Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ANE-2] ANET outside the ANE?

Expand Messages
  • Kevin P. Edgecomb
    Hi Stephanie, I think it s important to remember what each of these sets of translations is and isn t, particularly in a situation where outside scholars are
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Stephanie,
      I think it's important to remember what each of these sets of translations
      is and isn't, particularly in a situation where "outside" scholars are
      utilizing them. Translation collections like ANET and even the quondam
      bilingual SBL Writings from the Ancient World series will not always suffice
      for the level of granularity that you mention. ANET and the like are good
      for a general grasp of the document, the "story line" if you will. But any
      more important work with the texts would certainly require interaction with
      the original languages and documents in other publications. What's sauce
      for the goose is sauce for the gander. Would anyone dare to write
      authoritatively on Herodotus or the laws of Tsarist Russia using only a
      translation?

      It would be ideal for a recommended bibliography to be put together by each
      discipline for such recommended interdisciplinary use. I wonder if, as in
      ANE Studies with Pritchard's ANET3, we would see a number of similar
      somewhat outdated but sufficient standards (and/or classics!) in other
      fields.

      Regards,
      Kevin P. Edgecomb
      Berkeley, California

      -----Original Message-----
      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      sbudin@...
      Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:38 AM
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [ANE-2] ANET outside the ANE?

      What suggestions would listmembers offer for those outside of ANE
      studies who use ANET as their primary source for ANE texts and documents? I
      ask because I have noticed that most Classicists, often with no background
      in cuneiform, etc. but who wish to delve into ANE studies, use ANET as their
      access point so to speak. While this gives a broad spectrum of ANE
      materials, it also gives, as has been noted, very dated, occassionally
      inaccurate translations (I am here thinking of a number of technical terms
      in, for example, the CH). How can people outside of ANE studies "use
      caution" when using Pritchard?

      -Stephanie Budin




      Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.