Re: Translators

From: John M. Tait (jmtait@jmt.prestel.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 11 1998 - 17:37:17 EST


Thanks to Don for the reply to my query, and the useful information.
Certainly my purposes do not require an approach as exacting as you
envisage, Don - particularly with regard to textual criticism - but I
certainly concur with fluency in the target language and Greek (though
"fluency" there could mean variously in reading, writing and speaking) and
the importance of the lexicons and TDNT etc. are unarguable. Of course,
when I referred to commentaries on the Greek text, I was assuming that they
would be approached critically, not that their conclusions would simply be
accepted. (This could scarcely happen anyway - unless only one were used -
because they inevitably disagree.)

My own interest in translation (my Shetlandic translation of Mark is now on
my website, by the way, in case anyone is interested in such things) has
two aims - one is the intrinsic interest of translating the NT into my
native tongue, and the other is that the translation process is also a
learning process. Just as one of the best ways to learn something is to
teach it, so translation brings you into close contact with the Greek text
in a way which non-professional students of the Greek NT (how many of those
are there these days?) may not normally find necessary. In other words, the
translation process is itself a means of, and motivation for, aquiring a
better knowledge of the language and the text.

A knowledge of Hebrew is certainly valuable in reading the NT (I often find
it illuminating to see how Delitzch turns the NT into Hebrew - not a very
scholarly approach, perhaps, but interesting, again as long as conclusions
aren't drawn from it.) I don't know Aramaic, again because I regard this as
a specialist area where it would be dangerous for the non-expert to draw
conclusions - it seems to me that anything in this area is bound to be
controversial, because after all it is inevitably arguing on the basis of
something which is not actually there. It seems to me to be perfectly
possible to understand, for example, that HRXATO can often (but not always
- another important point, of course) be taken in the NT as a periphrastic
Aramaism without actually being able to read Aramaic. (It would also be
possible to _misunderstand_ this and assume that such insights could be
applied mechanically; but this would be due to bad logic and a general lack
of understanding of how language works, not an inevitable consequence of
being Aramaic-less.)

This doesn't mean that some knowledge of Aramaic wouldn't be of interest -
perhaps someone could suggest a suitable grammar?

I would imagine that it could be very dangerous to assume that Aramaic
idioms would also apply to Hebrew, or vice versa. There are some classic
examples of _faux amis_ between Scots, Shetlandic and English, and also
between the closely related Scandinavian languages. Similarly - as I don't
need to point out on this list - between Attic and Hellenistic Greek, eg:
PRWTOS used like classical PROTEROS. My old Hebrew Prof. used Ugaritic
analogies widely in interpreting the OT, but his colleague in the
department took it all with a considerable pinch of salt. I remember in one
class, when the Prof was absent for some reason, interpreting a Hebrew
plural which did not seem to make sense in context as "the Ugaritic
enclitic Mim", and the other guy intimating as diplomatically as possible
that he didn't exactly agree with this approach. If scholars disagree so
much about such things, it seems all the more incumbent upon the likes of
myself to observe a considerable degree of conservatism. It would surely
demand considerable specialisation to distinguish between idioms used in
Biblical Aramaic and Christian Syriac, for example.

Sorry to blether on, as we say in Scotland, especially when it's not about
Greek; but I think the points are relevant.

What about reading in non-Biblical Hellenistic Greek? (By the way, I'm not
familiar with the abbreviation TLG.)

While I'm brain picking - I would appreciate some suggestions on good Bible
software (original language texts; LXX; concordances, lexicons and search
facilities) for the PC.

Thanks again,

John M. Tait.
 

>
>John has quite properly called me to account, so I'll suggest a few thlings.
>I'm going to assume that he is speaking of translation for publication and
>not just for one's personal use. One first needs to be fluent in the
>standard form of the target language, and nearly so in NT Greek. I have very
>little new to add about the preferred lexicons; obviously Bauer, but I also
>recommend the unabridged Liddell & Scott, together with access to classical
>works (TLG is the best and cheapest source). Louw & Nida's work on semantic
>domains can be helpful, but I see it as a very good thesaurus of sorts, and
>woefully inadequate as a lexicon. For all the bad press it once received,
>TDNT is still quite worthwhile, and it is hard to find a better source for
>historical discussions of vocabulary (at the very least it can direct you to
>original sources). One should have as many critical commentaries on hand as
>possible, i.e. those that concentrate on lexical, grammatical and historical
>issues rather than on devotional material ("warm fuzzies"). Also, one or two
>good reference Greek grammars are probably indispensable. The most recent is
>Dan Wallace's, which is a very worthy option. Smyth's Grammar is still the
>best, I think, albeit a classical grammar, and ATR's Historical Greek
>grammar still has value if one can muddle though the awkward writing style
>(usually you can do fairly well with his comprehensive indices. One slight
>caveat about the grammars is that if you have to spend a lot of time in
>them, you probably aren't ready for translation at this level, and by the
>same token you should be beyond the need of parsing guides.
>A couple of other things are indispensable or all but. You should know a
>fair amount about textual criticism, unless your goal is simply to render
>the standard text of Nestle or GNT without evaluating it. For evaluation
>purposes, though, be sure to have Metzger's textual commentary and a good
>reference work or two on TC. Also, it would be useful to have a working
>knowledge of Hebrew/Aramaic in order to critically evaluate Hebraic idioms
>in the NT. You can of course fall back on the guidance of the better
>commentaries, but hopefully you will be evaluating them as well with a
>critical idea and not depending upon them as ultimate authorities (that is
>why I begged to differ somewhat with John's suggestions).
>
>Don Wilkins
>

http:/www2.prestel.co.uk/jmt/zet/shaetlan.htm

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT