{"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}
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