Читать книгу Judaism I - Группа авторов - Страница 47

This prologue is »unique in the LXX, the only place where an LXX translator makes an explicit statement about the translation and its problems.«²⁷

LXX: You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labour in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language (Prologue 15–22, NRSV).²⁸

While the Greek text speaks of the fact that the Hebrew »does not have the same sense (lit. strength)« (isodynamei) when translated into another language, the Latin translation speaks clearly of loss, lack, weakness (deficiunt).

Regardless of whether we look at the Greek or the Latin text of the translator’s foreword, this prologue is a unique document. It talks about the difficulties of translation and the translator’s awareness that he has not been able to do full justice to his task. Here the grandson asks the reader to have understanding for his efforts. But he writes his prologue in elegant style: »A passage for the manual of both literary (Asian) artistic prose and rhetoric.«²⁹ »The translator shows in the prologue, therefore, what he is actually capable of in the target language, and points out what he is setting aside.«³⁰ He is setting aside his virtuosity in Greek, because he is translating, and he does not want his readers to forget the fact. The grandfather’s Hebrew text should shine through in the Greek.

The grandson’s admission is striking, particularly in comparison with the legends about the origin of the Torah/LXX. It should, however, be noted that the grandson is not yet translating an authoritative or »canonical« text but his grandfather’s book of wisdom, which, although based on »the law and the prophets,« is not intended to be equal to them. The »canonicity« of the book of Sirach was still a matter of dispute in rabbinic times (»defiling the hands,« t. Yad. II, 13). The question could also be viewed differently, as the discoveries of Sirach manuscripts show, in the Cairo Genizah (1896) (6 medieval Mss.), at Qumran (Sirach in 2 ancient Mss.), and at Masada (1 ancient Ms.).

The grandson translator of the author of Hebrew Sirach (ca. 190–175 BCE) can be dated to 132–117 BCE, when there was already an established tradition of translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek. So, he was able to consult Hebrew-Greek translation equivalents that had already been introduced. To cite one example, for him Greek doxa, common Greek for »opinion,« which can even mean falsity, is equivalent to the Hebrew kavod, »glory, divine power and appearance« (e.g. in Sir 6:31; 42:27, while in 8:14 the common Greek meaning of doxa is used).

Following Martin Hengel’s Judentum und Hellenismus, it is no longer possible to separate »Palestinian Judaism« from »Hellenized Judaism.« Not only because a geographical category and a cultural category are being compared but because Palestinian Judaism is also Hellenistic Judaism.³¹

For the period from third century BCE to the First Jewish War (68–73 CE) it may be assumed that the educated population were trilingual, with Aramaic as the colloquial language, Hebrew as the language of the Jerusalem cult and scribal activity, and Greek as the language of education. Hebrew/Aramaic and their cultural and religious ramifications were in competition only in times of conflict with the Greek language and culture, but then with the full weight of bias as in the Maccabean uprising.