Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00223)

I wonder how out of date a work has to be in its own language to
need "translation." Chaucer wrote English, but has to be
translated for us to understand him today.

In a similar way HPB and other 19th century authors, while not in
need of translation, may be in need of interpretation in a number
of areas.  Indeed, this is what various commentaries are about.

But problems!  Translation involves interpretation, and
interpretation is affected by the subjectivity of the
interpreter.

Example: 'Spirit' is feminine in Aramaic/Hebrew, neuter [I think]
in Greek, and masculine in Latin.

Anthing which originates in [say] the Aramaic/Hebrew scriptural
texts and passes through Greek or Latin along the way to English
(as most of it has) can thus [in the example] undergo a sex
change along the way.

Jesus would have called and thought of the Holy Spirit as "She."

All serious work requires study, and all serious study requires
work.  HPB did her best, so far as I am aware, to define her
terms, and so, alas must we.  If not, we may end up talking at
cross-purposes when we actually agree with each other.

<sigh>

AB guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk