tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post852525158567161884..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Wisdom of Solomon 7:10-11Suzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-47109225308199199642009-07-05T08:09:08.900-07:002009-07-05T08:09:08.900-07:00the language reflects original Hellenistic Greek r...<i>the language reflects original Hellenistic Greek rather than a translation of Hebrew, while still borrowing from Hebrew style.</i><br /><br />Sue, That the translator would find wordplay in Greek doesn't meant she or he is composing originally in Hellene and is not rendering from Hebrew (or Aramaic, as Joel suggests) - does it?<br /><br />In looking at the Greek translation of Amos 11, for example, Jennifer Dines shows how one segment of the LXX translation "does have an alternation, not found in the MT," and in another section "there is a striking stylistic difference between the LXX and the MT ... [where] the LXX has two pairs of matching verbs (first and third, and second and fourth), whereas the MT has only one (first and third) ... [and] all four verbs in the LXX begin with [a Greek word without equivalence in the MT]" (page 56 of <i>The Septuagint: Understanding the Bible and Its World</i>). Likewise, Eugene Ekblad in <i>Isaiah's Servant Poems According to the Septuagint</i> (p 60) shows the Greek chiastic structure in translation of Hebrew in the LXX Isaiah 42:5-8. Similarly, T. J. Meadowcroft has a fascinating study <i>Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison</i> which gets at the different roles played by the LXX and the MT "narrators."<br /><br />These kinds of speculations about the roles of the LXX scholar are important, I think, to an understanding of viable and vibrant translating. At their blog Hebrew and Greek Reader, for instance, <a href="http://hebrewandgreekreader.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/comparing-acts-10-34-35/" rel="nofollow">Daniel and Tonya give their own English version</a> of Luke's narrating in Acts; they bring across in their rendering the chiasmus in the "original" Greek. But we could wonder whether Peter, whom Luke is (indirectly) quoting, actually had such chaismus in his spoken language. Is Peter speaking Hebrew-Aramaic, Latin, or Greek? And did Luke reconstruct the original speech as translated Greek (with Peter's help?)? How much agency may the translator be given? While calling J.B. Phillips's wordplay English rendering of Paul's Greek a "paraphrase," C.S. Lewis wrote to the translator: "Dear Mr. Phillips - Thank you a hundred times. I thought I knew <i>Colossians</i> pretty well but your paraphrase made it far more significant - it was like seeing a familiar picture after it's been cleaned" (pg 585 of vol2 of Lewis's letter collection). In other words, Lewis (the Greek scholar) calls the original (Hellene text) meaningful when seen in interlation with a translation in which the translator takes some playful (English) liberties.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-40167820648833001302009-07-05T06:46:56.504-07:002009-07-05T06:46:56.504-07:00Suzanne, Wisdom, I believe, is essential in unders...Suzanne, Wisdom, I believe, is essential in understanding certain segments of Christology. <br /><br />There was a Rabbi in the 11th century, I believe, who said that he had seen the Aramaic original, but that the Jews didn't us Wisdom anymore because of the use of it by the Christians. <br /><br />Well, since this is my favorite Deuterocanonical book, I will continue to enjoy this series.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.com