What is it about?
Scholars sometimes say that the Septuagint translator of Joshua was very competent in the execution of his task. But because the resulting Greek text does not show it, they say his competence was OK, but his flawed method (segmentation, literalism as an easy technique) maimed the result. Others ascribe to him the intention to write a "hieratic style," in which linguistic oddities are supposed to be intentional to make it sound sacred. My paper analyses LXX Joshua 2 and outlines the translational norms underlying it. The translator had little previous experience. .
Featured Image
Photo by Steve Harvey on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This paper shows that juggling with concepts like "competence" or "intention" is not enough. It is a close analysis of Greek renderings and the translation problems underlying them that reveals how the translator was operating. That is interesting in its own right, whether or not the translator was competent or intentional.
Perspectives
Are all or some renderings in the Septuagint intentional? With that question I was left after publishing this paper. I pursued this question in the following paper: T. A.W. van der Louw, “Did the Septuagint Translators Really Intend the Greek Text as it is?” in Die Septuaginta: Orte – Intentionen, 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal, 24-27. Juli 2014 (ed. S. Kreuzer & W. Kraus; WUNT 361; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 449-466.
Dr Theo van der Louw
Summer Institute of Linguistics
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Translator’s Competence And Intention In LXX-Joshua 2, January 2009, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004175150.i-474.7.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
