"While translating was clearly practiced as a skill, it was not a subject to be studied, to the best of our knowledge. Thus the relevance of the Museum for ‘translation studies’ was at best very indirect and at worst wholly irrelevant. Seemingly the latter is the case for LXX-Isaiah qua Greek discourse!"
I found the discussion regarding "the tolerant reader" quite problematic. Tolerant to what initial understanding? A Hebraic mind set or an already deeply Hellenized one?
These mental gymnastics do tend to give me a headache:)
The paper also poses questions for Troxel's "tolerant reader" idea:
"The concept of 'the tolerant reader', in my judgment, is at best unhelpful in text analysis, and at worst it makes the Greek text seem something substantially different from what the direct linguistic evidence shows it to be. It is all well and good to suggest that a 'tolerant reader' takes no umbrage at linguistic infelicities in the text. So, for example, if the Greek text has complements with a given Greek verb, which mimic the source text, even though the usage is not Greek, 'tolerant readers may simply shrug their shoulders and move on, provided the context is relatively clear" (page 9).
See also what folows on p. 10ff. The paper is not exactly my cup of tea, but Al has developed a reputation as one proficient OG/LXX scholar.
Edgar,
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed reading :-
Troxel's LXX-Isaiah(2008)
This comment stands out to me:-
"While translating was clearly
practiced as a skill, it was not a subject to be studied, to the best of our knowledge. Thus the relevance of the Museum for ‘translation studies’ was at best very indirect and at worst wholly irrelevant. Seemingly the latter is the case for LXX-Isaiah qua Greek discourse!"
I found the discussion regarding "the tolerant reader" quite problematic. Tolerant to what initial understanding? A Hebraic mind set or an already deeply Hellenized one?
These mental gymnastics do tend to give me a headache:)
The paper also poses questions for Troxel's "tolerant reader" idea:
ReplyDelete"The concept of 'the tolerant reader', in my judgment, is at best unhelpful in text analysis, and at worst it makes the Greek text seem something substantially different from what the direct linguistic evidence shows it to be. It is all well and good to suggest that a 'tolerant reader' takes no umbrage at linguistic infelicities in the text. So, for example, if the Greek text has complements with a given Greek verb, which mimic the source text,
even though the usage is not Greek, 'tolerant readers may simply shrug their shoulders and move on, provided the context is relatively clear" (page 9).
See also what folows on p. 10ff. The paper is not exactly my cup of tea, but Al has developed a reputation as one proficient OG/LXX scholar.