Translation Technique And Theology In The Septuagint Of Amos -- By: W. Edward Glenny
TynBull 61:1 (2010) p. 153
Translation Technique And Theology In The Septuagint Of Amos1
The goal of this dissertation is to describe and analyse as exhaustively as possible the translation technique and exegetical practice of the translator of the Septuagint of Amos. Two other works were especially influential on this study. Jennifer Dines had already done exegetical spadework in LXX-Amos, which was built upon in this work, and James Palmer’s study of translation technique in LXX-Zechariah provided a methodology that could be applied to another of the LXX-Twelve to compare the translation technique in LXX-Amos with Palmer’s conclusions concerning LXX-Zechariah.2 The contributions of the present dissertation were possible because it builds on these previous works.
The focus of this study is the differences between the MT and Ziegler’s (Göttingen) LXX text in Amos, which are the main indicators of the translator’s translation technique and theology. LXX-Amos is fairly close to the MT, as are the rest of the LXX-Twelve, but there are still many differences between the two traditions. There are several possible reasons for the differences between the LXX and the MT. They could be the result of a different Vorlage, a mistranslation or misreading of the Hebrew or Greek texts, exegesis, or the translator’s translation technique.
The dissertation is divided into two main parts addressing in order the translation technique (chapters 2-4) and the theology (chapters 5–
TynBull 61:1 (2010) p. 154
7) of LXX-Amos. Chapter two is an application to LXX-Amos of categories of literalism developed by Barr and Tov. The evidence supports the consensus of opinion that the LXX translation of Amos is fairly literal, especially in word order; however, the translator was not concerned about representing the constituent elements in his source text by their individual equivalents (segmentation) or stereotyping word equivalents. Chapter three (‘The Translation of Difficult and Unknown Words’) focuses on six types of conjectural renderings that Tov suggests may be recognised in the LXX: (1) untranslated words (transliterations); (2) contextual guesses; (3) contextual manipulation; (4) reliance on parallelism; (5) employment of general words; and (6) etymological guesses. Examples of all six are found in LXX-Amos. These six categories are not mutually exclusive, and it appears that the translator was not always conscious he was employing such methods when he encountered words he did not know. The evidence in this chapter suggests that the translator rendered his text freely, or was open to manipulate the Vorlag...
Click here to subscribe