Transcribing, Translating, and Interpreting in the Letter of Aristeas: On the Nature of the Septuagint (original) (raw)
Related papers
Septuagint and Reception, 2009
Translations of sacred texts through the centuries were accompanied by metatexts narrating the origin and nature of the specific translation. The aim of this chapter is to investigate previous scholarship and to suggest a new avenue for explaining the role of the Book of Aristeas as metatext in the translation of a sacred text, namely the LXX. It sheds light on new trends in translation studies and acceptability issues concerning the translation of sacred texts. B.Ar. and the Septuagint will be discussed with regards to the text, content and interpretations in order to work towards a solution, referring to the translation dimensions of sacred texts.Keywords: Aristeas; Metatexts; Septuagint (LXXX)
The Letter of Aristeas and the Question of Septuagint Origins Redux
Septuagint scholarship regularly relies on the evidence of the Letter of Aristeas to identify the original setting for the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. While Aristeas lends itself to a view of the Septuagint as an authorized replacement of the Hebrew original, attention to the textual-linguistic character of the Greek text suggests that this was not its intended function at the time of its initial translation. Such textual-linguistic criteria as positive and negative inference, the Hebraistic use of structure words, and the presence of numerous transliterations contribute to this conclusion.
This study highlights features of the Letter of Aristeas that reveal how that story conceives of the royal translation project. It will apply the concept of 'auxiliary texts' developed by Markus Dubischar based on the conversation theory of Paul Grice in order to show that Aristeas understands the Hebrew Pentateuch as a failing text. It will be shown that because Aristeas both respects the traditions and teachings contained within the Pentateuch, and recognizes the failure of the text outside of a particular context, it sees the translation as necessary for the Pentateuch's survival. The study will compare the statements related in prologues from Graeco-Roman 'auxiliary texts' to statements in the Letter of Aristeas to underline the ways how the Greek translation of the Hebrew text is simultaneously conceived of as a correction of the problems inherent in the Hebrew text tradition, and is not attempting to entirely replace that tradition. Keywords Aristeas – auxiliary texts – Septuagint – literary criticism 1 The Letter of Aristeas and the Greek Translation of the Pentateuch The Letter of Aristeas is best known as the oldest and most extensive version of the myth telling of the translation of the Judean law into Greek under the guidance of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in Alexandria.1 It has long been recognized
This chapter focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially text-critical approaches. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact, nor does it reflect an objective statement about what we identify in the translation, but a subjective recognition of a way of understanding elements in the translation. The description of theology in a translation can hardly ever be descriptive, since there is always an element of interpretation involved: deviations from MT that look to us like theological could have been caused by other factors as well. The theological and textual approaches represent two different disciplines that are usually mutually exclusive. If a deviation of the LXX from MT reflects a Hebrew variant, it cannot reflect theological exegesis at the same time, because a deviating Hebrew reading does not reflect the translator's intentions. By the same token, if that deviation was caused by the translator's techniques in transferring the message of the Hebrew into Greek, that detail does not reflect theology either. After a methodological introduction, I exemplify how certain differences between MT and the LXX can be approached by either a text-critical or a theological approach. I discuss approaches, not necessarily textual evidence of a certain type. In many cases, no decision can be made, and we often also change our mind. No one approach is preferable to another, since much depends on our intuition. Both Rösel and I use both approaches at different times, but with different frequencies ; Rösel turns more to the theological approach and I more to the text-critical approach. 1. Background This study focuses on the interaction between theological and other approaches to the LXX, especially the text-critical approach. In my view, the recognition of theology in a translation is not a solid fact,