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

RE: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1

Expand Messages
  • Lund, Jerome
    The formal equivalents to the Hebrew expression reflect exegesis and do not reflect a Hebrew variant. Thus, the editors would not record it.
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      The formal equivalents to the Hebrew expression reflect exegesis and do not
      reflect a Hebrew variant. Thus, the editors would not record it.

      > ----------
      > From: Matthew Anstey[SMTP:manstey@...]
      > Reply To: tc-list@...
      > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 12:07 PM
      > To: TC-List
      > Subject: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1
      >
      > Gday everyone,
      >
      > I am working at the moment part-time for SIL and we are using the
      > uncorrected proof of Ruth (BHQ) distributed at SBL last year for help with
      > our textual notes for a translations software package that SIL is
      > developing. I was curious as to why no note is attached to "peloniy
      > 'almoniy" in Ruth 4.1 when I understand that the LXX, Targum, and Vulgate
      > have quite different renderings of this phrase. If you could spare the
      > time
      > to
      > respond it would be much appreciated.
      >
      > With regards,
      > Matthew Anstey
      > Regent College, Vancouver
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      > on behalf of Summer Institute of Linguistics.
      > BART (Biblical Analysis and Research Tool) Software Development
      > Carl Follingstad, Coordinator [cfollingstad@...]
      > Todd Hoatson, Programmer [Todd_Hoatson@...]
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.