I say read it aloud. It has a new function as it has become part of the canon:
1. Although originally a musical notation it is now a part of written scripture. As a result it has a new written meaning.
2. Although originally a Hebrew/musical notation similar to a grammatical punctuation mark, it has now become a transliterated *word*. As a result of transliteration it has a new added meaning.
- are you suggesting that in our Hebrew Bibles today it has some meaning other than the original authors intended, or other than the final editors of the Psalms intended?
- the process of translation always involves gaining-and-losing meaning, granted. But my hunch is that for most audiences, the gained 'meaning' (which will be a rather confused affair for most people) would be less-helpful than the lost 'meaning' of leaving it unspoken (but remaining as a footnote).
1. No. I'm saying they intended it (whether explicitly conscious intention or not is moot).
The act of writing down music in a new anthology of writings (other than simply a book of sheet music) is (consciously or not) giving the notation an additional function and hence an additional meaning.
2. I don't think confusion is a very accurate word. Alienation perhaps.
At the risk of extending our conversation too far, I'm interested to know: Were 'Selah' translated, '(Rest)' (or '(Pause)', or some similar term), would you want Bible readers to read it aloud?
If it were chosen, then no, I don't think it would need to be read out loud.
The exaggerated pause by the Bible reader would connect directly with the written '(pause)' in both the congregation and the reader's minds. It would have, functionally been 'read out'.
I say read it aloud. It has a new function as it has become part of the canon:
ReplyDelete1. Although originally a musical notation it is now a part of written scripture. As a result it has a new written meaning.
2. Although originally a Hebrew/musical notation similar to a grammatical punctuation mark, it has now become a transliterated *word*. As a result of transliteration it has a new added meaning.
Hey Mike, one clarification, and one comment:
ReplyDelete- are you suggesting that in our Hebrew Bibles today it has some meaning other than the original authors intended, or other than the final editors of the Psalms intended?
- the process of translation always involves gaining-and-losing meaning, granted. But my hunch is that for most audiences, the gained 'meaning' (which will be a rather confused affair for most people) would be less-helpful than the lost 'meaning' of leaving it unspoken (but remaining as a footnote).
1. No. I'm saying they intended it (whether explicitly conscious intention or not is moot).
ReplyDeleteThe act of writing down music in a new anthology of writings (other than simply a book of sheet music) is (consciously or not) giving the notation an additional function and hence an additional meaning.
2. I don't think confusion is a very accurate word. Alienation perhaps.
Thanks heaps for the clarification :)
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of extending our conversation too far, I'm interested to know: Were 'Selah' translated, '(Rest)' (or '(Pause)', or some similar term), would you want Bible readers to read it aloud?
Great question, Bernie.
ReplyDeleteThat's a bold translation decision.
If it were chosen, then no, I don't think it would need to be read out loud.
The exaggerated pause by the Bible reader would connect directly with the written '(pause)' in both the congregation and the reader's minds. It would have, functionally been 'read out'.
Bold, indeed :) More a thought-experiment than a firm conviction on my part, though.
ReplyDeleteAs the example goes, I'd agree with your 'functional' reading aloud, for sure.
Thanks for your thoughts :)