on the Greek side is likewise not a faith based decision but an empirical and analytical mode of interpretation. Paul and I might disagree on some deeper meanings within the text but not about the originality of that text.
Further Akhi Dawid, I would be careful how you phrase these things because to assert objectivity on the part of Murdock and Etheridge (and I am huge fans of both of these men) is not correct in that by your theory they would be coming from a Protestant traditon of interpretation and so to say it is not true of their tradition but somehow true of ours is not fair. I doubt you mean this--especially since you and I are of the same faith--but that's how it came across and that I believe is what Shamasha Paul is responding to.
Shamasha Paul, I agree with you, but I think that what Dawid is saying--somewhat roughly to be sure--is that since Murdock and Etheridge were not Peshitta Primacists (Lamsa was of course, as are we) that he thinks they translated in a way that was less about their Masorah and more about how they thought it should read. That does NOT mean of course, that they were any less prone to influence from their faith than we may be. However, you are correct that all translators should apologize for errors and be on the lookout for bias and that it is not an a priori leap to just say X faith equals X intrerpretation AWAY from pshat.
And for the rest of you who may be reading this: yes all translators should admit their imperfections. No translation is perfect. But I know Paul and I know myself (haven't seen Dave's work yet but I believe him honest and consistent in his methods) and can attest that both of us really, really strive to avoid these pitfalls. We put out our conservative base readings up top and other issues in the footnotes, and that's the best we can do. We may not achieve perfection, but we are certainly zealous in pursuing it.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Akhi Dawid, I think what Shamasha Paul is trying to say is that all of us in the Peshitta Primacist movement are of different religious backgrounds but that we have come together in agreement based on well established textual analysis principles. Looking at something like the Gowra Scenario should not have anything to do with one's religion for example. Seeing split words, poetry and other lines of evidence that shows early mistranslation on the Greek side is likewise not a faith based decision but an empirical and analytical mode of interpretation. Paul and I might disagree on some deeper meanings within the text but not about the originality of that text.
Further Akhi Dawid, I would be careful how you phrase these things because to assert objectivity on the part of Murdock and Etheridge (and I am huge fans of both of these men) is not correct in that by your theory they would be coming from a Protestant traditon of interpretation and so to say it is not true of their tradition but somehow true of ours is not fair. I doubt you mean this--especially since you and I are of the same faith--but that's how it came across and that I believe is what Shamasha Paul is responding to.
Shamasha Paul, I agree with you, but I think that what Dawid is saying--somewhat roughly to be sure--is that since Murdock and Etheridge were not Peshitta Primacists (Lamsa was of course, as are we) that he thinks they translated in a way that was less about their Masorah and more about how they thought it should read. That does NOT mean of course, that they were any less prone to influence from their faith than we may be. However, you are correct that all translators should apologize for errors and be on the lookout for bias and that it is not an a priori leap to just say X faith equals X intrerpretation AWAY from pshat.
And for the rest of you who may be reading this: yes all translators should admit their imperfections. No translation is perfect. But I know Paul and I know myself (haven't seen Dave's work yet but I believe him honest and consistent in his methods) and can attest that both of us really, really strive to avoid these pitfalls. We put out our conservative base readings up top and other issues in the footnotes, and that's the best we can do. We may not achieve perfection, but we are certainly zealous in pursuing it.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth