书评:希伯来语圣经英译的文本基础,S. C.戴利著

A. Graeme Auld
{"title":"书评:希伯来语圣经英译的文本基础,S. C.戴利著","authors":"A. Graeme Auld","doi":"10.1177/20516770231175352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"English translations over the last four centuries have been based more or less on the Masoretic text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible. But which of them more and which less, and have there been changing trends? As Adrian Schenker notes in his foreword (xii), “no translation gives a full and clear account of where it has selected which solutions [to textual difficulties].” This interesting research project looked for the evidence but often found it unclear whether handling a problematic text involved a conscious textcritical decision or an etymological or exegetical solution (123). Carried out at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Emanuel Tov, it closely explored the textual basis of more than twenty main English-language translations from the King James Version (1611) to the Contemporary English Version (1995) and the New Living Translation (1996). The presentation of data predominates in earlier chapters and discussion in later ones, where we find helpful debates between leading scholars who were often involved in practical translation work as well as more theoretical debate. Daley comments tartly that “it is not surprising that more has been written on the prescriptive side than on the descriptive; for here, and often, fact-finding is in some respects more demanding than philosophy” (11). To redress the tendency, the larger part of this volume reviews “What text has been translated?” before exploring “What text should be translated?” Two of the ten chapters provide almost half of the content. Chapter 3 occupies","PeriodicalId":354951,"journal":{"name":"The Bible Translator","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: <i>The Textual Basis of English Translations of the Hebrew Bible</i> by S. C. Daley\",\"authors\":\"A. Graeme Auld\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20516770231175352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"English translations over the last four centuries have been based more or less on the Masoretic text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible. But which of them more and which less, and have there been changing trends? As Adrian Schenker notes in his foreword (xii), “no translation gives a full and clear account of where it has selected which solutions [to textual difficulties].” This interesting research project looked for the evidence but often found it unclear whether handling a problematic text involved a conscious textcritical decision or an etymological or exegetical solution (123). Carried out at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Emanuel Tov, it closely explored the textual basis of more than twenty main English-language translations from the King James Version (1611) to the Contemporary English Version (1995) and the New Living Translation (1996). The presentation of data predominates in earlier chapters and discussion in later ones, where we find helpful debates between leading scholars who were often involved in practical translation work as well as more theoretical debate. Daley comments tartly that “it is not surprising that more has been written on the prescriptive side than on the descriptive; for here, and often, fact-finding is in some respects more demanding than philosophy” (11). To redress the tendency, the larger part of this volume reviews “What text has been translated?” before exploring “What text should be translated?” Two of the ten chapters provide almost half of the content. Chapter 3 occupies\",\"PeriodicalId\":354951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bible Translator\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770231175352\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bible Translator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20516770231175352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book Review: The Textual Basis of English Translations of the Hebrew Bible by S. C. Daley
English translations over the last four centuries have been based more or less on the Masoretic text (MT) of the Hebrew Bible. But which of them more and which less, and have there been changing trends? As Adrian Schenker notes in his foreword (xii), “no translation gives a full and clear account of where it has selected which solutions [to textual difficulties].” This interesting research project looked for the evidence but often found it unclear whether handling a problematic text involved a conscious textcritical decision or an etymological or exegetical solution (123). Carried out at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Emanuel Tov, it closely explored the textual basis of more than twenty main English-language translations from the King James Version (1611) to the Contemporary English Version (1995) and the New Living Translation (1996). The presentation of data predominates in earlier chapters and discussion in later ones, where we find helpful debates between leading scholars who were often involved in practical translation work as well as more theoretical debate. Daley comments tartly that “it is not surprising that more has been written on the prescriptive side than on the descriptive; for here, and often, fact-finding is in some respects more demanding than philosophy” (11). To redress the tendency, the larger part of this volume reviews “What text has been translated?” before exploring “What text should be translated?” Two of the ten chapters provide almost half of the content. Chapter 3 occupies
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信