Joe Pope wrote:
>The origin of Interpretation of Hebrew Names is not easy to fathom.
>For research I suggest Repertorium Biblicum Medi Aevi by F. Stegmuller vol 5
page 234 item 7709....
and, the Ever-Learnéd-Bob Kraft wrote:
>I would add that in all liklihood Jerome was cribbing from his
predecessors, on the Greek side, if not the Latin.... Philo seems to have had
access to a wealth of such etymological information...
totally out of character, i would like to comment upon something i know
*nothing* whatever about (and, it will never happen again, i promise).
submit that the very concept of "translation," as we understand the process,
would be largely incomprehensible (in any language) to the likes of Hierome
and his buddies.
and certainly not without the collateral tools they would deem
*essential* (even as we would use a typewriter/computer, or dictionary), which
could only be supplied by a consciousness properly-attuned to the obviously
pre-eminent typological considerations.
the "Garden" (or Whatever-it-was), of Wherever-it-was, site of the Original
Temptation, and Fall, was (for these wierd, pseudo-bicameral folks we all call
"Middleevil") also the very --literally, if we dare to take their writings at
face value-- site of the Redemptifying Crucifixion (the tomb of Adam is below
the Cross --see the skull?);
*and,* "incidentally", of the Temptation (after the 40 days' [itself a
Mosiac echo]) fast of the Redeemer;
*and,* as it happens (_dignatus est_?), the very same "hangout [lat.?] of
latrones" and various other Meanies, which was visitated by the Good Samaritan
Himself, ministering to the wretched Us Adamites, victim of those very same
Latrones;
was it not (O, faded memory of "Anselm of Laon" don't let me down now)?
and, these considerations trumped -*by far*-- our own academic, petty, mundane
etymological considerations, however valid suchlike latter considerations
might be.
i.e., topological typology trumps tscientific etymology, bicamerally
speaking.
every time.
not to say that the "Literal" was not important, but, given such a
mindset, concerns with "accuracy" ("what's the Aramaic/Hebrew, what's the
Greek/Latin"), valid though they are for certain contemporary types of
questions, were, i suggest, very much a secondary (tertiary?) consideration
for these archetypal early-middleevil Wierdoes, who would have probably
thought them as comparatively superficial and irrelevant as whether the Dow
rose or fell on Easter.
here i am reminded of the well-known quote of Isidore, brother of
Otfried:
"Etymology, like its kindred Science, Entomology, is relative, after all, and,
as such can be bent to the proper Task of True Understanding."
which is *not* at all to say that the very erudite observations of Brothers
Pope and Kraft are not valid --or even, heaven help us, true-- much less a
worthy pursuit in themselves.
simply two *seperate* questions, it seems to me.
>A facinating topic.
agreed.
my best to all the etymologically better informed,
christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|