Thu Jan 23 14:31:15 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 14:31:15 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id OAA12177; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:30:22 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:30:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Use of versions in OT TC
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3523
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>=20
> > are there any features of=20
> > the ancient versions, independent of their proximity in readings to the=
=20
> > MT or OG, which indicate they are more or less reliable witnesses to th=
e=20
> > "original" text?
>=20
> *********************
>=20
> One feature worth considering is whether an ancient version gives evidenc=
e
> of a "slavish" translation, e.g., retaining a Hebrew word-order which is
> not native to the target language, or literal renderings of idioms which
> don't make sense in the target language. A version with these features is
> likely to be more "faithful" to the "original" text (whatever "original
> text" might be!).
James Barr, in _The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations=
_,
identifies the following criteria for determining whether or not a given=20
translation unit is literal (20): (1)=CAdivision of the text into elements =
or=20
segments, and the sequence in which they are represented;=20
(2)=CAquantitative addition or omission of elements; (3)=CAconsistency in=
=20
rendering lexical data; (4)=CAaccuracy and level of semantic information,=
=20
especially when dealing with figurative language; (5)=CAetymological=20
renderings; and (6)=CAlevel of text and level of analysis.
The last three items are unquantifiable and so of less value in any kind=20
of concrete analysis of translations. The first category can be split=20
into two: segmentation (the rendering of one item in the source language=20
with one item in the target language) and word order.
Tov, in his _The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical=20
Research_ (54-60), offers a similar list: lexical consistency, segmentation=
,=20
word order, quantitative representation, and linguistic adequacy of the=20
renderings. He notes, however, that the last is subjective and difficult t=
o=20
quantify.
Building on these ideas (and some of my own), I would suggest the=20
following quantifiable criteria for measuring the relative literalness of=
=20
certain aspects of a translation: (1) lexical consistency, (2)=20
consistency in the use of word classes (e.g., participles rendered by=20
participles), (3) grammatical consistency, (4) segmentation, (5) word=20
order, and (6) quantitative representation (i.e., additions and=20
omissions). Finally, I would also note that a translation can be quite=20
literal in certain aspects of its rendering (and thus more useful for=20
reconstructing the apparent Vorlage) and freer in other aspects. For=20
example, in Samuel (and I suspect elsewhere) Jerome is quite literal in=20
rendering the Hebrew word order but extremely free in his choice of=20
conjunctions with which to render Hebrew conjunctions. Rather than=20
saying that a particular version is useful for text-critical purposes=20
(i.e., it is a literal version), we should instead say that the=20
translation is literal with respect to word order and lexical=20
consistency, fairly literal with respect to segmentation and grammatical=20
consistency, and free with respect to quantitative representation. Of=20
course, it must also be remembered that a translation might not be=20
consistent throughout, so each book, for example, might need to be=20
checked individually.
Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
Back