Heidegger

Not that it’s relevant to the conversation, but because Hebrew is the
only language I know anything about, I’d like to bring it in as an
example of the theological complexities of life without copulas. The
following is a transliteration of a central sentence of Hebrew
doctrine:

Shma Yisrael YHWH elohenu YHWH echad.

Literally translated, the words mean “Hear Israel YHWH our god YHWH
one (or alone).

Having to place the copula somewhere in order to translate the
sentence into English, the language of record, we could say

Hear Israel YHWH is our god YHWH alone.

or

Hear Israel, YHWH our god YHWH is one

Jud:
I bow to your superior knowledge in this area Allen. I am studying Hebrew
now, but I am a mere child in the language at the present moment… but…
wouldn’t a more vernacular translation of *Shma Yisrael YHWH elohenu YHWH
echad* . be:

*Hear Israel, YHWH our one god is YHWH* ?

Surely the *Hear Israel, YHWH our god YHWH is one* is suggestive of
eliminating any suggestion that YHWH is triadic like the Christian God?

BUT, on thinking about it, perhaps your rendering is best, because it would
be highly relevant in the days when the Jews were establishing the
*oneness* [monotheitic nature] of YHWH against a background of the
polytheistic nature of the religions in that area at that time?

As I see it theologically the translator has to choose what he thinks is
more important.

1) To firmly establish that YHWH is the only God.
2) To assert that YHWH is the only God for the Jews.
3) To make it clear that YHWH is a holy *oneness* (unity) without the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost properties of the later Christian version.

Allen:
It seems grammar and punctuation are all about emphasis, pointing
out, which would seem to make considerable difference.

Jud:
Do you think I identified the theological complexities?

May your new year be a happy one.

May your new year be one happy new year.

Allen

Jud:
Ditto!

Posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback