Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon

Abstract

Texts, Manuscripts, Versions, Canon Christopher T. Begg and Andrew W. Litke 975. [Roman and Jewish Translations] Sean A. Adams, "Translating Texts: Contrasting Roman and Jewish Depictions of Literary Translations," Scholastic Culture, 147-67 [see #1543]. In conclusion, we find similarities and differences between Roman and Jewish depictions of literary translation. In particular, the importance of the source text, the direction of translation, and the intended purpose of the new work are key determiners of the nature of the translation undertaken by the translator. A majority of the differences in these regards were a result of differences in power dynamics vis-à-vis Greek culture. The political dominance of the Romans afforded them the ability to take liberties with the text and [End Page 326] to bring the wealth of the Greek literary heritage into the Latin world. In contrast, Jewish translators did not translate Greek texts into Hebrew or Aramaic, presumably because Jews in Egypt already had access to those texts. Rather, Jewish translators rendered their own ethnicity's works into Greek with a high fidelity to the nature and structure of the original. One of the key findings of my article is the recognition of the diversity of translation perspectives in antiquity, which, I argue, fall primarily along the lines of power. Engagement with another group's literature engenders hierarchical and cultural negotiation: It is not a benign act. By contrasting Roman and Jewish translation practices, one can identify distinctive elements and demonstrate how individuals from diverse but interacting cultures may differ in the ways in which they engage in the scholarly practice of translation. Future studies, I would argue, need to take this idea into account when considering both translation acts and depictions of translations. In the case of the Letter of Aristeas, the presentation of translation in terms of scholarly language is a strategic move on the part of the author in which he makes a statement regarding both the translated text and the people who made it. [Adapted from author's conclusion, pp. 166-67] 976. [Targum Onqelos; Targum Jonathan] Philip S. Alexander, "The Aramaic Bible in the East," AS 17 (2019) 39-66. In this article, A. argues that while the Bible existed in both Hebrew and Aramaic versions among the Jewish communities in the east, it was the Aramaic Bible, namely Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan, that functioned as their Bible and helped shape the religious identity of these diverse communities. A. discusses the use of Aramaic in biblical quotations on incantation bowls, and addresses the question of knowledge of the Targumim to the Writings after the Gaonic era. Finally, since, as A. points out, systematic study of Scripture was not a central part of the curriculum in eastern Batei Midrash, this made Onqelos and Jonathan that much more important for the people's understanding of the Bible. 977. [Canon; Isaiah] Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case," Essays on the Book of lsaiah, 1-11 [see #1428]. I propose to take as my point of departure a brief consideration of four "moments" in the pre-canonical process: Josephus, ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), Chronicles, and Deuteronomy with associated writings. (p. 1) The compilation of the Latter Prophets may have gone through several phases, including perhaps a Deuteronomistic phase, before it reached its final configuration during the obscure century of Ptolemaic rule. It was at that time, the early Hellenistic period, that books began to be produced with explicit attributions, resembling more closely our idea of a book. In the absence of external information, our only recourse is scrutiny of the prophetic books themselves. The Book of Isaiah reflects the characteristic features of the canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Bible in general: it can be read as a canon in nuce. One of these features is the juxtaposition within a canonical collection of different and ideologically incompatible points of view. We saw that the inclusion of Deuteronomistic narrative in Isaiah sets up an understanding of the prophetic role different from that of the prophet as social conscience of the society and preacher of reform and moral regeneration. The Isaian biographical tradition in the later...