[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion zeitgeist
>To: orion@mscc.huji.ac.il
>From: habas@netvision.net.il (E. Habas)
>Subject: zeitgeist
>
>Hello,
>
>Ms. Lerner:
>
>>Firstly, [...].
>>
>>Secondly [...]
>>
>>And thirdly, on a purely scientific note:
>
>*This* is how this forum is supposed to opperate, I hope??
>
>Prof. Cryer:
>
>>I do wish scholars would do other scholars the courtesy of accepting that
>>it is possible for them to entertain an idea without at the same time
>>intending to destabilise the state of Israel. We arrive at the positions we
>>arrive at because that is where the evidence seems to point, not because we
>>have a particular contemporary political agendum to prove.
>>
>
>I think Prof. West explicitely admitted to have arrived at his, well,
>position, *not* on the basis of evidence [e.g, "I realize that this is all
>a shooting in the dark"]. Do you agree with him on the basis
>of some evidence known to you but not to him? I am sincerely interested.
>As to Josephus'
>apologetics, I would read it in a slightly different angle than you *in
>the context* of his text, but that is far from Orion's agenda (pl. on
>purpose).
>
>Prof. West:
>Although you candidly stated that you were merely rocking the boat, with no
>particular scientific reason to do so, you might have considered the
>numerous obvious holes in it (some of them were mentioned, very politely I
>thought, by Prof. Kraft). Just a couple of further examples:
>
>>theory 1- the OT was
>
>As far as the Jews themselves were concerned, there did not exist a single
>unchallenged Hebrew text of the OT at least well into the second century
>CE (now
>I've given myself away - Israeli *and* Jewish, and somewhat acquainted with the
>Talmudic literature on top of it (-: ), I'll not bore you with the
>evidence - yes,
>indeed, evidence - which is out of the main lines of interest of
>this group, but well within the scholarly duties of anyone researching the
>ideas now being debated.
>
>
>>theory 2- the inhabitants of Qumran translated these documents from Greek
>>into Hebrew and Aramaic in order to make them more widely available to the
>>home audience (which explains (!) the presence of Greek manuscripts in the
>>caves nearby).
>
>"home audience" which spoke/read/wrote which language(s), according
>to this sequence of text-creation/translation? Namely, what is the cultural
>and linguistic logic behind the specific translations of the different
>texts into the specific languages (and let me add: different dialects
>thereof) for the sake of *real* audience(s)?
>
>>
>>theory 3- in the process of translation these Greek manuscripts were adapted
>>both linguistically and theologically
>
>In so many very well known cases the adaptation is clearly the other way round.
>
>And then, of course, from this point of view, is it correct to consider the
>OT in isolation? what, for example of Ben Sira (or is the use of the Hebrew
>name, recorded in Jewish sources, the true sign of the Zionist (-: ? )?
>
>
>>Now, again, - but I am
>>looking at the larger picture (which I think is sometimes ignored).
>
>No you are not!
>
>>(though I am, of course,
>>serious).
>
>
>Oh dear!
>
>Effie
>
>Dr. E. Habas
>habas@netvision.net.il